In a perfect world

[Bellum]

I've been reading Caesars Commentaries lately, and I think battles should go thusly:

Every army should have a setting for fortification. High fortification = lowest marching speed. Forced marching = no fortification. Armies should attack each other as before, but instead of getting right into the battle, a prep map should be generated, with about 10 square miles of detail, including random villages, rivers where appropriate, trees, and as detailed terrain information as you can get around with (there should be some improvement in the algorithm to include neat terrain features, but make them not stand out like a cancerous thumb like they did in RTW).

This mode should be a turned based prep for the real-time battle, which should represent the intricacies of military tactics. The 'defender' should be camped at whatever level he specified, or if he specified forced marching, he should be at an appropriate formation (and, taking inspiration from the Roman loss at Teutoburg forest, the formation should mainly depend on the generals experience). The Attacker would then have a few options. Any scouting would be done here, or for more complete information, he could send spies, which costs a great deal of money, and a chosen unit will lose one man. He could also position his forces around the camp/formation and attempt a surprise attack (assuming he hasn't been discovered). He could also put himself in a favorable position with the option to start building some miner defenses, like digging a trench or building a rampart. Or he could take up camp himself and hope to draw the enemy to him. So here you have the option for a field battle, or a very simple siege assault (with fortifications that must be climbed over, ditches that must be filled, and narrow openings, that sort of thing).

The defender, if the attacker has not chosen an assault, then has similar options. Small villages can also be taken and fortified, or important tactical points can be blocked off, forcing the enemy to attack, that sort of thing. It should be possible to save in this mode, mind you.


I think, though, that programming an AI that doesn't choke in the face of this system would be a monstrous undertaking, especially considering CA's previous track record.

In a perfect world, how would mechanics in Empire work for you?

[rajpoot]

Well, one thing that should be done is the generals experiance should play a more active role in a real time battle. For example, the commands stars, the authority etc should affect the kind of formations available, the precision with which those formation and commands are executed........
It'll make a difference, plus it'll be more realistic if an inexperianced young general and an old field commander don't have the same kinds of formations and troop reactions.

[Matt_Lane]

Well, one thing that should be done is the generals experiance should play a more active role in a real time battle. For example, the commands stars, the authority etc should affect the kind of formations available, the precision with which those formation and commands are executed........
It'll make a difference, plus it'll be more realistic if an inexperianced young general and an old field commander don't have the same kinds of formations and troop reactions.

I would prefer that the precision of a units formation and the speed at which it can change formation would depend on the units experience. However I'm not sure what role this leaves the general as I don't think morale should be so centered on him in ETW. Plenty of battles in this period continued after one side lost their leader. In fact a popular subject in paintings from this period was the fallen hero urging his men on to victory. This therefore implies that not only did men not falter when they lost their leader but that they where resolved to take revenge.

[rajpoot]

well, now that you speak of it, it does click that most battles didn't have much to do with the generals personality compared to the medieval era, I mean, there were a select few, like Trafalgar, then the American Revolution had General Washington........in India leaders mattered a lot, but basically it was now upto the technology and soldier's experiance to win the battle.....I guess..

[Matt_Lane]

well, now that you speak of it, it does click that most battles didn't have much to do with the generals personality compared to the medieval era, I mean, there were a select few, like Trafalgar, then the American Revolution had General Washington........in India leaders mattered a lot, but basically it was now upto the technology and soldier's experiance to win the battle.....I guess..

Feudal medieval armies owed allegiance to their Lord who would lead them into battle. The professional Western armies of this era owed no allegiance to their commander who was assigned to them and instead the center piece of the unit was the regimental standard. It is in the protection of this that the most ferocious fighting would occur and the capture of this should relate more to a units moral than the death of an officer.

The general however was decisive in how the battle was fought as tactics and strategy could easily overcome superior forces. The problem I have is that I want to be the one directing tactics and strategy so where does this leave my General?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think that is a great idea Bellum, positioning on a strategic rather than tactical scale was crucial in the ETW period, if you don't pick the right battlefield, you'll end up paying like the Jacobites at Culloden.

This was also true in medieval times, look at the boggy ground at Bannockburn ruining the English cavalry charge etc.

Would add a whole new dimension to TW games, I really hope CA consider this idea.

[Bellum]

I would prefer that the precision of a units formation and the speed at which it can change formation would depend on the units experience. However I'm not sure what role this leaves the general as I don't think morale should be so centered on him in ETW. Plenty of battles in this period continued after one side lost their leader. In fact a popular subject in paintings from this period was the fallen hero urging his men on to victory. This therefore implies that not only did men not falter when they lost their leader but that they where resolved to take revenge.

Generals are very important, even today. An army with a lost general will still fight, but there wont be anyone to look at the big picture and make decisions. If an army doesn't have a general for any period of time, it will fail to make important decisions.

[Matt_Lane]

Generals are very important, even today. An army with a lost general will still fight, but there wont be anyone to look at the big picture and make decisions. If an army doesn't have a general for any period of time, it will fail to make important decisions.

My argument is that in TW the player makes these decisions and the games General is left to 'control' the army's morale. Professional armies of this period where less dependent on their general to stiffen their resolve and make them fight therefore what could be his roll in ETW?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Maybe if your General dies your army should be controlled by the AI. That would give the player some incentive to keep him safe!

Seriously though, I really love that idea of strategically positioning the armies on a zoomed in campaign map.

[Bellum]

My argument is that in TW the player makes these decisions and the games General is left to 'control' the army's morale. Professional armies of this period where less dependent on their general to stiffen their resolve and make them fight therefore what could be his roll in ETW?

Sure, but I think that, should CA make a much better (and all encompassing) formation system, limiting the formations depending on generals experience would work just fine, without taking the battle out of the players hands.

The moral boost should, I think, depend on individual commanders. The moral of a unit should go down if their commander/sergeant/whatever their called is killed.

[Bijo]

There is no perfect world, and it will never be. Not even in a game.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes there will.

EDIT: Although I sympathise with you over the Vivien Vyle issue in the tavern, that show is absolutedly awful, somehow they think if they say f*** 10 times for every other word it makes everything funny.

[Bellum]

There is no perfect world, and it will never be. Not even in a game.

Doesn't hurt to dream.

[Mikeus Caesar]

With regards to the effects of the generals death on soldiers, i think they're ability should have something to do with it - if they're a high-star general, with traits that make them liked by the troops, then their death should give a huge morale boost, akin to the troops wanting to avenge their fallen leader. But if the general was crap, and not really that great, then as soon as he dies, troops should start wavering.

[Matt_Lane]

With regards to the effects of the generals death on soldiers, i think they're ability should have something to do with it - if they're a high-star general, with traits that make them liked by the troops, then their death should give a huge morale boost, akin to the troops wanting to avenge their fallen leader. But if the general was crap, and not really that great, then as soon as he dies, troops should start wavering.

Nice

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

With regards to the effects of the generals death on soldiers, i think they're ability should have something to do with it - if they're a high-star general, with traits that make them liked by the troops, then their death should give a huge morale boost, akin to the troops wanting to avenge their fallen leader.

What about a temporary morale boost, so that if the sudden surge of courage doesn't pay off, the troops will start to crumble?