suggestion about commanders

[Yojinbo]

klausD,

I understand your position better now. What about somthing even simpler, just a tendancy for certian troop types to move as a group and a +1 bonus to defence for any unit with like units on 2 sides?

You point about not wanting Ulm to advance like the enemy wild hordes hits home.

I may be making this too simple now.

[johan osterman]

Originally posted by klausD:
I am wondering that everybody thinks formations are such a great change to the game system. Of course one can invent a whole new tactical combat system with a formation system as the core. But this was not the point of my suggestion. ALL I was suggesting was to give a formation a +1 to Att or defend or whatever. Is this so difficult to implement? Of course if one does not want to implement such things to the game, he can always make an elephant out of a fly. He can always raise problems like "facing" (I never suggested facing options and I dont think that they are necessary at all), complicated algorithms if somebody likes to have "mixed squads" (easy to circumvent - if a player likes to give a formation order, simple dont allow mixed squads for formations) and as Last and the most difficult problem to solve he says "formations poses so a big problem because of those mindless troops..." Well again I have to say that all I wanted was an UNCOMPLICATED order to make one or two formation types (turtle for infantry and wedge/line for cavallery) with trained troops - a +1 to the defense/attack factor or so. (no facing, no brainless units, no mixed squads, no penguin special attack...) The reason was to add to the battle athmosphere. If I dont have control over the troops after battle begins, then I would like to have at least the feeling that my ULM infantry is an disciplined elite and not the same than the wild troll troupe of my enemy. In DOM1 the most troops are running around how they want and as fast as their AP allows - which dont contribute to the game athmosphere.
bye
KlausD

I, like bard of prey, assumed that formations would include flanks and flanking bonuses for attacking formations in the flanks. This is also the appeal of formations to me. Flanking and facing etc. would require a lot of work on the tactical abttles and tactical AI.

Still, even the more limited formations you are suggesting would require some work on the tactical battles and the tac AI, as well as on the strategic AI in order for it to group correct units into correct Groups etc. But in the end it boils down to the following: JK doesnt like programming AIs, Kristoffer has tried to make JK accept formations (although that was formations with flanks facing etc.) on and of for 6 years without success, ergo it is unlikely that there will ever be formations.

[ September 30, 2003, 15:52: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

[Psitticine]

Maybe a good solution would be a Hold Position command for squads. They'd stay in place (e.g. right in front of missile units) but fight those who come within melee range. They'd not move unless routed, or possibly beserked, but instead would maintain a defensive wall in front of vulnerable troops.

For me, that'd close the biggest tactical gap. You can Hold and Attack, but nobody can stay back and guard, unless they are Guarding Commander.

It'd also be nice, as has been previously mentioned, if troops ordered to flee (as opposed to those who broke) would stay with the army after victory.

Aside from that, formations would be a great and powerful addition, but additions are very different than things that feel "missing" when not there.

Maybe instead of true formations, the ability to have the troops line up in other than simple boxes? That wouldn't need to have any change for the battlefield aside from different start-up positions, and I wouldn't think it'd be too hard to add AI capacity to know when a line (for defensive men) is better than a box (for massed troops).

All just my 2¢, of course.

[st.patrik]

Lots of desirable & good things mentioned. Particularly the following:

1. units staying in their group, rather than dashing off each at their own speed. Or at least to have this as an option.

2. a 'hold' command

3. distinction between 'fleeing' and 'routing'

4. some kind of bonus for units which are flanked on either side by members of their squad - at least a morale bonus, and maybe a defense bonus. Of course the penalties to defense already in the game (at least Dom I) for being surrounded might have the same net effect, if you get my meaning. But maybe a morale bonus?

5. different shapes for squads - can be done manually by subdividing into small Groups and placing alongside, but it would be so much easier if you could just make a line.

Don't know if any of these are possible/probable, but they sound like good ideas to me.

[st.patrik]

I was browsing through the newgroup on strategic games on which there has been much discussion of Dominions and found an interesting discussion about retreating/routing etc. which I think highlights the need for a distinction between the two.

Here's the link: http://Groups.google.com/Groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&frame=right&th=78a826cc26bae4e6&seekm=3b686ab1.34607325%40news.inet.fi#link1

The point raised that grabbed my attention was the guy who tried to storm a castle, while leaving 3 sages on 'siege castle', failed to capture the castle, and had all his troops that routed killed automatically for fleeing into 'hostile' territory - even though he still owned the territory!

of course that doesn't have so much to do with the proposed distinction between routing and retreating, but something's definitely wrong there.

*edit - sorry this is the wrong thread - the one that I meant to post in was "Cavalry archers, and other lost units"

[ October 01, 2003, 18:04: Message edited by: st.patrik ]

[Nerfix]

If this gets fixed...
I feel the Illwinter Dominion increasing...

[Saber Cherry]

Full-featured formations would take a lot of work, of course. However, I think that 2 small changes could add a substantial amount of control and flexibility, for minimal development effort, minimal army-screen micromanagement, without breaking the AI.

The changes:

1) A "Tight" versus "Loose" toggle for each group.

Tight: Default. Like Dom I, units are packed as close as size allows; e.g., 5 hobbits, 3 humans, 2 horses, or 1 troll per square.

Loose: Units are packed less tightly. The number per square is max/2, rounded up. Examples include 3 hobbits, 2 humans, 1 horse, or 1 troll per square.

2) "Square" versus "Wide" toggle for each group.

Square: Default. Like Dom I, the group is shaped like a square on the map.

Wide: The group forms a 2x1 rectangle, 2 tall by 1 wide. In other words, the group shows a wider face to the enemy, but is not as deep.

I think that adding both of these would allow players to better utilize - and increase the strategic differences between - heavy/light troops, cavalry/infantry, and ranged/melee units. Furthermore, it would allow easier and more flexible deployment. Currently, you can achieve both of these effects - mostly - by breaking your army into lots of tiny units. In other words, you can make a "loose-ish" formation by placing units in 4 adjacent Groups rather than a single group, and you can make a "wide-ish" formation by placing 2 Groups vertically adjacent. Both of these are tedious, imprecise, disrupt AI targetting algorithms more than the formations would, and require constant rebalancing after each battle to keep the same number of troops in each sub-group. Furthermore, split subGroups rout very easily compared to large Groups.

This does not, of course, give the "Formations or Bust" party what it wants, but I think it would be a quick and easy way to increase battlefield control while reducing micromanagement. Thoughts?

-Cherry