How would a Real Time Tactical game on a 1:1 scale play?

[Duke John]

Shambles

well on a 1:1 scale on a 16 inch monitor....
You would see a foot of 1 unit.

No, not that! A 100-men unit in R:TW could represent 1000-men in real life. The game Battle for Bull Run by MadMinute Games has the feature: "Real-time tactical combat with a 10:1 soldier to sprite ratio."

People wont play STW mp like that though (cos "it affects flanking")

Well, some people do not like change, but this discussion is not aimed at them anyway. Single man units in standard RTS games also have a different gameplay then RTT games. As far as I know there is no game that has tried to display armies on a 1:1 scale so I don't know how the gameplay is, but I think it would be an interesting experiment to see how it would change. (Although R:TW comes close if you have a computer with the newest bells and whistles.)

Geoffrey
Legion Arena has indeed an interesting system where you are given points that can be used to issue orders and those points slowly regenerate. IMO it quite reflects realism much better than being able to click 10 times in 1 second.
Although not worked out, I do have a possible solution on how to make movement easier; units can be linked on their flanks forming a bigger unit. This would make it possible to create one large unit of 50 10-men units or 5 100-men units. You can move around a single linked unit but it would affect the others; moving it forward would mean that it would bulge out of the line, a bit like half a sinus graph. If the unit would be pushed back in melee it would take its neighbouring friendly units with it and not unlike R:TW where groups mean little more than being in formation.
So while you can form the linked unit however you like (with some restrictions in how much it can bend) it remains one body. You can then give it orders and it will move as a whole. It would make sense to link if you had a limited amount of orders like in Legion Arena since bigger units mean that you can still control your whole army.

After all, not all battles were fought with huge numbers, probably not even a majority.

Since I plan to first make the game about the Wars of the Roses, here is a run down of some battles during those wars (numbers may vary between sources):
1st Battle of St. Albans: 2000 vs 3000
Blore Heath: 3000 vs 6000
Wakefield: 15000 vs 6000
Mortimer's Cross: 8000 vs 10000
2nd Battle of St. Albans: 9000 vs 12000
Towton: 30000 vs 40000
Barnet: 12000 vs 15000
Tewkesbury: 6000 vs 6000
During those wars there were some skirmishers of course, but the wars were decided by the large battles.

[Geoffrey S]

The group idea sounds good. So, it'd mean that if one unit in the larger group moves, it'd affect the rest but with a slight delay; if one unit of the whole is making headway in the enemy formation it moves surrounding units further forward too (thus pushing the enemy back further), but if a unit is pushed back it drags the rest back a little too (potentially causing larger problems).

If you're doing selected battles the system would work. I was assuming there'd be a strategical section too, which would mean there would be smaller scale battles, but if there isn't there's no reason this system shouldn't work.

More unit cohesion than something like the TW series is a must; armies should roughly remain in a line, not scatter around as various sections are needed. A lot of my TW battles degenerate into loose unit battles, rather than armies fighting as a whole. Possibly this is also due to the smaller troop amounts.

[Fragony]

It would be more focussed on the strategic map, moving troops around in a more intelligent way. MTW could have been better, cavalry should travel faster then foot soldiers, that sort of stuff. More organisation, with the actual battle the climax of numerous evasive moves on the strategic map. It would be awesome to attack a province from 3 different provinces, and actually having that happen on the battlefield. Reduce the graphics to little purple boxes clashing for all I care, I would love a 'bigger' game.

[Duke John]

Geoffrey

So, it'd mean that if one unit in the larger group moves, it'd affect the rest but with a slight delay;

A bit different. Imagine the units being people who hold hands. If one man moves 3 metres forward his neighbours would go 2.7 metres, their neighbours 2.5 and so on with the man at the end of the line noticing nothing of that man moving forward as the movement is "absorbed" by the many people between the two.

I was assuming there'd be a strategical section too

Possible, but I will first concetrate on making the tactical game which will be enough work for the coming year.

Fragony

Reduce the graphics to little purple boxes clashing for all I care, I would love a 'bigger' game.

I was thinking of that initially too, a bit like the Osprey battle maps (if you know them). It would make the engine a hell of a lot quicker to finish, but the loss of seeing the soldiers might be too big to still feel immersed in the game. Or not?

[Geoffrey S]

A bit different. Imagine the units being people who hold hands. If one man moves 3 metres forward his neighbours would go 2.7 metres, their neighbours 2.5 and so on with the man at the end of the line noticing nothing of that man moving forward as the movement is "absorbed" by the many people between the two.

Sounds good. So it'd also be a matter of making sure a part of the line doesn't move too far ahead, since it'd mean your line would break or at least expose flanks to the enemy.

I was thinking of that initially too, a bit like the Osprey battle maps (if you know them). It would make the engine a hell of a lot quicker to finish, but the loss of seeing the soldiers might be too big to still feel immersed in the game. Or not?

It might be an idea to start off this way, to at least get the AI sorted whilst keeping work on the graphics engine to a minimum; keeping things abstract in that way would ensure gameplay and decent tactics are kept as a priority. Once the AI can handle the battles a move to full representation of the battlefield would be in order.

[Fragony]

I was thinking of that initially too, a bit like the Osprey battle maps (if you know them). It would make the engine a hell of a lot quicker to finish, but the loss of seeing the soldiers might be too big to still feel immersed in the game. Or not?

Maybe too much to sale it en-masse, but a game like civilization(the most uncomfortable word to spell ever) never needed it. If the game is complex(and realistic), and the unit descriptions are well done, I don't think it will make a difference, it would be a game for hardcore strategists anyway. I really like the idea, there is so much I wanted to do with Total war but couldn't. Me and a lot of other total war players are sure to welcome your take on wargaming as if it were the messias.

[Duke John]

Hmm, I am starting to really like this more simplistic approach It definitely has its benefits.

[Geoffrey S]

And hey, it can always be updated as time goes by. A solid tactical foundation is the most important thing. Like Fragony said, expansive textual descriptions could work wonders.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'd love it. Even if the graphics were crap, I wouldn't care.

As for unit organization: I think, similar to your idea, that you could have a base unit of say 100 men, and you could hitch them together with other units to form a larger unit that still look like 3 different units standing shoulder to shoulder, but move as one.

I'd also love it if your movements on the campaign map affected deplyment, and if you didn't start out seeing your opponent right away, but would only know the general direction he lies in.

Ideally, there'd be no map boundary, though I don't know how technically feasible that is.

I also think that'd it, as you said, would make battles much more realistic when the battle line is 30 men deep, not 3, and actually show why reserves were important. Hopefully, it'd also allow for mass attacking one flank of an enemy that doesn't know where you are, who has the rest of his force a ways away.

Best of luck to you!

Crazed Rabbit