Goodmorning all,
Elemental Promises to have battles scaling from 1 chanaller and his 5 plucky sidekicks all the way to 10,000+ unit armies with heroes, tacticians, landscape altering spells, and who knows what else. . . . But I haven't seen very much discussion on how the game will play this huge scale difference. . . . so I thought I would post some thoughts.
Overall Suggestion (in a nut shell). Each size army (5 defined) has its own function, and strengths and weaknesses; For the most part units are trained and build to be included in an army / task force of a given size. A unit for a party of size 10 has completely different skills and bonuses that you want to train them in then a Platoon which will be one of many in an army of 900. My suggestion is formatted to keep all army sizes useful until even late game. Thus even in late game you might still create a lone unit with skills trained for one on one combat, (or as your Chanaller’s Elite Guard) I hope you'll like it.
1-10 people We're talking chanaller, maybe a hero or two, and a few (wo)men with big sticks(or bows). Primary use: Early game Secondary use: Cave crawling/hero leveling. Primary elements: Every unit matters, every unit independently controlled, semi- X-com style. Death of one member gives temporary rage/anger boost to others seeking revenge, until killer is defeated. Limitations: Formations effects non-existent, Group unit abilities non-existent, moral effects limited, and leadership abilities non-existent. This is your standard D&D sized team (bit big), abilities should be focused on each individual, and any abilities that are outside this scope are useless. Result: Even in late game you'll want to have a fair number of small teams strike forces of elite units trained in individual combat to clean out caves, capture lone towers, and defeat wandering monsters. Sending 1,000 troops to clean out a goblin cave . . . . Unless it's a goblin fort for a fully fledged goblin society . . . is ridiculous, the result should be large and unnecessary losses just because big armies are not trained to fight that way.
Note: Except in rare situations, or VERY VERY early game this size simply can't attack towns, you just can't command the fear and respect needed to replace a governance of a town, even a small one (small towns being more loyal because everybody knows everybody and the 'mayor' is more by general agreement sort of thing, not somebody you can actually replace and hope to govern and control the populous) Note, If any thing like weapon damage types were to be included in the game, they would ONLY and exclusively be used in battles between groups of this size. Beyond this very personal level it contributes NOTHING but unnecessary / un-fun complication.
Note: It may be possible to have a battle of this size occur anytime in the late game an army unit tries to attack your chanaller (command stack). Say a 500 unit army tries to take your command tent; then your 10 hero's and chanaller go into a sub battle against 10 - 20 opponents. If you defeat all opponents you survive that battle round, and can move troops to intercept before next round where you face another 20 -30 ( 30 -40, 40 -50). This continues until you get one of your remaining troops to defeat the attacking stack (not if you have no more remaining troops on the field you probably just loose under the assumption that you lost.) [IE this is meant to buy you time to de-checkmate yourself if you can, defeating the whole stack is not Impossible, but not the point, and should be weighted such that surviving more then 2 rounds is unlikely/ nearly impossible.]
10- 75 people: This is the last level at which hero's are viable units for individual control. Having one hero single handedly defeat more then 10 units over a battle in hand to hand combat . . . is beginning to push reasonable limits. Regular (non hero) units start to get grouped by function and skills in groups of 10 - 15.
Primary Use: early - early-mid game Secondary use: Strike teams, raiding teams,
This size would be used continuously in the game for an empire that liked to use guerrilla tactics, trainable to perform hit and runs, supply raids, set up ambushes and lead tactical retreats to larger pre-setup ambushes. 'Force' divided into units of 10 - 15, or 'Hero' class. 10-15 unit groups can experience the above mentioned outrage at the death of one of its members, but this has a reduced effect. Very early group skills can be used, (a wall of pikes, isn't really much of a wall with only 10 pike men.... but it's not a joke like a one man wall of pikes[what's that? same as a lap when your standing up is what that is].). Having One unit in a group of 10-15 with a special skill gives the Unit that skill (Archery + Medic, the rest have Archery only). Hero's of the 'Fight and kill' type excel in this roll, Leadership abilities would be de-emphasized. Moral would also be de-emphasized, but unlike previous would not be nearly ignored. Groups of this size can be broken up into individual units still, or formed from individual units with similar abilities. 75 - 500 people; We're now talking about a modest army, Moral effects become important, formations effects being to come into account, individual rolls lost, basic unit a group of 50+ troops with nearly identical training/equipment. Primary use: Mid=early late game secondary use: Land, territory, and resource claim, city concurring (outliers, poorly defended.) This is as I see it the basic army. This is the size Most of your armies are going to be for most of the game. Capable of setting up outposts, defending and claiming territory even setting up shop and creating temporary towns. (Everything that your HOMM armies do and a bit more.) Even in late game settings this is still the fundamental unit of army-ness in my mind. bigger armies then that might be available to take big towns or impress upon an enemy that you're not to be trifled with... but this is your standard give them a task, they get it done groups size. In this army heroes don't play a direct role (spell casters and dragons or other super beasts aside) hero’s are a leadership stat and perhaps a few additional bonuses. Most heroes and chanallers, spell casters are no longer physically displayed, or are given a metaphorical position (command hut, for capture the flag like end battle possibilities). Not that I don't want hero's in the late game, but I don't want HOMM4 style gods-O-war, where one lone unit stands in the square next to an archery stack of 400 and swings his/her sword and 82 units die ... really? At this level training becomes of utmost importance. Groups are now big enough that turtleing, (for example) is meaningful, and 'Rain of arrows' actually is a rain of arrows (rather then 10....). Troops that are being made to join one of these armies are trained together in platoons (word) they gain experience as one, they fight as one, they are for the most part indivisible [perhaps merger of two damaged platoons in dire straits]. Most group abilities are now activatible. Some mechanic would be needed for the replacing of troops and experience, but that is outside the scope of this post. Individual skills are no longer tracked nor relevant; death of individual units is statistical, no more rage bonuses. However Formation effects become prevalent, getting behind a group of archers is a more significant feet then getting behind one dude who can just turn around. Note: Groups of this size are trained to attack groups of this size, They perform less well when fighting forces significantly smaller then themselves especially in highly varied terrain (mountains, forests) this makes the strike forces and guerrilla warfare all the more useful because a small force can attack, damage and disengage with few losses because other troops of the army just can't get to the battle fast enough to contribute, or there is only so much area around the attackers.
Note 2: This is the size an army needs to be to take over and control a small town, in mid and late games, Armies smaller then this wouldn't be able to properly control unwilling civilians *Note Liberating a town is a different matter, the size below can do that* 500 - 5000 people Town Siege, fortification destruction/creation. Were talking really significant forces now. Primary use: Punching through defenses, Concurring lands, defeating empires. Secondary use: Very late game replacing the 75-500 unit team as basic unit of army-ness Moral, Leadership, Training, Rutting, Formation, Landscape Training, Training, Training, and Training. These are the fundamentals of controlling these sized armies. Again like the previous troops are trained and equipped in groups as single controllable units by the 100's (200 - 300 people / controllable unit). Moral and rutting is become crucially important (more troops die when units break ranks and run for their lives then in most medieval battles before rutting) How well your troops are trained to work as a unit, how skilled your Leaders/hero's are maintaining moral and maintaining discipline are of utmost importance. Leadership all gathered in one symbolic location, capture the flag esk.
Note: maintaining armies of this size requires additional maintenance costs to ship food, supplies, maintain. These are highly inefficient armies designed to Conquer and Crush, Heavy hand, High maintenance costs.
Note: Supply lines for forces of this size must be defined and are juicy targets for guerrilla forces.
5000+ people armies. Game End armies: Everything about the 500- 5000 sized army, Squared. The effect of training, formation, maintenance, moral, leadership: Everything over the top. A single army of this size will eat a towns food production each turn, specially set up supply lines are not just necessary they are crucial lost of those, even if temporary can cripple an army of this size's will to fight and moral. TPK, your game ending army just turned into a game ending mob of people who hate you. /wall of text I Would appreciate thoughts, the system is not perfect and balancing will be required without doubt. But I hope the general idea of army function as a function of size makes it into the final game, and I think my suggestion is capable of this. Oh and karma is welcome :- P Take care all Robbie Price
I would say, you select a certain amount of soldiers of one type and click "create unit" ... they move in the same direction, are basically a rectangle, triangle, or mob of people, you can't separate them (well, you can, just not during the battle), and so there is less flexibility, but strength in numbers, rank + file.
The more organic and fluid you want your Front lines to be, you will have more units of smaller soldier count, and the less that matters, you can probably have up to 1000 soldiers in one massive mob moving forwards on the map.
This is why I think flanking should be REALLY important ... also, how would a large unit of 1000 people work? Well, say its 10 people deep, 100 across ... and lets say a large group of cavalry comes into the center of the group and crushes the center ... well the cavalry continue on the other side, the unit takes a significant morale hit (but its ok, they have plenty of numbers left, so won't really be so bad, minimal for a 1000 soldier unit) ... but the unit CANNOT TURN AROUND!!!! The unit has to face the same direction, so that forward facing rectangle would have to swing around, as in that soldier on the very edge of the swing would have to travel the distance of (Width*pi)/2, where width is the width of the unit, aka 100 soldiers slightly wider than shoulder to shoulder. Thats .... ALOT OF DISTANCE. So cavalry could literally tear a gigantic unit to shreds because it would never be able to face the cavalry, except for maybe that initial encounter ... but if you force all your cavalry through on one point, the cavalry will be able to destroy you from behind, and you can do nothing. Which is why flexibility is fairly important. You cannot simply "about face" and the entire unit turns 180 degrees in one instant. A unit is made to face a certain direction .... but the more you have the greater your morale is ... so its finding that happy medium of not getting flanked or slaughtered from behind, while at the same time having enough soldiers in the unit for decent morale. (it seems amount of HP would effect morale)
Hm, yeah, I've always wondered how unit sizes will scale up under certain circumstances. You can basically create 1 soldier at a time if you want to, each with its own gear and training. I'm wondering how exactly they will all be mashed together when a battle begins, and into what sizes.
Goodmorning all
While yes this is an obvious, and simple mechanic, I hope that Elemental will not go this way for several reasons. 1. I don't want to make an army of 10,000 one at a time, Ok so this is weak and a workaround will exsist, but the system really shouldn't even have this as an option. (questions of what to do when units joining are not 'identical', tracking every unit... strikes me as overcomplicated)
2. The system lacks natural distinction between army sizes, If a unit is trained alone, the training and skills are completely different then training to be one of a platoon, The method i'm suggesting allows units to be trained, as groups, with skills that the whole group shares, coordinated motions, diciplined drills, these are things lone warriors are not trained for. 3. An army/platoon should have differnt behavours and effects due to size, groups of 5 - 10 carrying enough food and supplies to last them a week or so on a pack mule and forging where they can, an army of 10,000 simply can't, that many people forging would strip a land bear, instantly. I would rather a system which i know in advance what the maintaince's are going to be by choosing how big a group to make, lone wolf, group, platoon, legion.
This is why I think flanking should be REALLY important ... also, how would a large unit of 1000 people work? Well, say its 10 people deep, 100 across ... and lets say a large group of cavalry comes into the center of the group and crushes the center ... well the cavalry continue on the other side, the unit takes a significant morale hit (but its ok, they have plenty of numbers left, so won't really be so bad, minimal for a 1000 soldier unit) ... but the unit CANNOT TURN AROUND!!!! . . ..
I was going to mention about-face and an argument against it somewhere. There are formations that all face outward ... and these cannot move forward. This is why you have separate units. A single unit is fighting as one organism, and each person has their particular place in the unit they are used to. I'd like to hear an instance where a Pre-gunpowder unit of soldiers did a man-by-man about face. Im fairly certain, for reasons I can't think of right now, the tactic was not feasable.
Now, will a unit probably be able to reform more quickly than what I suggested? sure, some soldiers can run more, others can simply turn around. The main point is that people on the "left flank" of a unit can't suddenly be on the "right flank" or they will feel out of place, and the unit's organization will crumble. but yea, the people on the edges of the unit will run faster, ect. Still, would certainly take more than a full combat turn to rotate. also, I consider a gigantic unit of 1000 people to be entirely bulky ... and when someone is simply Auto-calc-ing and in "auto-win" mode or something. It can be kinda fun to watch 1000 people march across ... and truly a single unit of 1000 would be able to defeat any sort of infantry placed in-front of it. Also the hypothetical cavalry division would have to spend many men to break thorugh such a unit, perhaps even use up a unit or two of their own .... and it has to be done quickly, before the body reforms.
I agree a unit of 10,000 (of the same unit) would just be silly. Im seeing most units being between 20-80 soldiers or so, but thats just me. Certain shock-troop/ cannon fodder troops might have much bigger unit sizes ... man im sleepy.
All-in-all, agreeable, except for the notion that all 1000 soldiers will simultaneously about face, and be perfectly ok with it. Thats just a pet peeve.
I approve of walls-o-text
I just want to point out, you have that whole "armies should be 500-5000" thing towards the end where you suggest that over 5000 is end of the road... and what instantly came to mind was the moment where Saruman says "Tens of thousands" when discussing the size of his army of orcs (which all looked like normal identical foot soldiers to me, but whatever). And that shouldn't be late game... that should be mid game. (assuming we set lord of the rings as a standard of scale. Something that Frogboy has done in the dev journals before, so I think its a fair starting place)
I think that 5,000 should therefor be mid to late game, rather than just late game. I'd like to see something like the battle of Helm's Deep where like 20,000 orcs might attack a fortress or dragon or something. I mean, we know how players play, and that is going to be to "build a huge army and attack somebody". So the late game conflicts should be really crazy. Most historical "battles" that come to mind all have death toles in the 1000s. Battle of Gettysburg was something in the 7,000 - 8,000 deaths with 40,000 - 50,000 people fighting, and I think fireballs are a fair replacement for cannons in terms of ability to kill masses before they decide to retreat.
Of course I'm kinda nit-picking wording. You say "armies" rather than "units" In an army of ~20,000 you arn't going to to have all foot soldiers. You're going to have 5000 foot soldiers, 7500 archers, 3000 light horsemen, 2000 veteran footsoldiers, 1000 armored mounted troops, 1000 seige weapon operators, 5 mages, and 100 veteran bear-cavalry (bear-cavalry would already be veteran because they survived the "battle" to get mount the bear)
Of course armies will be varied. Generally its assumed that equipping mass infantry is easier than all other forms of warfare ... so if you are say ... building the cheapest 20,000 soldier army thats still cost effective, in the least amount of time, probably a good 10,000 or so will be foot-soldiers, With alot of archers (4-5k), another 4 thousand cavarly (if you can afford it, and have stables/horses) ... and finally about 1-2k of specialty units/ect. Including mages perhaps. In addition to that you might have one or two heroes, maybe an adventurer (is there a difference) ... and possibly a general (a hero might be a general, but family member would DEFINITELY be a general).
Of course your army could end up having different proportions, but that would require special investment and expenditure, an investment in Tech, Production time, Upkeep, and any additional considerations. At least ... this would seem logical.
Some-one "could" however specialize in mountain combat, archery, and adventure .... and end up having 5,000 archers, 2,000 infantry, 10 adventurers, and a Super-Archer Hero/Commander. This facing the gigantic yet cheaply attained army of primarily infantry ... filling the enemy full of arrow-heads and then retreating into the mountains before they can be reached.
First comment (I will try to add more, when I will find more time to read through all of this ): You specified that 1-10 unit army is used for adventuring & in early game. What about some super-duper-overpowered units like dragons? Will you get more than a few of them? Highly inprobable. Will they receive any bonuses from thier 'formation'?
specialty over-powered units will of course have their own stats, and (in my mind) be unable to join a unit ... even if you had two dragons !? you would have to keep them as separate units. I think the way you can decide if a creature or soldier can join a unit is, are they a pack animal/herding creature (horses, rhinos, trolls, humans) or are they a legendary creature of ultimate power (Dragon, groglock, Archdemon, Broodmother).
You might have a tribe of trolls, and there-fore they can form units ... yet if you have a gigantic 80-foot Cave-trool/Balrog beastie called a Behemoth, unless there is a tribe of them living somewhere, it would be best to restrict them to their own units. Another thing that struck me ... a possible "size" limit on units. Armor slightly increases size, horses greatly increase size, no armor/cloth armor greatly lowers size (or a "barbarism" trait), and so relative size may or may not factor into combat abilities, but it will at least dictate how many creatures/soldiers of a certain type you can have in a unit "you can have no more than 80 horses, 120 plate-mail, 140 chainmail, 150 cloth, or 200 gallic savages in a unit ... oh and only 60 bear riders, and only 50 wyvern riders"
Goodmorning alllandisaurus: Ya, I just juged my scale by 10,000's being the top top top end. remembered from one frogboy post somewhere. weather it's 10,000, or 50,0000 . . . just move the starting and stopping places of the highest levels. and ya, you'd have probably 5 controlable foot soldier units, 6 or 7 units of archers, Three units of light calvary, ... the 5 mages might be all in the tent, or have seperate tents, depending if range and line of sight is taken into accont for spells. and the 100 bear calvary would be the elite guards 20 / mage. incase an opponent get's close enough. sort of thingtotalling 20 - 23 controlable units which is still reasonble. Tasunke: I can't think of a specific example where a platton turned around in battle one by one, but i can't imagin a situation where anybody is going to turn in formation while the opponent runs up and down behind killing people because the formation prevents them from even thinking of putting up a defence. Take care all
I can't imagine why such a unit couldn't turn around. Each person could easily lift their spear and turn the other direction. You don't need to do a wheel move to turn in reality.
Yea, I was overexagerrating and giving an abstraction, if you want to be realistic, those units directly attacked from the rear will get 1 or two rounds of combat to turn around, while all non-involved would get a bout 4 or 5 turns to realize whats happening, and then 1 turn to reorganize ... assuming that they do not have their own combatant to deal with. There should be severe penatlies for a unit whose attention is divided amonst front/back/side/side. Being surrounded should not mean "hey I get to kill my enemy faster" ... the units effectiveness would be lost, and at that point it would be each soldier acting by itself (without any unit bonuses) and to have an added "mob" or "crowded" penalty, which hinders movement, lowers attack (and defense?), and gives a chance for friendly fire.
To turn as a wheel would be "one" of the only ways to keep unit effectiveness, but yea, if you are going to die before your wheel is completed, then its better to break out into a mob and assault the enemy in a disorganized fashion.I suppose if the unit had an "officer" or "unit commander" a rally function could be called to re-organize a unit which has mobbed onto the enemy (which in itself takes a few combat turns) ... which would take various turns depending on unit size. Assuming a rather large unit, 3 turns to re-organize in non-melee situation, or 5 turns if during a melee confrontation (if at all).
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account