Light Infantry... what the ****

[HotNifeThruButr]

So far in my Dominions "career", I've never found a use for light infantry units. They get butchered by casters, slaughtered by archers, massacred by heavy cavalry, owned by light cavalry, and annihilated by heavy infants.

Why are they even in the game if they suck so badly?

[Tricon]

They're cheap and tire the opposing units. And occasionally they hit something, too.

[ April 13, 2004, 21:54: Message edited by: Tricon ]

[Gandalf Parker]

What do you think they were used for historically? Its called "sword fodder". They are cheap and use few resources. You can build them in mass. They make good patrollers.

They can make a good front wall to draw the attention of enemy cavalry, archers, and casters so that YOUR cavalry, archers, casters can do their job. Every hit that hits a light infantry DOESNT hit someone else.

[ April 13, 2004, 21:56: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Jasper]

Sword Fodder?! Oh wait, that's probably sarcasm...

Light Infantry in Dominions absolutely suck. The ones that have javelins can be (just) ok in certain circumstances, but still aren't worth it. I only use them if forced to (ie by starting with them).

Illwinter is aware of this I believe, although I'm not sure anyone has come up with a clear solution, and they likely have higher priority things to address first.

[ April 13, 2004, 22:48: Message edited by: Jasper ]

[Nephelim]

Originally posted by Jasper:
Sword Fodder?! Oh wait, that's probably sarcasm...<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, light infantry is supposed to suck. It's the peasants that you hand a pitchfork to.

Gandalf's description of them is spot on. Their job is to die.

[HotNifeThruButr]

Heavy infants do a much better at dying, they've got almost 4 times the shielding power light infantry give at not even twice the price.

Militia are peasants you give a pitchfork to, light infantry usually get paid as much as heavy (10 gold), not counting the national elites like Men at arms.

[Taqwus]

They might live a bit longer with something like Marble Warriors, Fog Warriors or Antimagic. With those spells and anything else that boosts all friendlies on the battlefield, the more the merrier.

[Firebreath]

As Taqwus mentioned, the moment that you can make the fight drag on, and on, and on (using spells or simply 20-1 numbers - light infantry (low encumberance) becomes an advantage rather than a waste of space...I would hate to think what a large group of flaggelants blessed with fire 9, and an air shield, and an ironskin could do to any heavy infantry or cavalry...especialy if you combine that with the surround bonus, enemy encumberance, and any defence lowering spells like web or tangle vines, etc.

[HotNifeThruButr]

That's your solution to everything, isn't it, Taqwus? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Hey, at least you don't have to hire 'em.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Firebreath:
As Taqwus mentioned, the moment that you can make the fight drag on, and on, and on (using spells or simply 20-1 numbers - light infantry (low encumberance) becomes an advantage rather than a waste of space...I would hate to think what a large group of flaggelants blessed with fire 9, and an air shield, and an ironskin could do to any heavy infantry or cavalry...especialy if you combine that with the surround bonus, enemy encumberance, and any defence lowering spells like web or tangle vines, etc. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Two words, two awesome words that really show the potential of a mass surround strategy:

MASS FLIGHT

That high-level spell was designed for the horde-mentality player, I swear http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Every single enemy unit that can be surrounded will be surrounded each round, so long as you have enough troops.

[Spacepain]

Light infantry serve the core and bulk of a persons army.

Their primary purpose is to die so that other more expensive units don't die. And in turn can focus on hitting while not being hit back.

Also, secondary, they serve to finish games where encumberane would force most other units to stop fighting.

And yes for the hoarde mentality of some players (R'lyeh and Ermor) they may be almost the only thing in your army.

[Thilock_Dominus]

I would not say light Infantry sux. Ex. C'tis light Infantry armed with spear, javalin and shield can be quiet useful. An unit with 30 or more with light infantry can block off a heavy cavalry when its charging.
The light infantry can take out the heavy infantry if it gets its chance to hurling the javalins, the same goes against archers.
That's my experience with C'tis light infantry plus they are cheap http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


Thilock

[Kel]

The only reason I never use light infantry (other than nations that only have light infantry for missiles, like C'tis) is that while you can produce them en masse in emergencies or for specific applications, maintaining them seems like a really bad idea.

Maintaining a single LI is usually almost as bad as maintaining real HI, per unit and, for the effectiveness, it's not even close (speaking mostly for the non javelin equipped types).

A unit that is rarely useful but occasionally it is a little better than the alternatives isn't useless...but it's not really terribly useful either http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

- Kel

[HotNifeThruButr]

When I don't have missile units, I just buy woodsmen or do without. The only place where archers excel (in my opinion) is against Barbarian/tribal provinces.

For everyone that suggested using Light Infantry as fodder, well, a Heavy Infantryman can Last about 4 times as long as a Light Infantryman (and don't get me started on Satyr LI) for less than twice the price... haven't I mentioned that before?

[Jasper]

I'm curious, do any of you know what the words "Peltast" or "Psiloi" mean?

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Nephelim:
]No, light infantry is supposed to suck. It's the peasants that you hand a pitchfork to.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, it's not. Light and skirmish infantry are not the same as peasent levy. Not even close.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Taqwus:
They might live a bit longer with something like Marble Warriors, Fog Warriors or Antimagic. With those spells and anything else that boosts all friendlies on the battlefield, the more the merrier. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is true. Those things however work better on heavier infantry, and still don't give one a reason to use LI.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Firebreath:
As Taqwus mentioned, the moment that you can make the fight drag on, and on, and on (using spells or simply 20-1 numbers - light infantry (low encumberance) becomes an advantage rather than a waste of space...I would hate to think what a large group of flaggelants blessed with fire 9, and an air shield, and an ironskin could do to any heavy infantry or cavalry...especialy if you combine that with the surround bonus, enemy encumberance, and any defence lowering spells like web or tangle vines, etc. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's difficult to make a fight drag on for so long, especially since by the these higher end spells are available HI tends to be outclassed, and LI even more so.

Plus, Relief is also available.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen:
Two words, two awesome words that really show the potential of a mass surround strategy:

MASS FLIGHT

That high-level spell was designed for the horde-mentality player, I swear http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Every single enemy unit that can be surrounded will be surrounded each round, so long as you have enough troops. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">By the time you have Mass Flight you can expect to see Storm. Plus, when this tactic works it works better on heavier units, not lighter or missile units.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Spacepain:
Light infantry serve the core and bulk of a persons army.

Their primary purpose is to die so that other more expensive units don't die. And in turn can focus on hitting while not being hit back.

Also, secondary, they serve to finish games where encumberane would force most other units to stop fighting.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The core of someone's army? Curious, is this your multiplayer experience?

The crux of the LI problem is that they cost almost as much as good HI, and die much faster, which makes using them as a shield pointless.

The effect of encumberance in a LI vs HI fight is minor, as typically by the time a give HI is tired, it's already killed several LI.

[Wendigo]

I use always a good amount of LI huskarls when playing Vanheim & Utgard Jotun.

With Vanheim I use them both for early expansion, and as a quick response force once the game advances thanks to their strategic move of 2: huskarls & mages can quickly be re-located, while the slower HI follow up at a slower pace.
Default Vanheim can also easily pull many trooper buffs that allow the humble huskarls to stand up on equal terms vs much heavier troops.

Same issue with Utgard-Jotun: the huskarls help compensate for the giant infantry troop density issues (one extra body+ one extra attack per square), and unlike HI they can keep up with the giant's movement rate.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Thilock_Dominus:
I would not say light Infantry sux. Ex. C'tis light Infantry armed with spear, javalin and shield can be quiet useful. An unit with 30 or more with light infantry can block off a heavy cavalry when its charging.
The light infantry can take out the heavy infantry if it gets its chance to hurling the javalins, the same goes against archers.
That's my experience with C'tis light infantry plus they are cheap http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Javelins are quite nice, if you can manage to micromanage them so that your Javeliners can repeatedly target opposing HI while a small band of your HI pins opposing HI and distracts archers.

This strategy is very easy to disrupt however, and only really works against independents. Still, this alone saves Pangaea from completely sucking.

[Jondifool]

Well as the statements as I read them are that light inf isn't totally useless, but neither any particular good, it raises some other questions ( at least for me)

first
Is light infantery to expensive? In gold cost? should they be cheaper or recive a upkeep discount, to be more used/usefull or are the avarage 10 gp a fair price for a fooder unit?

Second. I am not experienced enough to know if there low encumbrance/fatique adds up something significant usefull in more than rare conditions. Does it and is this just situational or can you actual base a strategy around it?
I have found it difficult enough to force the AI to cast spells like curse of stones, just to learn more about fatique

so can you base a strategy around Light Infantery( besides flagellants) and if so how ?

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Wendigo:
I use always a good amount of LI huskarls when playing Vanheim & Utgard Jotun.

With Vanheim I use them both for early expansion, and as a quick response force once the game advances thanks to their strategic move of 2: huskarls & mages can quickly be re-located, while the slower HI follow up at a slower pace.
Default Vanheim can also easily pull many trooper buffs that allow the humble huskarls to stand up on equal terms vs much heavier troops.

Same issue with Utgard-Jotun: the huskarls help compensate for the giant infantry troop density issues (one extra body+ one extra attack per square), and unlike HI they can keep up with the giant's movement rate. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Good point about the strategic move; many of my thoughts are holdovers from Dom 1, and noticbly the HI that I have been using is strategic move 2.

I'd assumed that Huskarls were move-1 for some reason. They're as well equipped as LI comes, especially considering that Hirdman are IMHO subpar HI.

Do you find the (strat-2) skinshifters usefull? They look weak to me, but I haven't tried them.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Jondifool:
Well as the statements as I read them are that light inf isn't totally useless, but neither any particular good, it raises some other questions ( at least for me)

first
Is light infantery to expensive? In gold cost? should they be cheaper or recive a upkeep discount, to be more used/usefull or are the avarage 10 gp a fair price for a fooder unit?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As near as I can tell unit cost is based entirely on a unit's stats, and Illwinter seems very reluctant to change this.

IMHO, rather than reducing their cost and making them better fodder, they should instead be improved in a manner similar to how they were used Historically.

For example, what if they were dispersed and so took fewer missile/spell casualties? What if they could fallback before contract, or fire for 2 rounds then backup? What if a victor's fleeing units didn't leave the province? etc.

Then they might be usefull in small numbers, which IMHO is about right.

[tinkthank]

Originally posted by Jasper:

The crux of the LI problem is that they cost almost as much as good HI, and die much faster, which makes using them as a shield pointless.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">They generally cost much less resources, which mean they can be levied quickly.
I generally choose LI over HI because of the map movement of 2 on LI vs 1 from HI. In general, they are quicker on the battlefield as well. Some of them also are able to throw (generally useless, but better than nothing) javelins.
Some LI with longer weapons can also be useful in repelling.

I think the general Beavis-n-Butthead statement of the form "XXX sucks" where XXX stands for a particular unit generally do not stand up well in the context of DomII, since it will depend on the situation.
For example, LI might be a better choice than HI if you are in a hurry, or if your nation generally has some other form of "tank" units (knights, summons, whatever), or in later game situations where money is less of a problem than resources and you may just simply want lots of cannon fodder to absorb magic damage -- situations where even a HI will be useless, so why not take a LI?
I have learned to love LI for what it is. I think there is a saying in English: You get what you pay for. And for what you pay, LI can be quite a bargain.

[Wendigo]

I'd assumed that Huskarls were move-1 for some reason. They're as well equipped as LI comes, especially considering that Hirdman are IMHO subpar HI.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I actually like the hirdmen for default Vanheim. They are my 'center of the line' troop of choice when facing Ermorian hordes for example, and they specifically shine for default Van when combined with the supberb Dwarf support mages.

With dwarf backup, a hirdman becomes a pretty respectable force with Legions of steel + Strength of giants (18 prot, 14? st+ broadsword damage)...perfectly capable of standing vs any other HI, and being MI esentially the hirdman has the bonus of decent defense & encumbrance.
If you cast also Destruction on the enemy line, your cheap & humble hirdmen will easily chew up even elite Emerald guards.

This doesn't mean I do not use the supberb einheres however, but rather field them as shock troops...in fact, Vanheim is the nation with the most flexible troop choice IMO, at least for my playing style.


Do you find the (strat-2) skinshifters usefull? They look weak to me, but I haven't tried them. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The weakest of the lot IMO for Van, and the only one I hardly field.
I can only find 2 circunstances where I would field them:
-With strong magical support (marble warriors and/or fog warriors), so that they suffer little damage that their regen could make up for.

-If my offensive armies are being nuked by MW/FFS, shapeshifting would likely allow them to survive when the other Van inf would just die.

Still, these are pretty specialized uses for an overpriced troop type.

[Wauthan]

Light Infantery would be more useful if the battleground itself varied a bit more. On a dry flat ground it's pretty obvious that a man with heavy plate armour will have an advantage over a man in a leather cuirass. But if there was a penalty to encumberance in muddy, uneven, snowy, elevated or vegetation covered battlefields then the light infantery would have the upper hand.

There is no greater proof for this than the fairly wellknown Battle of Agincourt(sp?). The british troops were both heavily outnumbered and "outgunned" by the french.

The battlefield formed a wedge, which consentrated the heavily armoured knights and completely broke down their formation, and the ground was covered in sticky mud, the bane of platearmour which any liveaction roleplayer can tell you (it sticks to metal like peanutbutter sticks to cloth and weighs you down quite a lot).

This meant that while the english archers were pretty ineffective using their bows they caused massive casualites amongst the knights by routing the cavalery into the footknights, attacking in melee with their long daggers and simply exhausting the mudcovered knights until most of them drowned in the mud or were trampled to death in the complete chaos.

If the men in the back of the french force would have pulled back instead of pushing into the wedgeshaped field then its propable that most of the knights would have lived, even if the battle would have been lost. Apparently it was greed that pushed most of them onwards since there was quite a competition to take the king of england hostage and hold him for ransom.

Then again a lot can be said about the french noblemen that choose to override the commander-in-charge and engage the british forces without a real battleplan. It's still pretty ironical no? Had it not rained then history would have taken a different turn indeed.

Being able to choose your battleground if you have the faster army would be a nice addition to Dominions III. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ April 14, 2004, 10:42: Message edited by: Wauthan ]

[Firebreath]

Thanks for spoiling everything Jasper http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But I knew that I'd missed something vital...

Light infantry are supposed to excel vs heavy infantry in 'difficult' terrain, such as mountains, swamps, (underwater?), forests, etc. They're also better at ambushes, hit and run tactics, skirmishing, night fighting, etc. While some units get a no-starve bonus in specific terrain (does anyone EVER take that into account when making strategic unit building decisions?), they don't get a fighting bonus, which is a damn shame as then you would be able to do some really interesting things like getting some lizzards to actually fight well (if only in swamps)...

Is there a place to suggest improvements to the appropriate people somewhere in this forum? Something like heavy inf. get a heavy encumberance penalty (+100%) when fighting in mountains, 50% in forests, etc. A 'attack and swarm enemy flank, then run away before the center has time to react' command might be interesting for fast LI.

[Jasper]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tinkthank:
They generally cost much less resources, which mean they can be levied quickly.

This is rarely an issue.

I generally choose LI over HI because of the map movement of 2 on LI vs 1 from HI. In general, they are quicker on the battlefield as well.

This is their only saving grace. Even so, in most cases it isn't enough, as often terrain or enemy borders reduce your move to 1 anyway.

Some of them also are able to throw (generally useless, but better than nothing) javelins.
Some LI with longer weapons can also be useful in repelling.

Good HI tends to have good morale, making repelling not so important. I have also found javelins to be quite effective, and nowhere near useless.

I think the general Beavis-n-Butthead statement of the form "XXX sucks" where XXX stands for a particular unit generally do not stand up well in the context of DomII, since it will depend on the situation.

Point Taken. I've debated LI several times on these forums already, and was a bit quick to cut to the chase. ;-)


For example, LI might be a better choice than HI if you are in a hurry, or if your nation generally has some other form of "tank" units (knights, summons, whatever), or in later game situations where money is less of a problem than resources and you may just simply want lots of cannon fodder to absorb magic damage -- situations where even a HI will be useless, so why not take a LI?

Because HI costs about the same, and easily defeats LI in combat? I also disagree that in a later game situation gold is less of a problem than resources, especially as you can easily convert gold into more resources by building forts.


I have learned to love LI for what it is. I think there is a saying in English: You get what you pay for. And for what you pay, LI can be quite a bargain.

I have yet to see LI be such a bargain, although in a couple of cases it is grudgingly usefull (e.g. Huskarls). Which LI are you thinking of?

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Wauthan:
Light Infantery would be more useful if the battleground itself varied a bit more. On a dry flat ground it's pretty obvious that a man with heavy plate armour will have an advantage over a man in a leather cuirass. But if there was a penalty to encumberance in muddy, uneven, snowy, elevated or vegetation covered battlefields then the light infantery would have the upper hand.

[snip]

Being able to choose your battleground if you have the faster army would be a nice addition to Dominions III. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Very true! Unfortunately Dominions 2 isn't really setup to handle this.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Wendigo:
I actually like the hirdmen for default Vanheim. They are my 'center of the line' troop of choice when facing Ermorian hordes for example, and they specifically shine for default Van when combined with the supberb Dwarf support mages.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yah, it's good to look at the full picture. Easy access to buffing spells helps vanheim immensely; it'd also help other factions, but they often don't have such easy access. I'm still not so fond of the Hirdmen though, as these things can also be done for other factions (e.g. Ulm, Machaka, Arcoscephale), if not as easily.

Vanheim has one of my favorite troop selections as well, in sharp contrast to many factions which have a wide swath of marginal troops. Both the Van and Valkyrie are a nice option (especially with blessing + Strength of Giants), and the Einheres really pack a bite once berserk.

[ April 14, 2004, 11:04: Message edited by: Jasper ]

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Firebreath:
Is there a place to suggest improvements to the appropriate people somewhere in this forum? Something like heavy inf. get a heavy encumberance penalty (+100%) when fighting in mountains, 50% in forests, etc. A 'attack and swarm enemy flank, then run away before the center has time to react' command might be interesting for fast LI. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The place for suggestions is pretty much here. The developers skim through, and sometimes pick up things without commenting.

My first thought was that a general battle effect from a province's terrain doesn't make any sense, as the battle will be fought in some open area. But your suggest could represent the effect of carrying heavy equipment through rough terrain and showing up to a battle tired, which is quite reasonable!

Perhaps heavily encumbered troops could start with some fatigue in "heavy" terrain provinces?

[Wendigo]

Perhaps heavily encumbered troops could start with some fatigue in "heavy" terrain provinces? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is a pretty interesting idea, and the type of flavour thing IW favours adopting.

Maybe also easy to implement, same as we have extreme cold/heat penalties to encumbrance depending on province weather scales, we could have some penalties depending on province terrain.

Just should be careful not to make 0-encumbrance troops too powerful from such change.

[Jasper]

Indeed. Plausible, simple to implement, and doesn't require extending the user interface.

I have my doubts on how it might affect 0-encumberance troops as well, and no trick comes to mind to alleviate them. Perhaps it's not so bad if such troops get a bonus in rough terrain? It's certainly thematic.

Not applying this penalty to commanders might help, so as not to penalize mages which often an effective counter to 0-enc units.

[Pocus]

in the same trend, perhaps heavy terrains can give added fatigues to troops, each round. This added fatigue is moreover not given linearly, but is derivated from the encumberance, so that light troops get only +1 penalty in the heaviest terrains, while HI get an added +2 to +4:

unit encumberance; added fatigue:
1-3 : +1 in swamp or mountain
4-5 : +1 in forest, +2 swamp or mountain
6-7: +2 in forest, +3 swamp or mountain ...

modify this by -1 if terrain survival ability is presents.

[Jasper]

Faster fatigue during the battle gives me mental dissonance, as there is no terrain on the battlefield. If the field _were_ uniformly covered in rough terrain, then units like HI, cavalry, and archers should be useless.

Partially covering terrain would be ok, but is just too complex for the dominions battle engine to handle (and is perhaps better handled in another game...).

[Wauthan]

Good idea Pocus. It's all about whom chooses the field of battle. Surely an C'Tis general would try to corner his oppponents in a murky swamp since his units got the edge. Then again undead would be even more scary since they would be immune to any fatigue increase. A further possibility for LI is to increase the size of the unit one step, to reflect an open formation. It's a bit of work but plausible enough for a mod. Might be a tad bit hard to figure out just what a "light" unit is considering the fantasy element though.

[ April 14, 2004, 11:35: Message edited by: Wauthan ]

[Firebreath]

I should add, that I have rarely seen a game with such an active and positive post release developer involvement.

Keep it up, whoever you are http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Arralen]

Originally posted by Jasper:
IMHO, rather than reducing their cost and making them better fodder, they should instead be improved in a manner similar to how they were used Historically.

For example, what if they were dispersed and so took fewer missile/spell casualties? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Suggested this some times ago (insert link to old thread here):
LI shouldn't move into a square where another unit from the same squad is present. Thus LI will show up with 1/3 the normal density to cover a bigger front line, which will let more units escape area spells and missile fire.
Best of all - it could use the same code that prevents units from running into poisioned/burning/whatever squares.
Oh, wait, that code still doesn't exist. Maybe that's why the dev's liked this suggestion, but we don't have it put into practice with 2.11

What if they could fallback before contract, or fire for 2 rounds then backup? What if a victor's fleeing units didn't leave the province? etc.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"Fire and flee" will do exactly that. The first part, that is ...
Wasn't there some talk about units orderd to retreat shouldn't spread out over neighbouring provinces any more but should stay with your army if you actually win the fight?

Another thing which hasn't materialized with the latest patch ...

[ April 15, 2004, 02:39: Message edited by: Arralen ]

[Vicious Love]

I definitely agree with the skirmishing suggestion. Makes LI much better at their designated role without changing the gold=stats resources=equipment rule.
I'm also inclined to support the terrain+encumbrance=initial fatigue at start of battle suggestion, though I'm more than a little worried about this giving AE Ermor and its 0 encumbrance troops an unfair advantage.
Then again, it sure is thematic.
Setting game balance concerns aside and tackling this strictly from a simulation arc, the defenders in difficult terrain should either get only half the fatigue similarly encumbered attackers would get, or none at all. Swamp/Mountain/etc. survival units should also gain either half or none of the standard fatigue.

Edit: Accidental BBCode. Hate when that happens.

[ April 14, 2004, 22:02: Message edited by: Vicious Love ]

[MStavros]

The main problem is that the AI loves to use these useless units as well. This is a part of the 'weak AI' problem.

[HotNifeThruButr]

This isn't really about LI, but I'd like it a lot if the timed orders like Hold and Attack and Fire and Flee gave you an option for timing. Like 1 turn of firing if your troops are javelineers, so the HI can't catch up to you before you run or 3-4 turns if you're using archers and you don't want them to fire when your infantry lines clash.

Also, if the battlefield were longer on both ends, so that both sides would have to run farther in routs, lighter units would be able to run down retreating heavies if you have no national cavalry and you actually managed to beat them.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by MStavros:
The main problem is that the AI loves to use these useless units as well. This is a part of the 'weak AI' problem. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree. Improving the use of LI in battle won't by itself address this single player issue, as you still wouldn't want as many LI as the AI builds.

The AI should avoid building (most) LI unless desperate. Instead, higher priority should be given to buying mages or castles. Giving the AI players a prediliction for high admin castles and a good production scale would likely help as well.

[Daynarr]

Originally posted by Jasper:
I agree. Improving the use of LI in battle won't by itself address this single player issue, as you still wouldn't want as many LI as the AI builds.

The AI should avoid building (most) LI unless desperate. Instead, higher priority should be given to buying mages or castles. Giving the AI players a prediliction for high admin castles and a good production scale would likely help as well. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree that both should be fixed, but fixing one wont fix another. The thing I've learned about AI in SP is that he will build his troops in castle as much as he has gold or resources, but remaining gold will be spent on building units in non-castle provinces - usually militia and LI. If AI could build forts this issue would be much reduces and if LI gets fixed (improved) the problem with AI building masses of weak units will be solved.

The problem with castles was already discussed and the main problem seems to be that its hard to make rules on how would AI decide to build his castles. I would suggest discussing this in another thread since its pretty large topic and it wouldn't be good if this one loses focus on current issue.

[Pocus]

Originally posted by Jasper:
Faster fatigue during the battle gives me mental dissonance, as there is no terrain on the battlefield. If the field _were_ uniformly covered in rough terrain, then units like HI, cavalry, and archers should be useless.

Partially covering terrain would be ok, but is just too complex for the dominions battle engine to handle (and is perhaps better handled in another game...). <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Accruing fatigue from terrain throughout the battle seems to be more realistic compared to receiving an allocation of fatigue at start of battle. Moreover a relief spell cast at start would render the rule even less plausible, whereas the added fatigue rule would not be as easily circumvented.
Thats all IMHO anyway.

[JaydedOne]

Wasn't there some talk about units orderd to retreat shouldn't spread out over neighbouring provinces any more but should stay with your army if you actually win the fight? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Boy, if that's something that could be implemented without moving mountains, I'd be all for it. That would considerably change my strategy involving those units -- to where I might actually, say, use them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Chris Byler]

Provinces with terrain should place obstacles on the battlefield. Bogs, underbrush, rocks, etc. (Farmland isn't much of an obstruction unless it's rice fields - or maybe in late summer/early autumn.) Any unit that moves through an obstacle suffers fatigue equal to its base fatigue (possibly limited to once per turn if it moves through several obstacles) and may cost extra movement points too. Any unit that fights while standing in an obstacle suffers 50% more fatigue. Appropriate survival abilities eliminate these penalties.

Jasper, if I have an army of C'tissian light infantry against your Ulmish heavy infantry, the battlefield damned well *will* be entirely swampy if I have anything to do with it. If we are fighting in a swamp province it shouldn't be that hard to arrange. Realistically, the more mobile units will get to pick the battleground.

Battles being fought on fields with rough terrain were rare in medieval European history because both sides were led by heavy cavalry. Nobody wanted to fight in a swamp. But the Gallic wars were another matter - skirmishes in the woods were common and the Gauls did well in them despite their lighter equipment. This is partly semantic - such engagements weren't *called* "battles", but men killed in them were just as dead.

An example from _De Bello Gallico_ (trans. McDevitte and Bohn):

Ambiorix, when he observed this, orders the command to be issued that they throw their weapons from a distance and do not approach too near, and in whatever direction the Romans should make an attack, there give way (from the lightness of their appointments and from their daily practice no damage could be done them); [but] pursue them when betaking themselves to their standards again. Which command having been most carefully obeyed, when any cohort had quitted the circle and made a charge, the enemy fled very precipitately. In the mean time, that part of the Roman army, of necessity, was left unprotected, and the weapons received on their open flank. Again, when they had begun to return to that place from which they had advanced, they were surrounded both by those who had retreated and by those who stood next them; but if, on the other hand, they wish to keep their place, neither was an opportunity left for valor, nor could they, being crowded together, escape the weapons cast by so large a body of men.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Wouldn't it be good if Dom2 light infantry could fight like that? (Of course, the Romans generally routed the Gauls in open field engagements, and Dom2 reflects that fine. But there's more to a war than open field engagements.)

And if light infantry had 1-2 points more defense, average heavy infantry might start to tire before they had already killed 3 times their own numbers and routed the rest (elite or experienced heavy infantry would still do well against average LI, but elites are expensive and experience takes time to acquire).

[PhilD]

Originally posted by Wauthan:
Good idea Pocus. It's all about whom chooses the field of battle. Surely an C'Tis general would try to corner his oppponents in a murky swamp since his units got the edge. Then again undead would be even more scary since they would be immune to any fatigue increase. A further possibility for LI is to increase the size of the unit one step, to reflect an open formation. It's a bit of work but plausible enough for a mod. Might be a tad bit hard to figure out just what a "light" unit is considering the fantasy element though. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This looks like a good idea at first, and easily implemented (you have to catch all "light" units in the game and mod each one, but you can start small and see how it goes), but in fact it has a problem, because size is used for many things in the game.

One of them is supply usage. If you make LI Size 4 (which will in itself ensure that they deploy one per size 6 square) instead of Size 2 (the normal Human size, which results in tight formations of 3 per square), they will start eating 3 supplies each, which means, 3 times as much as they do now. If anything, HI should "eat" more, not less, than LI (to reflect additional supply usage, as well as the increased need for food for heavily armed/armored men and their abstract supply bearers).

Also, I believe size has an effect on arrow fire - as in, the battle engine decides which square an arrow hits, then which "sixth of a square" actually gets the arrow (this may be wrong, though). If this is the case, a single Size 4 unit would have as much probability of getting hit as 2 Size 2 units in the same square, effectively making a loose formation of LI an arrow magnet (they'd cover 3 times as much ground, with a 66% filling rate, which would mean stray arrows would hit more I believe).

In fact, this Last point might be avoidable by increasing the size to 4, but giving them a 50% Air Shield (if I understand the effect of Air Shield correctly, as in, it means 50% of missiles are lost on the unit). Is that possible? And can one change supply usage? [I just had a look at the "modding.pdf" document, and didn't find commands to give an air shield to a unit, or to change its supply usage]

[Kristoffer O]

Ugh! That took some time reading.

I find it strange that there is less focus on LC than LI. Perhaps everyone has given up entirely on LC. I have http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif . Perhaps there was another thread regarding LC a long time ago.

There are several ideas on how to improve LI and LC. Most of what is said in this thread has been considered before, but some new ideas do pop up. Many of the ideas are good, they just havn't been implemented. Keep the discussion open.

[HotNifeThruButr]

I'm sure more tactical options like "Fire for X turns and flee", and "Fire For X turns then stay behind troops" would make them good at softening up the opposition for your core forces to take on. "Advance and Fire" would possibly make Light Cavalry something more than just weak,expensive archers. They would advance and fire until they fight melee.

Edit: I don't think having the fastest army choose terrain would be a good idea. I mean, where could you find a marsh in the desert of "You're screwed, there's no supplies here [203]"?

[ April 15, 2004, 20:40: Message edited by: HotNifeThruButr ]

[Wauthan]

I think Pocus meant that the fastest army gets the choose an battlefield appropriate to the province, not any possible terrain. If that was the case I would stock up on Triton Leaders with amulets of the fish and continually choose "Underwater Plateu" for all landbound conflicts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I had one idea to make subdivisions of the battlefield were each square held a bonus or a penalty. Would allowed for terrain altering spells and abilities. But I figure that medieval battles were hardly that spontaneous. Perhaps a "Prefered Battlefield" setting could be worked into a battle with the speed of the army, experience of the commanders, stealthiness and random luck worked into getting your choice. A number of Satyrs ambushing a force of heavy cavalery as they travel along a forestroad means that the ordinarily outclassed Satyrs get a huge edge since cavalery can not move into "Dense Vegetation" squares.

Dominions V material perhaps but Fantasy General style battlesquares would be a real thrill. But it makes for a very different game I guess. Still would be neat to be able to draw up a quick battleplan, on a topdown representation of the battlefield, before the battle starts (or just press "Use preselected formation" and hope for the best). Since you don't know your opponents battleplan until the battle actually starts you can get quite a suprise. No unit can be deployed more than one full move from starting position. Flying ability is not considered in deployment.

Perhaps the simplest way to get more usage of light infantery and cavalery is to simply make the battlefield, and deployment screen, larger than it is now. Since we can speed up battles now it's more of an option. Bigger field means higher AP has a real impact since you can outmanouver your enemy.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Vicious Love:
Update: Besides, it's about time we had some guerilla tactics beyond driveby priestings<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Woo, my phrase "drive-by priesting" is catching on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And consistent use of these tactics/their countertactics could add a whole new meaning to battlefield mobility, maybe give light cavalry another two of their RL roles back(Either fire and flee or mow down whoever tries to flee).<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeah, options to fight in anything other than a head-on engagement would be nice. That's the fundamental weakness of LI/LC right now: They're forced into fighting in a manner that is entirely contrary to how they should be used.

"Pursue Routers" would definitely be a nice combat option for LC: They hang back on the side until an enemy unit starts routing, then they ride in and KILL THEM ALL! That's what I used Light Cavalry for in MTW: To chase down and slaughter the people trying to flee. NO SURVIVORS!

[Chris Byler]

There was indeed another thread about LC. The main suggestions that haven't already been mentioned for LI:

* Allow strategic moves where the Last move is into enemy territory (i.e. LC army starts in province A, province B is plains, province C is plains and enemy controlled, A-B-C is a legal move.)

* Make difficult terrain cost 2 strategic move points so that an all-LC army can cross (say) one plain and one forest. Many maps have hardly any plains.

* Move and pillage strategic order. Attack current province and pillage for currently stealthed armies.

* Orderly retreat: Units that are ordered to retreat don't take the routing penalty. If the army wins, units that retreated due to orders don't leave the province at all - they rejoin the army after the battle. If the army loses, all units that retreated due to orders retreat to the same place (assuming there is one available).

Historically there was (and still is) an enormous difference between an orderly retreat and a rout.

Note that if you combine the move and pillage order with fire and flee battlefield orders (and preferably the suggested "orderly retreat") you get a force that is dangerous, hard to pin down and in general very annoying - unless you cut off its lines of supply and/or retreat.

A large, rapidly raised, expendable force is good for performing, or defending against, this kind of raiding.

[Jasper]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Byler:
Provinces with terrain should place obstacles on the battlefield. Bogs, underbrush, rocks, etc. (Farmland isn't much of an obstruction unless it's rice fields - or maybe in late summer/early autumn.)

IMHO this just doesn't work with Dominions style of plotted orders, as you can't see how the terrain is laid out when making your orders. Short of a major restructuring of the turn order I don't see anyway to handle this.

Jasper, if I have an army of C'tissian light infantry against your Ulmish heavy infantry, the battlefield damned well *will* be entirely swampy if I have anything to do with it.

I disagree. It's difficult to force someone to fight in bad terrain, asland worth holding is on good terrain. Even for historical kingdoms that benefited from dense terrain battles in general still had more open than rough terrain.

I can see C'tis being able to work _some_ swamp into a battle on it's home terrain. Of course, were it possible to make good tactical use of terrain, even a small amount would be enough to gain a substantial advantage. Unfortunately dominions just doesn't handle this.

And if light infantry had 1-2 points more defense, average heavy infantry might start to tire before they had already killed 3 times their own numbers and routed the rest (elite or experienced heavy infantry would still do well against average LI, but elites are expensive and experience takes time to acquire).

Giving LI in general more defense makes no sense to me. IMHO attempts to give LI an edge in melee against HI are just wrong (well, outside of rough terrain).

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
I find it strange that there is less focus on LC than LI. Perhaps everyone has given up entirely on LC. I have http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">LC is harder to make work, as the dynamic tactics that make them worthwhile aren't in dominions, e.g. flanking. Plus, the single player AI doesn't tend to build hordes of LC...

It also doesn't hurt to fix one thing at a time. I suspect that improving the usefullness of LI could make LC more usefull as well.

[Vicious Love]

Methinks the LI of such nations as Machaka and Mictlan would be made a lot more cost effective if the "fire and stay behind troops" or "fire and flee to one region/the same region if victorious" suggestions were implemented.
Couple that with skirmishing, and you've got a troop type every bit as a viable as heavy infantry, but with substantially different capabilities and tactical/strategic roles. You might not even have to tweak the AI's propensity for stocking up on the little bastards.

Update: Besides, it's about time we had some guerilla tactics beyond driveby priestings, strikes behind enemy lines, and funky mage combos. And consistent use of these tactics/their countertactics could add a whole new meaning to battlefield mobility, maybe give light cavalry another two of their RL roles back(Either fire and flee or mow down whoever tries to flee).

C'mon, this game isn't nearly complex enough at the moment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ April 15, 2004, 12:13: Message edited by: Vicious Love ]

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Daynarr:
[QUOTE]The problem with castles was already discussed and the main problem seems to be that its hard to make rules on how would AI decide to build his castles. I would suggest discussing this in another thread since its pretty large topic and it wouldn't be good if this one loses focus on current issue. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think a simple heuristic would go a long way: If the AI doesn't have enough resources to acheive a force mix dominated by heavy units, it should build castles instead of an army of LI. Or put another way, limit the percentage of available gold that will be spent on light units, and spend left over money on things other than troops.

This relatively closely approximates what I do. Some work would be involved in marking a factions units into appropriate catagories, but that should be straight forward.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Pocus:
Accruing fatigue from terrain throughout the battle seems to be more realistic compared to receiving an allocation of fatigue at start of battle. Moreover a relief spell cast at start would render the rule even less plausible, whereas the added fatigue rule would not be as easily circumvented.
Thats all IMHO anyway. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I disagree, IMHO of course. Accruing fatigue faster during a battle implies that the field is covered in rough terrain -- which rare if ever happened.

On the other hand, marching troops for long distances was exhausting -- even without rough terrain. Ancient military strategists describe the danger of fighting with already exhausted troops, and apparently took it seriously.

[Vicious Love]

Ooooh, feel the realism.
Next patch, let's implement camp followers!

Update: Or at least pneumonia. Throw me a bone here.

[ April 15, 2004, 12:17: Message edited by: Vicious Love ]

[Firebreath]

Camp followers?

Camp hoes you mean http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I'm sure they'd give a nice morale boost before any battle.

[Vicious Love]

Ambiorix, when he observed this, orders the command to be issued that they throw their weapons from a distance and do not approach too near, and in whatever direction the Romans should make an attack, there give way (from the lightness of their appointments and from their daily practice no damage could be done them); [but] pursue them when betaking themselves to their standards again. Which command having been most carefully obeyed, when any cohort had quitted the circle and made a charge, the enemy fled very precipitately. In the mean time, that part of the Roman army, of necessity, was left unprotected, and the weapons received on their open flank. Again, when they had begun to return to that place from which they had advanced, they were surrounded both by those who had retreated and by those who stood next them; but if, on the other hand, they wish to keep their place, neither was an opportunity left for valor, nor could they, being crowded together, escape the weapons cast by so large a body of men.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've actually been meaning to suggest a "fire while keeping distance" option for LC/LI for quite some time now. I realize that's not the point you were getting at, but methinks it still stands.

In regards to which side gets to choose the venue for a battle, I've got a needlessly complex, nigh-impossible to implement, but sorta realistic solution: Add three new orders: "Remain in terrain X", as an alternative to "Defend", "Attack", and "Move and attack"(Hotkeyed to ctrl-left click).
The first order is self explanatory-The defenders will remain in the terrain type in question(If present in the province, obviously), and any assaults on them will take place in said terrain. "Attack" and "Move and attack" signify the attackers' will to indulge the defenders, and getting medieval ensues. Province defense functions normally, that is, like an army set on "defend".
Things get needlessly tricky when the attackers choose to occupy a province without stamping out the guerilla lizards holed up in the swamp. The province is now under joint ownership, an awkward condition for any occupied populace, with the following results:
1) Income, production and supplies are split between the occupying forces, and crudely, at that. If a region contains three terrain types(Say, swamp, mountain, and plains), each terrain is assumed to comprise 1/3rd of the province. Terrain modifiers(+food for plains, +resources for mountains, etc) are applied to each side's part of the province. This makes survival skills much, much more useful, as only a very small force could possibly hide out in a swamp for long without starving.
2) Unrest rises, and steeply at that. Maybe at a flat rate, maybe at a rate proportionate to the size of both armies, combined(Modified further by fear-causing units), maybe at a rate proportionate to the size of the army that controls the smaller part of the province.
3) Both sides can recruit units locally, though PD is still unavailable.
4) Either side can pillage with impunity, but do not pillage the portion of a province occupied by a hostile army. Naturally, if both sides pillage, combat ensues, on randomly selected terrain.
5) Castles... Well, they make this whole proposition even more complex. Not to mention preaching, "friendly province only" spells, and more.

Still with me so far? If you are, you've realized this goes far, far beyond the scope of a patch or mod, and doesn't really pay off that well. Still, I've never been one to let an idea go to waste just because it's manifestly unfeasible.
If we want to complicate things even further, we could always position each magic site in a province in one particular terrain type, and allow whichever God controls that part of that province to profit from it(Or suffer double the negative effects. Hiding armies near Inkblot End=bad). But this is all the very spirit of wishful thinking made flesh and gooey bits.
On the bright side, I suspect there's some small detail in that spiel that might still be useful outside the context of grandiose, game-reshaping suggestions. I'll get back to you when I have some idea of what it might be.

On a more modest note, I definitely agree with that "move and pillage" suggestion, it's fun AND educational!

Edit: Ack! Typo!
Edited edit: Double ack! Misedit! It's OK, folks, everything's under control!

[ April 16, 2004, 13:47: Message edited by: Vicious Love ]

[Chris Byler]

Originally posted by Jasper:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Chris Byler:
Provinces with terrain should place obstacles on the battlefield. Bogs, underbrush, rocks, etc. (Farmland isn't much of an obstruction unless it's rice fields - or maybe in late summer/early autumn.)<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">IMHO this just doesn't work with Dominions style of plotted orders, as you can't see how the terrain is laid out when making your orders. Short of a major restructuring of the turn order I don't see anyway to handle this.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
Just place the obstacles and let the armies deal with them as they may. If you don't like the results, don't send heavily armored men into a swamp.

Yes, this amounts to saying that in a swamp province, even the "worthwhile" parts of the province are swampy. This may be somewhat unrealistic but I think it would make terrain more important and make some units better depending on terrain, which is a goal I value above realism if it comes right down to it.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
Jasper, if I have an army of C'tissian light infantry against your Ulmish heavy infantry, the battlefield damned well *will* be entirely swampy if I have anything to do with it.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I disagree. It's difficult to force someone to fight in bad terrain, asland worth holding is on good terrain. Even for historical kingdoms that benefited from dense terrain battles in general still had more open than rough terrain.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
If you consider some provinces not worth holding, you are of course free not to hold them. I won't try to stop you. Certainly plains and farmland provinces provide more income and supply and are useful for a variety of purposes, and a nation needs some armies that can fight well in the open. But not every province is open, and if you *want* to make an army that specializes in rough terrain and keep them in rough terrain provinces, you should be allowed to, IMO.

The Alps weren't worth holding, but Hannibal marched across them anyway. If he had been attacked there, I don't think the battlefield would have been level and open. Attacking an enemy army while it is passing through rough terrain - even if they have no intention of occupying it for any great length of time - is perfectly legitimate. And of course if you want to occupy mountains or swamps - even though they have low relative worth - you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences.

I can see C'tis being able to work _some_ swamp into a battle on it's home terrain. Of course, were it possible to make good tactical use of terrain, even a small amount would be enough to gain a substantial advantage. Unfortunately dominions just doesn't handle this.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
Although it would be nice to be able to tailor your deployment to a particular battlefield, the current state of Dom II makes this difficult.

Possibly the battlefield could be generated based on a deterministic algorithm from data about the province, current scales and the season, and then players could inspect the battlefield of any province they can see before planning their deployments (and they might get a surprise if Wolven Winter is cast there before the battle). I don't know how much additional code this would take, but I suspect it would be considerable. This terrain idea is just one of several ideas for LI/LC, and I suspect it's one of the less practical, as much as I would like it.

Terrain that can't be seen in advance, where you have only a general idea based on the province's terrain type(s), would be much simpler to implement and I think you could make at least some educated guesses about what tactics work better in forests or swamps, and what units are better suited to carry them out. It's not like there won't be any battles in plains - plains are valuable and people will still want to fight over them. But not every province is plains, and it borders on the ridiculous to have two armies meet in the depths of the Black Forest or the Alps and there miraculously happens to be a huge open clearing, and that's where they fight.

Oh, and we're also leaving out rivers - I hope I don't have to tell you how common battles near (or in!) rivers were, and how the river could play a part in them. So why are battles in Dom2 always far away from the river, even if there is one in the province? Some units could fight even while standing in the river itself (water elementals, amphibious units), others could enter the shallows and be somewhat impeded. And there is often marshy or sandy ground near the riverbank that is poor footing for a man in full armor - and worse for a horse in full armor carrying a man in full armor. And you *certainly* can't say that the land along the river isn't worthwhile.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And if light infantry had 1-2 points more defense, average heavy infantry might start to tire before they had already killed 3 times their own numbers and routed the rest (elite or experienced heavy infantry would still do well against average LI, but elites are expensive and experience takes time to acquire). <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Giving LI in general more defense makes no sense to me. IMHO attempts to give LI an edge in melee against HI are just wrong (well, outside of rough terrain). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, maybe HI should get the defense bonus too - they just won't benefit from it as much.

In my experience, it's rare for a Dom2 melee to Last more than three rounds unless at least one side is mindless (or you have HUGE squads fighting on very little frontage, which only happens during a storm attempt). Even with Fanaticism on both sides, casualties are just too high. This makes fatigue for combat units almost entirely meaningless - even a high fatigue unit that's in the front line for the entire battle will hardly be winded by the time someone breaks and runs.

You'd like to see LI get crushed if they stand and fight in the open - I don't necessarily disagree. But currently they don't have any other option *besides* standing and fighting, and *every* place is the open (even deep forests and high mountains), and that's what makes them worthless. So I suggested something (slowing down the death rate in melees) that might help them take advantage of one of their few strengths - low encumbrance. (Fatigue for moving on the battlefield would do the same thing - HI would be at least a little fatigued by the time they reach enemy lines, if they can't make the enemy come to them.)

[HotNifeThruButr]

I think that light infantry are supposed to get an edge with their volley of projectile weapons before they engage the enemy and their mobility advantage in and out of battles against heavy infantry. What if there was a command that tells your units to stay away from hand to hand combat, but pepper the enemy with missiles? Since LI can outpace heavy infantry, they would fire, retreat, fire again, retreat, fire a final time (javelins only have 3 ammo) and then fight hand to hand. That way Ulm Zweihanders will make mincemeat out of Machaka warriors, but only when they manage to catch 'em.

On a side note, LI need to be better skilled than HI (which is often not the case or the difference is unnoticeable). This goes with the Zweihander and warrior scenario.

[Norfleet]

Light Infantry are superior late-game to Heavy infantry because of their far lesser resource cost. They cost no gems that you otherwise need for summoning serious stuff. They're completely expendable and use a resource you no longer have as much need of.

By late game, heavy infantry will be butchered en-masse just as easily as lights. Both have the same gold cost, but generally, you need a mob of men on short notice to serve as siege fodder and expendable meatshields. Gold is probably not what you are most concerned about. Heavy infantry, therefore, fail to serve the job: I need lots of crappy troops, and I need them yesterday! The production costs of HI are such that provinces cannot produce them by the dozens every turn: Since they will all likely die a gruesome death at the hands of a Bane Lord or the Ghost Riders, actual strength is irrelevant: They just need to live long enough to bash down the gates.

[ April 25, 2004, 07:23: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[Cohen]

SCs kills a little the game ...

Productivity scale is worthless so on ... and armies are too ...
LI or HI have little influence ...

I believe LI and HI are well balanced, but Armies usefulness should be preverved for all the duration of a game. Not only against Indies.

[FarAway Pretender]

(Dusting off an old thread here)

I like the idea of adding a Fatigue penalty for adverse terrain, but I'm not sure how that would play out, especially for spell-casting heroes (is casting fireballs while standing in mud any harder than standing on grass?). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I think that plopping "rough terrain" patches down in the middle of the field would get a bit unwieldy, especially in terms of the way the AI would have to deal with pathfinding algorithms, etc. I don't mind losing battles due to bad terrain, but I'd hate to lose battles because my commander took a different path around some rough terrain than his units!

While I'm a big fan of realism, I think we all acknowledge that combat in Dominions is a little abstracted anyway. I mean, they're individual soldiers, not units of soldiers, that we plunk out on the map in the first place. Who would really go to war with a party of 15 or 20 guys to dominate an entire province of 20,000 people.

If we really only have 15 or 20 guys fighting somewhere, why would they pick a huge field?

I think the most elegant way to include terrain in Dom 3 battles would be to abstractualize (is that a word?) the impact of terrain and borrow something from the Warlords handbook. Just have a simple grid of "Terrain Effects", where LI, HI, LC, and HC get different penalties (to Encumb, Movement, etc.) in different terrain. It makes sense to me that Heavy Cavalary is more effective in Open Plains than in the Mountains.

[Wauthan]

With Dominions 3 looming at a distant horizon I can't help but wonder if terrain dependant battlefields have been implemented? Since Illwinter are well aware of the power difference between light and heavy cavalry/infantry I'm sure they taken a few stabs at helping the underdogs.

[deccan]

Wauthan said:
Since Illwinter are well aware of the power difference between light and heavy cavalry/infantry I'm sure they taken a few stabs at helping the underdogs.



It would help if upkeep costs were reworked to take into account resource costs as well as purchase costs. After all, it would make sense that a HI with heavy, complex armour, high quality weapons etc. would cost more money to maintain in good repair.

[RedRover]

A few definitions:

Peltast: Greek. Light skirmishing infantryman, usually armed with javelins and a shield (the type of shield was called a “pelta”). They covered the flanks of the main body of Greek warriors (phalanx), which was composed of heavy infantry (hoplites).

Psiloi: Greek. Roughly translates as “stripped” or “bare,” in this context “unarmored.” Several sets of tabletop wargame rules, notably DBA (De Bellis Antiquitatis, see here (http://www.dbaol.com/resources/DBA_DBM_links.htm)), uses “psiloi” as a technical term for light skirmishing infantry.

A few thoughts on the topics:

LIGHT INFANTRY
Occupying Ground Area 2+.
I like this idea. I think supply is a non-issue, just give the light infantry a #supplybonus equal to one less than its area (it is in the modding pdf).

For arrow targeting, a unit modding command could probably be set up to discard a certain pecentage of arrows hitting the unit (the Sunray Library “not in the spell manual” notes indicate Storm conditions work something like this already).

BATTLEFIELD TERRAIN
I think terrain encumbrance modifiers for movement and melee attacks would be sufficient to represent battlefield terrain. Can’t see casting encumbrance modified by this, though. I like the idea of weather modifiers, too; these might modify casting encumbrance, like some of the spells do.

Plains/Farm: +0 to encumbrance
Forest/Sea: +1 to encumbrance (infantry*, light cavalry*),
+2 to encumbrance (heavy cavalry, elephants,
chariots)
Mountain/Swamp: +2 to encumbrance (infantry*, light
cavalry),
+3 (heavy cavalry, elephants, chariots)

* No penalty for these units if they have the matching terrain survival. Monsters generally count as infantry.

Light rain or snow: +1 encumbrance
Heavy rain or snow: +2 encumbrance
Storm: +2 for infantry and light cavalry,
+3 for heavy cavalry and elephants

AMBUSHES
Here’s an idea for working this in:

(new strategic order) Ambush
This means that the stationary army is carefully choosing the terrain and battle conditions to be as favorable as possible.

Ambush Factor = (XP level of best defending commander +d3) – (XP level of best attacking commander + d3)

+1 if all defenders are stealthy or have terrain survival for province type*
+2 if all defenders are stealthy and have terrain survival for province type*
-1 if attacker has a scout or spy in the province
-1 if attacker has at least 10 Light Cavalry in the province

*if multiple types, use the terrain most favorable to the defender

1) Half the positive difference (round up) is added to the defender’s morale for the battle, and also subtracted from the attacker’s morale for the battle. A 0 or less difference is ignored; the battle is then normal.

2) For every positive 2 difference, the attacker loses one tactical turn (no move, no spells, or no fire).

[The largest difference you can expect is 9 (defender 5th, attacker 0), so a completely inexperienced commander against a 5th-level commander with stealthy terrain-savvy troops is going to sitting for 4 tactical turns at morale –5, against the defender, who has morale +5.

LIGHT CAVALRY
Perhaps we could distinguish between true light cavalry and unarmored massed horse—light cavalry has specific strategic and tactical functions that should be reflected in the design of a nation’s units. Not all lightly armored cavalry functions as "light cavalry."

STRATEGIC USES: Light Cavalry scouts, screens, patrols, raids, and pursues.

1) Scouting: The cavalry is ordered to investigate and secure an area, but not hold it in the face of an enemy attack. The moving in and investigating is currently handled, but a coherent exit is not, thus:

(new strategic order) Scout
This order can be given only to a mounted (or light chariot) commander who commands only light cavalry (or light chariots). A force with these orders withdraws as a body to a friendly province without a battle if an enemy force of more than 1.1x their number enters their province. If there is no friendly province available, a battle is fought.

2) Screening
No new strategic order, but count light cavalry as 4 units for purposes of general information (light chariots maybe 3). Thus, a unit of 20 light cavalry looks like a field force of 80 unless you have scouts or spies on the ground in the province.

3) Patrolling
Light cavalry has a minimum patrol rating of #ptrl +5 as part of their unit statistics.

4) Raiding

(new strategic order) Pillage and Move
A “move and pillage” order has been suggested. My take on it is to reverse these elements, making the pillage happen first—that is, a force with a stratmove of 2 or 3 can pillage a province and then move away one province. This allows an aggressive reaction force to contest an incursion before the actual pillaging takes place, but still allows an aggressive pillager to leave a trail of mayhem if the defender is unwilling or unable to respond. IMO this would play better than to allow an automatic pillaging success.

5) Strategic Pursuit
Since this function is controlled by the player, no further action is needed.

* Unit Size: Like light infantry, Light Cavalry might be given a larger area.

TACTICAL USES: Skirmish, Skirmish Attack, Flanking, Pursuit

1) Skirmishing: The unit moves to missile range and shoots. If the enemy advances too closely, the skirmishers fall back. The second part of this is the current sticking point.

(new tactical order) Skirmish
Unit moves to within maximum range and fires. Whenever an enemy unit is closer than maximum range, the skirmishing unit retreats to its maximum range (or one move if less) and fires. A skirmishing unit driven from the field by an advancing enemy is routed. Any missile unit could be given this order.

(If maximum range doesn't work, a specific range might be set--a "skirmish range" value for missile troops (say, about 20 squares for most bows). That way, if a missile type doesn't skirmish (massed heavy archers, for example) the skirmish order won't work for them.

2) Skirmish Attack I: In this, the light cavalry attacks weak troops like archers and light infantry, but avoids engaging heavier units.

(revised tactical menu) Attack or Fire
The game mostly does this, but you might want to add a line to the Attack/Fire orders “Light Infantry” (defined for this purpose as infantry with protection 4 or less). Any unit could be given this target.

(new tactical order) Skirmish Attack
This is just like a skirmish order, but defaults to an Attack order when ammunition is exhausted.


3) Flanking: The game already does this to a great extent, about as much as we can expect it to. Put the LC on a flank, hold 2 turns and attack the target of choice. It works often enough to recreate the feel.

4) Pursuit: The light cavalry is held in reserve and released at the right moment to saber the fugitives. This always struck me as being more of a Napoleonic flourish than ancient or medieval practice. Still, simple is best, and it seems to me this can be adequately modeled as follows:

(new tactical order) Hold in Reserve
This is just like a hold order, except that it Lasts for 5 rounds (or however long you let the magic scripting go), then defaults to an Attack order. The idea is that the reserve unit is released just as the spellcasters go off script (allowing for a smidgen more coordination than we now have). Any unit can be given this order.

Sometimes, this will release the cavalry with the proper timing, sometimes it won’t. It would prevent light cavalry from streaming out and getting killed in the first couple rounds.

OTHER ORDER IDEAS

(new tactical order) Support Fire
Unit has “Hold” orders until an enemy approaches within range, at which time it defaults to Fire Closest orders. Of course, the unit does nothing if the enemy never comes into range.

(new strategic order) Train Troops
Troops under a leader with more experience stars than they have can train to receive extra experience.

[Design Notes:
1) Only troops benefit from this order; a commander gets standard experience points for the month.
2) Troops don’t gain bonus experience if they have the same number of stars or more as the commander. They get the standard +1 for breathing.
3) Units training for one turn receive 1 XP (for breathing) + 1 XP per two stars their commander has, rounded up.]

(new strategic order) Call Hero
Lets a prophet call for a hero to appear at the capital. If the need is great, the Pretender can support this call personally. Once the call succeeds, it will be six months before the prophet can try to call another hero. If the capital is not under friendly control, the call fails. Calling a hero does not affect and is not affected by the random arrival of heroes.

[The base success chance is 5%, adjusted by the national luck scale, for a range of 2%-8%. A Pretender adds a base 10% bonus, for a range of 12%-18%. The Pretender option only appears if the prophet option has been selected (picking the prophet option should prompt a query asking about adding in the Pretender). A message signaling when a Hero can again be called should be scripted in. Check hero list to make sure that all nations have a generic template hero seed that can be a default once the specially designed heroes are used.]

(new strategic order) Migrate
The leader organizes a population shift into an adjacent friendly province. The population moves with the leader. While the province must be friendly at the time of the order, the target population moves regardless of the fate of the commander or the ownership of the province at the end of the move.

[Land population can’t move into the sea, and vice versa. The amount of population moved is 50x unit capacity. Thus, a poor leader can move a 500 population. I was thinking of having the computer handle all of the number crunching, but it might be more fun to have a little “population unit” graphic.]



[This type of command is for people who want more tweaking. It may be too complex for the base game, but might be added as an option (default status off) for those who want to fiddle with it.]

A SOLO PLAY OPTION
While completely unsuitable for MP, this might be done as a toggle (default off) on the options screen.

Battlefield Signals
This would be a limited menu of “interrupt” orders that a solo player could trigger during a battle sequence.

These would represent battlefield signals via drums, trumpets, etc.

They are simple orders, defined before the battle starts, like unit orders.

An army might get 2-4 signals total during a battle, depending on nation, or maybe XP level of best leader. You’d get a popup before a battle giving the option to use signals. If you don’t set them then, you don’t have them.

Pausing the battle brings up the Signal Menu if you have enabled signals.

Routed and berserk units ignore signals. Typical signals might include:

[i]General Attack: All non-missile or non-spellcasting units default to Attack Closest.
General Pursuit: All units except spell casters default to Attack Closest.
General Retreat: All units rout from field.
Cavalry Recall: All cavalry return to commander and go to Hold orders until Fatigue is 50+, then default to Attack Closest Enemy.
Infantry Recall: All infantry return to commander and go to Hold orders until Fatigue is 50+, then default to Attack Closest Enemy.
Large Monster Halt: Large monsters default to Hold orders until damaged, then default to Attack Closest.
Archer Skirmish: All missile units (with skirmish capability) receive Skirmish orders. Ignore if no ammunition.
Archer Retreat: All missile troops retreat 1 move and default to Fire Closest orders.

Rearm Missiles: Non-javelin missile troops without ammunition move to their commander. They Hold for two turns, at the end of which their ammo count is reset to its original value. (This order might be enabled by a special “Baggage” unit [stratmove 1] that must accompany the army.)