Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Lesser battles and more important armies

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Re: Lesser battles and more important armies

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirex1
    You do know that teh reason there wasn't taht many big battles were becouse of the mindset of the one in charge and the proplem of organising troops.
    I mean look at teh battel of agincourt or Cresy can't remeber which, but the french managed to gather several tens of thousands of feudal troops to hunt the english (40 k i think), but becouse tehy were to slow the king drooped tehm and used his cav to get to teh english.

    And most of the fighting were either pillaging or sieges (often both).
    Becouse it took time to get your troops in to a battle line, and if one side was weaker tehy could yust walk away. And there whould be no battle. So battles only accured when one side was forced to fight becouse he could not flee or was cought up by cav. And of course when both side thought they had a chance to win teh battle.

    But the fact remains taht during (can't remember in head, but in the 100 years war, 20-0 years before the battle of cresy) the french had pushed he english out of france whit out any mayor battle, this changed after a battel which the english won and tehn took much of northen french back.

    So the ability to raise troops was there, but becouse of outher factors was not used that much. I could mention that as a general you may need to think that if you gave battle you might lose it. And that in practise means losing that sector you are in and a lot of lives. And that feusal troops need to return to the fields.

    So more sieges and an option to plunder enemies fields.

    I dont mean to be mean but could someone explain what he/she is trying to say?

  2. #2
    Texture Artist Extrodinare Member richyg13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Port Talbot, Wales, UK
    Posts
    253

    Default Re: Lesser battles and more important armies

    I'll tell you what would make the free movement work would be to increase the importance of roads. Make the movement off road VERY slow, esspecially for artillery units. Walking through soft, boggy, wooded ground is hard work, more so when you have horse-drawn wagons of supplies with the army.

    Roads would then provide the means for army movement on the correct level, holding bridges would be vital. Crossroads need to be guarded.
    The AI cud be quite easilly programmed to be told that these locations are important for if they hold the province.

    On top of this, patrol and scout units could be used to watch for enemy movement so that the main army knows where the battle could be best fought.

    It would make good use of the strategic level of the game.

    Field Battles would be important, if the defending army looses here it could then fall back to the city/fort/castle to defend itself against a siege. Attacking armies would have to flee home if they lose the battle.

    Maybe raising an army should be done in a block. Choose a commander from the list (who is in that town), choose the size from -
    - Recon Foce (3 Units)
    - Light Force (5 Units)
    - Medium Force (8 Units)
    - Large Force (12 Units)
    - Main Army (20 Units)

    The army could be named, chosen speicific uniform settings etc.
    Last edited by richyg13; 01-25-2006 at 00:00.
    2D & 3D Games Artist
    - http://richyg13.deviantart.com

  3. #3
    Senior Member Senior Member Oaty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    2,863

    Default Re: Lesser battles and more important armies

    Quite simple the smaller the army the more maneuverable they are. So when I attack a small stack with odds like 5:1 they can do a long retreat. Whereas if the odds are 1:1 and they try to retreat theres a much smaller chance for a long retreat.

    And if they are rebels at against odds they just fertilize your fields and dissapear killing the need for autoresolve or to fight them to stop the poor calculation of autresolve.

    Naked fanatics are a great example 5 hastati vs 1 fanatic. I win the battle but lose 2 units of hastati in the process of autoresolve. I mean come on even if I was the fanatics on the battlefield at most I'd destroy a half a unit.

    Kill the need for autoresolve and kill the need to have to go into battle against such a worthless foe.
    When a fox kills your chickens, do you kill the pigs for seeing what happened? No you go out and hunt the fox.
    Cry havoc and let slip the HOGS of war

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO