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

[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

[Efrem]

Just to a Combat Mission style control system, I can't see anything else working with that big numbers.

[Duke John]

Would you rather see turn-based or realtime gameplay? The advantages of turn-based are quite something; more time for the AI to think and the ability to play hot-seat and PBEM games. A mix like the system of Baldurs Gate, where you can choose turn-based or continuous but still based on a turn-based system, could also possible in the future.

Efrem

Combat Mission style control system

Could you tell me how that works? Or how you think it would apply to a medieval wargame?

Crazed Rabbit

I think, similar to your idea, that you could have a base unit of say 100 men

A base unit is not really necessary, you can have small units or big units, it doesn't really matter. You'll have to link the smaller units as they are more easily pushed back and consequently broken then larger units.

[Ser Clegane]

Just noticed this thread - your plans sound extremely interesting, Duke John

Would you rather see turn-based or realtime gameplay? The advantages of turn-based are quite something; more time for the AI to think and the ability to play hot-seat and PBEM games. A mix like the system of Baldurs Gate, where you can choose turn-based or continuous but still based on a turn-based system, could also possible in the future.

Personally, I would prefer turn-based for such a game - the BG-system sounds very intriguing, though.

but the loss of seeing the soldiers might be too big to still feel immersed in the game. Or not?

I would agree with Fragony here - good unit desriptions, perhaps with a nice picture of the unit (like on the MTW unit scrolls), together with e.g., stats and portraits of a unit leader/general (for a more personalized touch of the unit) can already add a lot to immersion and can help you to visualize what is going on on the battlefield.

Best luck for further developing your idea