| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
SunStorm 
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
 Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 15:28 |
 geofrey wrote:
Avoidance, subterfuge, deception, and coordination are the tools to make up for small numbers. |
+100!
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
 |
surferdude
Wordsmith
Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 103
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 14:13 |
geofrey wrote:
Currently it is very easy to confuse your opponent since they can't ascertain the purpose of your oncoming army until it hits. And they can't know how many troops you send in that army. I really think scouting (troops count) and spying (purpose/siege-location) moving armies would add another layer of strategy to the game; so long as there was a counter to it (send scouts and spies with your army to act as scout/spy defense). |
Don't teir 2 scouts already tell you the army make up of armies at home and on manuvers?
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 13:46 |
Salararius wrote:
Army size alone shouldn't matter in relation to how effective the army is. There are other variables that play a role in this determination.
For example, a small army is easier to coordinate and a coordinated army can more precisely direct it's force. Thus a small army could surprise a large army or adjust it's attack/defense to take advantage of terrain or defender/attacker deployment opportunities. In warfare, force is only effective if you can properly apply it. A smaller army's lesser force is balanced by it's inherent advantage in more efficiently applying that smaller force. Then again, if the larger army is equally efficient at applying it's larger force then it has an even greater tactical advantage.
|
I think this is in the game now, it just requires some creative strategy. Example as follows:
I have a 30k t2 dwarven infantry army. It is my large army.
You want to siege my largest town in Keshalia, but can't do it because my infantry will destroy your 10k army.
You could blockade/siege one of my other cites in Zanpur. You could even taunt me with mail letting me know that more forces are rallying behind the siege in Zanpur. Causing me to ride out in full force with my 30k infantry army to destroy your siege.
As soon as my 1 large army departs my primary town, you could send your primary siege against my town. And it will be another 2 days before my army returns from Attacking your other siege.
Having 1 large army does not always = a win. But it does if your silly enough to face a larger army head on with a smaller army. Avoidance, subterfuge, deception, and coordination are the tools to make up for small numbers.
Currently it is very easy to confuse your opponent since they can't ascertain the purpose of your oncoming army until it hits. And they can't know how many troops you send in that army. I really think scouting (troops count) and spying (purpose/siege-location) moving armies would add another layer of strategy to the game; so long as there was a counter to it (send scouts and spies with your army to act as scout/spy defense).
|
|
Mandarins31
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 10:38 |
|
Salararius, i see no point of this, as in defense, people always put all sorts of units.... there are high chances your specific units fall against their similar kind in def.
Aurordan, indeed that's redundant with Commanders skills, but critical hit already is. Here that's about efficiency of Small units against large stacks mostly... though, indeed, for small armies, commanders heroism already permits to achieve better ratios.
Edited by Mandarins31 - 10 Mar 2012 at 10:42
|
|
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 04:11 |
Mandarins31 wrote:
Interesting points Salararius. Though, which factor would be used to mean that or that army has better efficiency? Maybe smaller army can more easily find the best formation, naturally by it's size, but also because a lower amount of soldiers is easyier to coordonate... and on battlefield, coordination is handled by the commander. So the lvl of Commanders would simulate their experience and army's experience. Then, a smaller attacking army would receive a bonus from being small, and also a bonus from being lead by high lvl comander(s). Though, in attack, amount of commanders is restricted to 5, unlike in defense. So a larger defense would be harder to coordonate, but a large a amount of high lvl commanders can counter that, against a comparatively small attacking army, and even give advantage of efficiency to defender.
Though, that already sounds like the critical hit factor... but maybe there could be other ways to simulate the comparative size VS number and lvl of commanders, that could be added to critical hit (if it has been substantially smoothed), or to replace it. That could be a hint for future improvements... though, this, imo, isnt a priority in dev list.
|
Commanders already contribute to the organization of the army through the unit bonus abilities. It seems redundant to make another factor that does the same thing.
|
|
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
|
Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 03:02 |
Funny  I almost posted the same thing.
I reasoned to myself that to the extent that commanders influence combat the devs have already factored them in. To factor them in again would be redundant although I agree with your thoughts that any advantage/disadvantage achieved through unit size would be through the commander's relative skill.
One way to implement asymmetrical warfare could be through units that specifically fight better in little vs big situations. Perhaps ranged units or light cavalry or some sort of light infantry would be better at striking quickly in small numbers and then flowing away and they would need to be countered by small quantities of the same to avoid asymmetrically skewed losses. Those losses in any given encounter couldn't amount to much but would more so favor the smaller unit. Similar to how historical armies required cavalry screens to cover their movement or face a similar type of attrition warfare.
|
|
Mandarins31
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 22:43 |
|
Interesting points Salararius. Though, which factor would be used to mean that or that army has better efficiency? Maybe smaller army can more easily find the best formation, naturally by it's size, but also because a lower amount of soldiers is easyier to coordonate... and on battlefield, coordination is handled by the commander. So the lvl of Commanders would simulate their experience and army's experience. Then, a smaller attacking army would receive a bonus from being small, and also a bonus from being lead by high lvl comander(s). Though, in attack, amount of commanders is restricted to 5, unlike in defense. So a larger defense would be harder to coordonate, but a large a amount of high lvl commanders can counter that, against a comparatively small attacking army, and even give advantage of efficiency to defender.
Though, that already sounds like the critical hit factor... but maybe there could be other ways to simulate the comparative size VS number and lvl of commanders, that could be added to critical hit (if it has been substantially smoothed), or to replace it. That could be a hint for future improvements... though, this, imo, isnt a priority in dev list.
Edited by Mandarins31 - 09 Mar 2012 at 22:46
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 21:52 |
I like that you can't scout a moving army. Really adds an element to the fight, where you have to interpret who it came from and its likely composition based on past behavior of players and recent events. It's more fun to develop flexible responses to a number of possible scenarios than to just stick something that will kill a known incoming force.
The ability to hover over an (allied) force and determine player and number of troops disappeared with the map changes in July, part of "fog of war."
Edited by Rill - 09 Mar 2012 at 21:53
|
|
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
|
Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 21:39 |
Army size alone shouldn't matter in relation to how effective the army is. There are other variables that play a role in this determination.
For example, a small army is easier to coordinate and a coordinated army can more precisely direct it's force. Thus a small army could surprise a large army or adjust it's attack/defense to take advantage of terrain or defender/attacker deployment opportunities. In warfare, force is only effective if you can properly apply it. A smaller army's lesser force is balanced by it's inherent advantage in more efficiently applying that smaller force. Then again, if the larger army is equally efficient at applying it's larger force then it has an even greater tactical advantage.
|
|
Mr Damage
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598
|
Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 21:24 |
|
Good point Geofrey, you used to be able to hover over a moving army and see total numbers, what happened to that? I liked being able to see some of those big armies numbers, as well as like you say it aided with strategy.
|
|
Tweet
06MAR12 - Gaming the Combat Casualty Algorithm