Tactical battles

[jamespcrowley]

Battlefield Tactics allow the player to make decisions that can turn the tide of battle.

Could someone expand on this please.

I have previously avoided Ageod games because the player appears to have little control over the battles which are, essentially, auto-resolved.

To what extent has this changed in this iteration of the game engine.

[Leibst]

This is not a new feature of ECW. This was present at TYW, EAW, WoN and CW2.
When combat occurs, between armies comanded by three stars generals and in a game against AI you can choose a battle deployment and a subbattle plan. The way it affects is related with how and how much units take part in the battle.
For example, if you have a lot of cavalry and the enemy not, you can choose a deployment with a strong cavalry flank.
And once that is chose, you select if you want a strong attack or a weakst one.
It also depends of what the enemy chooses but this can affect in the way the comabat is resolved. In this case, more cavalry units will take part on the combat and affect of the casualties suffered by the enemies if they are routed as your cavalry will be chasing them.
Others are relative to the use of artillery (in CW2, EAW), etc...

But in AGEOD system what is critical is the quality of units, and many attributes, the terrain, weather, cohesion, ammo, morale, leader in command and his abbilities,... So it is not so much in hands of the fortune.

[jamespcrowley]

Thanks Leibst
Sounds a bit more involving than I had thought; I shall keep an eye on this one.

[Philippeatbay]

The fundamental problem with *not* auto-resolving combat in a game like this is the risk that a player with a force commanded by weak or incompetent leaders will win battles on the battlefield that he should in fact have been losing.

If you really want to see what happens on those battlefields, take a look at Richard Bodley Scott's Pike and Shot Campaigns.

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=299

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: Philippe at bay

The fundamental problem with *not* auto-resolving combat in a game like this is the risk that a player with a force commanded by weak or incompetant leaders will win battles on the battlefield that he should in fact have been losing.

If you really want to see what happens on those battlefields, take a look at Richard Bodley Scott's Pike and Shot Campaigns.

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=299

+1

Pike & Shot Campaigns is an excellent game.

[TDefender]

But in AGEOD system what is critical is the quality of units, and many attributes, the terrain, weather, cohesion, ammo, morale, leader in command and his abbilities,... So it is not so much in hands of the fortune.

Completely agree... unfortunately all this lovely detail runs with a totally muddled and unfriendly combat battle report.

[Leibst]

I've been thinking even going further, not in an Ageod game, but in a future engine, regarding having even less information and not as we have here an online information of what is happening to us the player, the commander of all the armies.
A game simulating you are in a city, where you have the Heaquarter of your whole Army, and from there send orders that really have to be sent and arrive to the destiny, receive reports and that in the UI map you see what your reports say and in fact dont has to be the real situation until you receive an update. For example you are Gen Washington and you are in New York, some weeks ago you sent Greene with 4k men to advance to Saratoga and take it. You can see where was Greene the day your last update says, but you really dont know if Sarataga has fallen or even Greene has been defeated.
In such a game you have no control over the combat unless you are in command of the army in the battle phisically, but you are the whole commander of all the troops, leaders, resources,....

[zakblood]

just from my point of view and play style likes,

i'd like to be the overall commander, but have the options and choices to go into any level at any time, so commander in chief plus have the ability to be a single unit on the ground also.

have a AI smart enough to control everything, or only the parts i wish to release to it.

watch combat as it happens, or just take part in it, again at any level, single unit, company commander to army commander etc.

i really enjoy your game maps, but the lack of combat at any level, just doesn't give me the feel of control, i think what you're saying is more realistic, but also further from my own gaming style and wishes and what i like and can play.

In such a game you have no control over the combat unless you are in command of the army in the battle physically, but you are the whole commander of all the troops, leaders, resources,....

so almost the totally opposite of what you have put above i'm sorry to say, i wish for combat, but also with depth of command, not one or the other, but being greedy i want both.

[:D]

[jack54]

ORIGINAL: Leibst

I've been thinking even going further, not in an Ageod game, but in a future engine, regarding having even less information and not as we have here an online information of what is happening to us the player, the commander of all the armies.
A game simulating you are in a city, where you have the Heaquarter of your whole Army, and from there send orders that really have to be sent and arrive to the destiny, receive reports and that in the UI map you see what your reports say and in fact dont has to be the real situation until you receive an update. For example you are Gen Washington and you are in New York, some weeks ago you sent Greene with 4k men to advance to Saratoga and take it. You can see where was Greene the day your last update says, but you really dont know if Sarataga has fallen or even Greene has been defeated.
In such a game you have no control over the combat unless you are in command of the army in the battle phisically, but you are the whole commander of all the troops, leaders, resources,....

Interesting Matrix "Campaigns on the Danube" By Frank Hunter has something like that 'Full FOW'; it's an older game but might be worth taking a look at it. I've never had the nerve to try that level... here's an quote from the manual.

3.2.3 Full

Campaigns on the Danube – User manual

With Full Fog on the player cannot see the enemy units
but also cannot see his own units! When units are visible
on the map the player has to remember that that is only
the last reported position of the unit, whether it be friendly
or enemy. The reported positions may be several hours
old, or even longer. With this setting even combat results
and the capture of towns exist only in reports that have to
travel back to the player in order to be read.
This setting provides the most realistic battlefield
conditions. It is recommended that players do not start
with this setting when first being introduced to the system.
In a game between two experienced players, however, it
presents a very interesting option.

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/product.asp?gid=282

[Leibst]

Hi Jack, so this has been already done, interesting indeed.

[Kharkov]

Is the battle status screen still present once a battle has been resolved? This in previous games was totally confusing and I didnt really have a clue as to why battles turned out the way they did. Maybe it was me not understanding what the screen was trying to tell me but I'm sure I wasnt alone in this.

In general I loved the AGEOD maps and game play but the battles were a complete let down.

[Leibst]

That has not changed in its functionality.
In the users manual is detailed how the combat is resolved. As I have said, there are many factors that we have to take in to acount when we go to battle, many of them very familiar with other games, terrain, weather, trench level, morale,... other are Ageod ones, the cohesion, the abilities of the commanders and that of the units, the combat attitude, ammo supply, and the frontage (really important to understand this if you want to get a full understanding of how battles are performed).
Said this, the engine calculate round after round what units are really taking part on that combat round, and wich of them fire on the enemy (you can see in the log folder the complete detail of what has happened but its not firendly to read a txt file), and depending of the troop quality, and other factors of the unit, you achieve an impact in the enemy unit you are firing to, you can also miss the shot. But if the unit hits the enemy then some health and cohesion damage is done.
In the report you can see for each round of combat the total hits in health and cohesion and the detailed for each unit, damage done and received and several events happened to each unit during combat (lucky if firing, morale check failed, crossing a river, entrenched, if the unit has killen an enemy subunit,...)
So we have a lot of information, maybe is not quite easy to understand but there is.

Sometimes happen that you lose a battle but you suffer few casualties, even less than the enemy. This is not so nice, because you claim the victory! but this means the enemy hold the ground, or you commander stopped the attack.

[altipueri]

You really must take a look at Campaigns on the Danube which I think gives the best idea of being a commander in the pre telegraph/phone era think.

There are some reasonably current AARs on the Matrix forum site.


@Leibst - I'll get this anyway based on your efforts with Espana and Thirty Years War. Please get someone to look at the map before it is irrevocable - the little bits I see on the screenshots show Berkshire south of London when it is west. Is there a beta tester program?

[Leibst]

You are right altipueri, no one saw this before. It can be fixed, don't worry. I'm sure we can polish all this kind of details with time. But now we want to release the game asap.

[DEB]

I have also noted a map error re the Counties !

The City of Leicester should be in Leicestershire not Nottinghamshire ...

IMHO the County names used on the screenshots shown cover too large an area when compared to the actual counties. Perhaps more / all counties need to be added ???

Do you have a Map of the UK with the counties shown ? This can be found in most GB/UK World Atlas's...

[ A current map should suffice for your needs, as most of the county boundaries have remained relatively unchanged, except for some of the very small counties that have now been merged with larger neighbours. ]

[redcoat]

I think Leicester might be in the right place on the map. It is the map label 'Nottinghamshire' that is in the wrong place. It is too far south.

The city of Nottingham should be in the game / on the map. The Civil War started there ('Standard Hill') and it was a Parliamentarian base throughout most of the war. Nottingham was also larger than many of the other towns I've seen in the screenshots. It also had a defensible castle - which the Royalists failed to capture during the war.

[DEB]

I think Leicester might be in the right place on the map. It is the map label 'Nottinghamshire' that is in the wrong place. It is too far south.

Agreed. That was what I meant ( expressed inconcisely )...

The city of Nottingham should be in the game / on the map. The Civil War started there ('Standard Hill') and it was a Parliamentarian base throughout most of the war. Nottingham was also larger than many of the other towns I've seen in the screenshots. It also had a defensible castle - which the Royalists failed to capture during the war.

Quite correct. Poor oversight by Map designer...

[DEB]

The City of Leicester should be in Leicestershire not Nottinghamshire ...

To clarify : Nottinghamshire is approx. 65% ( centrally ) above the River Trent.

[ A current map should suffice for your needs, as most of the county boundaries have remained relatively unchanged, except for some of the very small counties that have now been merged with larger neighbours. ]

This is not quite accurate ( apologies ). It is generally correct with respect to England, but not Wales. There have been various changes to Welsh "counties" since the ECW re names and boundaries...

NB : I can't recall if the screen shots of the map showed this or not, but "Shropshire" was known as Salop in the ECW period.

[Leibst]

We can change that kind of details for sure if it is needed. We are open to polish details.
Regarding the cities, following design needs linked with the engine, the size of regions, etc.. some cities that could be represented are not. In fact, as we have went deeper and deeper in the huge details of this war, we saw many things that simply can't be represented. But, at least, we want to be able to give you a nice and enjoyable pc-game experience at this strategic level.
With the help of this comunity we could make it better after release, I'm sure, and we will work on that.

[theprisoner]

I am very excited about this project, having tried to design an ECW high level simulation myself (using Microsoft Access / VBA). The frustrating part is the relation between time and distance - if you have a game turn of a week or more then armies can march from one key centre to another (such as London and Oxford) in a single move and all sense of the campaign is lost. If you have a more realistic timeframe such as daily moves, the games drag on for hundreds of turns.
There is also the problem that there were hundreds of fortified sites, such as castles, manor houses, country estates, even old iron age hill forts, that could block enemy movement and which had to be besieged, so that there were countless small engagements as part of any campaign. Many of the "regions" depicted on the maps in the screenshots would have had several major military centres. I don't expect this level of complexity to be reflected in the game but if there could be truly regional campaigns on bigger maps - such as the war in the west from Cornwall to Bristol - then it could get very interesting indeed without the level of detail becoming overwhelming.
One final point - I saw a screenshot which referred to the Earl of Essex as Robert Deveraux - real names were never used if you had a title.