Multiplayer game discussion

[R'as al Ghul]

The 4 green outlined WM units are bunched up, and the red faction has a YS partially overlapping a WM which is also overlapped by one of the green WM. Men fight at 1/2 combat ability if they are squeezed too tight.

Red/Yellow/Green is attacking, right?
That looks horrible. (no offense) Red/Yellow/Green puts 10 units against three light blue.
After they finish the light blue units, green repeats the same mistake on the right in the last pic.
Yellow attacking on his own on the left is probably a mistake that occurs more often. I think it's an urge to do something when your allies are already fighting h2h. I think people tend to think that it wouldn't be right to not attack but stand there.
But from these pictures we can clearly see that yellow is moving too far away from his allies.
There's also a good chance for yellow to be surrounded or at least flanked by white, that isn't taken care of. (not sure where that red cav from pic 1 went)

R'as

[Puzz3D]

Defenders: White, Light Blue, Violet
Attackers: Yellow, Green, Red

I added a few more screens between the second and the last screen. What's interesting to note is that, despite the attackers having 10 units (6 of them WM) vs 3 light blue units (1 YS bracketed by 2 WM with a 4th supporting cav arriving) in the center, the light blue units don't rout until they are flanked by additional attacking units.

[Tomisama]

Yes, it was an unfortunate starting into the attack to close together that got my monks clumped like that. And once fighting, they were almost impossible to break off. But later I did manage better control.

You have to watch the whole replay to get the true picture. For example what is missing above is that those monks stayed fighting in the center long past the events above, taking a whopping 281 heads between the four units.

[R'as al Ghul]

Yes, it was an unfortunate starting into the attack to close together that got my monks clumped like that. And once fighting, they were almost impossible to break off. But later I did manage better control.

It's often difficult to break units off from melee. That's why one needs to plan these manouvers better. One of my own main flaws, I think, is that I don't execute the line attack moves properly.

You have to watch the whole replay to get the true picture. For example what is missing above is that those monks stayed fighting in the center long past the events above, taking a whopping 281 heads between the four units.

That's a good kill count but also indication that kills aren't always relevant. If you had taken your monk units and had formed a line between the building and the red encircled unit in the first picture, you would've covered more ground, would've been able to get into the rear of the light blue and substitute the Hatamoto on the right for a monk unit.

I've noticed that the defenders are often forced to move close together when they loose teppo protection or run out of ammo. Both things happened to Tomi and me when we defended in a 3v3 with Tosa. Tomi had lost some teppos and I'd run out of ammo. Tosa then moved closer to add more protection with his guns. I've experienced similar scenes in other games. The question for me is if that's really a good move because one gives away maneuvering space to the enemy and it can result in being vulnerable to backkills. It's quite a dilemma because if it's not starting to rain one is forced to attack. And if it starts to rain one is also strongly inclined to attack while the attacker's teppo advantage is useless.

BTW, is that okay for you Tomi, that your play is picked as a bad example (together with your allies) in this context? Since Yuuki posted this without reference and you spoke up I guess it's okay. Just making sure that there're no hard feelings.

It just crossed my mind that the moving speed combined with the holding power of units can be deceptive. I mean that I often ponder whether there's enough time to move my unit in the back of an already engaged enemy or if I just attack the flank or maybe just join the attack from the front. When I've decided to just go for the flank I'm often surprised at the staying power of the enemy unit and regret my decision not to have circled to the back.

[TosaInu]

Hello,

Controlling engaged units is very hard indeed.

[TosaInu]

I've noticed that the defenders are often forced to move close together when they loose teppo protection or run out of ammo. Both things happened to Tomi and me when we defended in a 3v3 with Tosa. Tomi had lost some teppos and I'd run out of ammo. Tosa then moved closer to add more protection with his guns. I've experienced similar scenes in other games. The question for me is if that's really a good move because one gives away maneuvering space to the enemy and it can result in being vulnerable to backkills. It's quite a dilemma because if it's not starting to rain one is forced to attack. And if it starts to rain one is also strongly inclined to attack while the attacker's teppo advantage is useless.

Hello R'as al Ghul,

Being seperated makes vulnerable to being doubled by the opponents.

I recall that we also lost some meleeforces (I was largely left unattended, so the loses were on you and Tomisama, while it seemed more distributed for the opponents).

Just cramping together and waiting is not a good thing as you'll lose the one sided missile duel.

[Noir]

Imptuous engaged units are quite hard to disengage in my experience indeed - others however appear to be more easier (such as YS or YC). The withdraw command enables reliable disengagement most of the time without giving the risks that the rout command does (cntrl+w=withdraw, cntrl+o=rout), i found out.

Noir

[R'as al Ghul]

The withdraw command enables reliable disengagement most of the time without giving the risks that the rout command does (cntrl+w=withdraw, cntrl+o=rout), i found out.

Noir

Why would you rout a unit if the game is not yet over? Doesn't the rout command work by lowering the morale? The loss in morale is not easy to get back.

[Puzz3D]

You have to watch the whole replay to get the true picture. For example what is missing above is that those monks stayed fighting in the center long past the events above, taking a whopping 281 heads between the four units.

They did separate out into a line later. The 281 kills is average for 4 WM if we say that each player on a 3 man team needs about 720 kills if they expect to win. A unit costing 1000 would need 80 kills to be cost effective, although that depends upon the monetary value of those kills.

total kills / total cost = 720 / 9000 = 0.08 kills/cost on average

[TosaInu]

They did separate out into a line later. The 281 kills is average for 4 WM if we say that each player on a 3 man team needs about 720 kills if they expect to win. A unit costing 1000 would need 80 kills to be cost effective, although that depends upon the monetary value of those kills.

total kills / total cost = 720 / 9000 = 0.08 kills/cost on average

Hello Puzz3D,

It depends a lot what they kill indeed.

A 1,000 koku monk could keep several enemy units busy, while say a cost effective nod is erasing sprites. The monk isn't thrown away when it means the nod could do much more than expected.

I could use an anvil army with mainly ni and ys and put all units on hold. I'ld probably not get more than 300 kills and still be on the winning team.

[Puzz3D]

A 1,000 koku monk could keep several enemy units busy, while say a cost effective nod is erasing sprites. The monk isn't thrown away when it means the nod could do much more than expected.

Yes, and you see 2 light blue WM holding off 6 attacking WM. The 4 green WM performed about as you would expect in head-to-head fighting based on their cost which is proportional to their combat power. It was raining and their were no enemy archers shooting them. They were helped by the 2 YC and 1 ND flanking the center group.

I

could use an anvil army with mainly ni and ys and put all units on hold. I'ld probably not get more than 300 kills and still be on the winning team.

Only if your two teamates combined for 1800+ kills.

[Noir]

I did that in occasions where the unit in question is decimated (say YC confronting 2 spears) and there is a viable retreat for them to fall back and so rally.

I was doing this at extreme cases only, until i discovered that the withdraw option is just as effective in disengaging without pienalising the surrounding units.

Noir

[TosaInu]

Only if your two teamates combined for 1800+ kills.

Isn't the army engaged with the anvil wearing itself down then? There's fatigue and morale, not just attrition.

[Tomisama]

They did separate out into a line later. The 281 kills is average for 4 WM if we say that each player on a 3 man team needs about 720 kills if they expect to win. A unit costing 1000 would need 80 kills to be cost effective, although that depends upon the monetary value of those kills.

total kills / total cost = 720 / 9000 = 0.08 kills/cost on average

I wish we had some actual counters to be able to better judge where we are numerically in the battle. Or would that be to much like pinball…lol

But seriously, using the red/green bar indicator in a multi-partner game, is there any way to tell how well you might be doing against the needed kills to support your allies? Or is the representation just a vague, general indicator as I have always thought?

Do you use it to judge anything, or just basically ignore it?

A routed unit disengages immediately. The unit gets morale back when it leaves the vicinity (75 meters) of enemy units, and you can infuse +8 morale with the Rally key. The main problem with intentionally routing units is that friendly units get a morale penalty when in the vicinity (75 meters) of a routing unit. This can trigger a chain rout if you do it at the wrong time.

Good to know. Thanks!

And how big are the map squares in meters? And the ranges of our guns and arrows again, if you would be so kind?

Alzheimer’s kicking in here

[CBR]

I generally use the bar as an indicator of how well Im doing during the missile/skirmishing phase.

Map tiles are 40x40 meters and guns/bows have a range of 100 meters (hatamoto 120 meters)


CBR

[Puzz3D]

I wish we had some actual counters to be able to better judge where we are numerically in the battle. Or would that be to much like pinball…lol

But seriously, using the red/green bar indicator in a multi-partner game, is there any way to tell how well you might be doing against the needed kills to support your allies? Or is the representation just a vague, general indicator as I have always thought?

Do you use it to judge anything, or just basically ignore it?

I ignore the red/green casualtiy indicator, and I'm not suggesting that players track kills during a battle. Play the battle intuitively utilizing good tactics as much as possible. After the battle, individual unit kills can be analyzed to identify those units that underperformed. You can then go back to the replay to see why those units underperformed, and perhaps make adjustments in how you utilize those unit types.

In the example battle I posted, the 2 red WM performed very poorly with 22 and 33 kills. Not shown is that after the blue units in the center broke, the 2 red WM advanced deep into the enemy lines, and were surrounded and routed. In fact, the entire red army underperformed achieving only 490 kills which was the lowest total by far in that battle.

[Puzz3D]

Some typical results of WM matchups. Both units charging in engage-at-will.

unit vs unit....men remaining when the second unit routs:

WM vs YA.....56 vs 44 in 6 sec
WM vs YS.....52 vs 15 in 30 sec
WM vs ND.....50 vs 10 in 24 sec
WM vs NI......41 vs 19 in 73 sec