User:Atreides/Combat System Improvements

While no one will argue that the current combat system is good, it could use some improvement. I see that it has changed recently, and it looks like it’s for the better, but essentially not many new factors were added. The main problems I have with it are: somewhat predictable battles and more importantly, a lack of options, both on a large scale down to the individual units. I will outline some of my ideas tackling these problems. I will try to make them not depend on each other as much as possible, so that developers can implement those they like (if any) and ignore the rest. When they do depend on one another I will state so. Also I will try to grade them by the ease of implementation, of course I don’t know the code but I do know how much some features go against that which we already have working in the game. Each feature will follow the same layout, first outlining the problem, then explaining the historical and realistic solution to this (where possible) and finally my attempt to translate that into BM. Some features, which are purely related to BM, will of course lack the historical section. My goal here is not to make BM more of a medieval combat simulator, rather it is to improve the game itself and make it more fun and enjoyable. I will only be turning to history and realism for ideas in solving my self proclaimed problems.

Large scale changes

These changes will focus only on army level and above.

Improved morale

Implementation difficulty: medium.

Problem

Currently when a battle takes place usually, if the opposing armies are equally matched, they butcher each other, with no side gaining a decisive victory. As I see it, the only way to win a battle decisively in BM right now is to either have considerably more troops and/or troop leaders, or that one side screws up their settings. When equal armies fight it doesn’t matter much if you win or lose, both sides often end up with similar casualties, and this gives rise to number crunching, to the loss of suspense. A big battle should always be, at the very least, a calculated gamble, not a pure calculation.

Historical premise

During the medieval times a large battle was always a big gamble, and to be avoided. Border skirmishes and raids were much preferred. When a large battle did take place, it was extremely rare for it to be an indecisive affair. Mostly one side gave way, their morale broken, and started to rout. The victor would then pursue and cut them down without mercy. It was indeed common that more men die in a rout then during the entire battle.

BM solution

Of course making battles too random won’t be fun for anyone, it has to be just the right amount of random, probably the hardest thing to determine here. By doing it right it can make battles more decisive for the victor, but not really devastating. We don’t want wars to end in three battles, just make them harder to calculate and make a victory mean more for the victor and loser both. I don’t really know how BM handles morale right now, so I’ll make a few assumptions, to illustrate my point. Let’s say that each unit has its morale value, calculated as a function of its training, cohesion, banners present, troop leader’s leadership skill and its captain’s leadership skill, while morale would decrease after suffering casualties. Certain triggers then make the unit test its morale, to see if it flees or fights on. A simple system that rolls three dice gives a pretty good probability spread. So the average morale is 10, when a unit needs to test for morale the system rolls the dice, and on 10 or lower it passes, otherwise it fails and flees. Actions that make a unit test for morale could be: losing more than a quarter of its size to ranged fire in the same round, taking more losses in a round of combat than the unit it fought, losing a banner, leader getting wounded or captured and so on. BM already does this somehow on the small scale, which is good, but it does not on a large scale. There should be a mechanism that makes the entire army retreat at some point, rather than all the units fighting individually until they rout or get annihilated. Picking the mechanism that decides this is tricky. One possible solution is to make the morale of individual units matter up the hierarchy. So, we have an army, which is a collection of units. The army’s morale could be determined as the average of all its units, rounded down. Leadership skill of a marshal or SIC currently leading it should also affect it, either positively or negatively. The system would need to remember the starting number of units in all armies. Once an army is down to say half its starting units, a new feature kicks in. For each unit that flees the battle, adjacent units must pass their morale test (this does assume that all units in an army are arrayed next to each other, I don’t know if that’s the case already). If an adjacent unit fails its morale test too, then the one next to it has to test as well. If more than half fail their tests, the entire army flees. Take note that if the army does not flee, individual units that failed the morale test in this way do not flee either. Let’s say a host is a collection of armies. If one army in a host flees, adjacent armies must test their leadership as well. So it’s really the same principle carried up the hierarchy of troops. Any troops that are not in an army are placed in a temporary army, for example the Unsorted army, and then they can be treated the same as troops in an army, without bonus for actually being and army of course. This would also mean that realms with one huge army or those that don’t use armies for command would be in a disadvantage. If you have more armies they can flee piecemeal, while one army flees en masse. Of course, getting these values right is the hard part. It would take some serious testing, but the gain is in my opinion well worth the effort.

Routs and pursuits

Implementation difficulty: hard.

Depends on: Improved morale.

Problem

Now that troops do flee en masse, a way to pursue them would be a very logical option, and I can imagine, a very fun one for players.

Historical premise

As I already stated, it was common for more troops to die in pursuit then in the battle. One type of unit that really shined here was of course the cavalry, and the lighter the better. In an infantry battle, a lightly equipped force was at a disadvantage against a well armored one, but if it won it had an obvious advantage during the rout. All that heavy armor is only in your way when you try to run away with your life.

BM solution

If Improved morale was implemented we would get a potential situation where many units might flee the battle before they took serious casualties. Some might even flee despite not losing any troops. This is not adding to the decisiveness of battles of course, and pursuing should fix that. So, after the battle is completed, like it is now, when there are no more units of one side in the field, a new phase needs to be added, before the battle is officially over. All remaining troops on the opposing side of the routed host get to pursue the enemy. In game terms, each unit on the victor’s side has a chance of killing or wounding troops of a fleeing enemy unit. I have not worked out exactly what this chance would be, but here are some factors: - cavalry is the best unit type for pursuing, it should be the most effective - units that ran away last have a higher chance to suffer casualties (heroics are not awarded here) - the lower a units armor rating is the better it pursues, and the reverse, the higher armor of a fleeing unit the more chance it will be caught (maybe a combined rating of both weapons and armor is better here, not sure) - archers should be the worst at pursuing - line formation is the best at pursing, then box, then wedge. Skirmishing units should probably have the same success as those in line, perhaps more - aggressive units are best at pursuing, then neutral, then defense. Murderous I’m not sure about, evading units of course don’t get to pursue, even if they did participate in a battle

More effective cavalry

Implementation difficulty: see below.

Problem

Currently cavalry is pretty good in a fight. They have a devastating charge, like they should, and they die more easily after that, also good. They are useless in a siege, again, as they should be. What is the problem then? Let’s see.

Historical premise

Cavalry ruled the battlefield for a long time, until adoption of good quality rifles and artillery, along with the doctrine to use them, made them obsolete. This didn’t fully happen until shortly before WW1. In medieval times, cavalry forces rode down common soldiers with ease. This was mostly because those common soldiers were feudal levies of some sort, lacking the training and motivation to fight at all, let alone stand their ground against a disciplined cavalry charge. Only after the professional soldier armed with a pike emerged, did favor shift from cavalry to infantry. Cavalry units would charge with their lances and tried to break the enemy formation as much as they tried to slaughter the enemy. After the charge, with their lances broken, they fought on with swords. Such a fight could quickly go against them, so they would quickly disengage regroup and charge again. During a siege or when fighting in terrain unsuitable for horses, knights and man-at-arms often dismounted and fought on foot.

BM solution

To cover all of the above, three new features would need to be introduced.

Regroup and charge again

Implementation difficulty: easy.

After charging into battle, each unit gets an opportunity to disengage and charge again. This is determined on an individual basis, each unit must pass a morale check or something similar. If it fails, it stays and fights on normally. Each turn of combat, if the cavalry unit wins against its opposing unit, if gets a chance to regroup again, that is, it gets another morale check. By winning I mean it causes more casualties then it takes, modified by additional factors if needed. Since this is potentially a very powerful option, it could be limited in various ways. Maybe only cavaliers can use it, troop leader must have high leadership skill or the units must have high training/cohesion. Maybe a combination of all these factors. Certainly a unit capable of this can be devastating on the battlefield, it could be a nice option for cavaliers, since currently they don’t have many.

Fight dismounted

Implementation difficulty: easy.

Allow an option for cavalry units to fight dismounted. Once dismounted they are treated as infantry, with the same stats as they had before. Like this you lose the main advantage of cavalry units, which is the charge, but it gives you an option to be useful when attacking walls. This could also potentially be a cavalier option only.

Break trough

Implementation difficulty: medium.

Depends on: Improved morale.

When a cavalry unit charges (not just fights in hands to hand combat, it must be on the charge) and if it wipes out the opposing unit or makes it flee, the entire army of the defeated unit must make a morale check to test if it will flee as well. This would be handled by the same mechanic described in the Improved morale section. Note that by army I mean just that, not the entire host (as I call a collection of armies). The same limitation that the army must be at half its original strength could apply, though I think it would be better if it did not. This would model the case when a cavalry unit opens a hole in the enemy line, after which the entire army panics, a common occurrence in medieval warfare. I can only imagine the bragging rights this would give to the character who causes an entire army to flee and thus win the battle for his side.

Small scale changes

These changes will focus on unit and character level changes.

Wooden stakes

Implementation difficulty: easy.

Problem

This is a new feature, not related to any problems.

Historic premise

Archers would sometimes put wooden stakes in the ground in front of them, to protect them from cavalry charges and disrupt attacking enemy formations. A line of archers protected in this way, bolstered with infantry, could hold their own against even the most determined of cavalry. English armies perfected this technique of fighting, a prime example being the battle of Crecy.

BM solution

This would be an added option for an army that wants to dig in for defense. After the already existing digging in, a unit would have an option of putting down wooden stakes. Any cavalry unit charging at such units would suffer casualties and morale penalties. Any other attacking unit would also suffer morale penalties. An interesting possibility for the future would arise when wood is implemented as a resource, if ever. If it did, a condition for a unit to set up wooden stakes could be that the same unit has to have a cart carrying wood. In woodland regions such limitation should not be applicable. If Improved cavalry was implemented, this feature could be scaled to offset the increased effectiveness of cavalry.

Battlefield sermon

Implementation difficulty: easy.

Problem

This is a new feature, not related to any problems. Gives a new option for the priest class, which is nice.

Historical premise

Religious fervor was a powerful force, motivating men to acts of bravery and exertion they might not normally be capable of. Throughout history, priests have been there to give confidence to men about to fight and die.

BM solution

A priest could have an option to hold a battlefield sermon. Troop leaders of the same faith and their units would be affected, improving their morale. It could last for maybe a day before the effect is lost, or until the troops engage in a fight, whichever comes sooner.