Author Topic: Changes to travelling status  (Read 9327 times)

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6320
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #75 on: November 12, 2014, 09:52:48 PM »
Supply lines are CRAZY difficult to implement. I've tried and scrapped half a dozen different designs.

Plus the simple fact that in the time we simulate in this game, armies DID largely live off the land.

Tan dSerrai

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 866
  • Karma: +20/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #76 on: November 13, 2014, 09:08:44 AM »
@Tom:

Since wars are decided relatively quickly (by 1-3 major battles), estates are relatively unimportant _for the duration of the war_. Thus the (near) sole importance is on the army....and there it is of prime importance to concentrate your forces. In the northern war we have seen one side actually abandoning all estates right at the very beginning, massing all its troops in one spot. I first did wonder about that - but it did prove to be a good move.

Thus, currently, it is _vital_ that (if you fight on two fronts) you ignore one front, concentrating all your troops at the other front. Even if you only fight one front, it may be wise to empty all your estates of troops to concentrate them in one spot.

The reasons are several...and they work together to give this result:

- Its easy to march across enemy lands (in fact, its _better_ to march across enemy lands than across your own),
- armies march relatively fast (allowing you to support two theaters...if attacked on two fronts I can switch my full army between both fronts relatively easy)
- a small advantage in numbers gives a large advantage in battle (again forcing you to concentrate your forces)
- there is no 'defensive battle' (allowing you to trade space for time - or to force an attacker to break through fortified positions, losing heavily)

Suggestions:

- time: The war-part of the game is still relatively 'fastpaced'. Battles develop relatively fast and each is quite important.  I could imagine the hourly ticks being reduced to once every two hours, with battle timers being raised to 150-200%. Would allow play with less logging in and give more time to coordinate between players.

- alternatively: raise travel times (double them?). Most units we saw in the northern war were around 100-150 warriors. Larger units were too slow (so that already works), leading to armies being split into many 100-150 men units. So maybe lower the speed of 400 men units somewhat....and lower the speed of 50-100 considerably and 150-200 units even more.

- alternatively: create a difference between allied and hostile forces when crossing terrain....for example, by building an 'outpost'...if staffed with some troops such an outpost could slow down traveltimes of hostile armies (using permission lists), maybe the more the closer they come to the outpost (maybe even effectively blocking chokepoints). It would be great if such an outpost could be owned independently of the estate it is in....this would allow them to be taken/sieged. This would allow some kind of 'territory control'. Currently enemy armies can cross your territory at will...and as long as they do not stand still are very difficult to engage. For example in the recent northern war a large battle did develop within Sklodding territory (Ascalon/Alumaani against Sklodding/Schultze/d'Serrai)...and by the time it was fought the northern allies of Ascalon (at that time near the border of Serrai/Stonedlands) had marched clear across d'Serrai territory and were able to intercept a good part of the withdrawing Serrai/Sklodding forces. (They were well coordinated and did decide rapidly, so it was well deserved). This points towards there 'being no fronts'.

- supply: yes, I can imagine this being fiendishly difficult to implement. Still, I think that the 'one pot supplies every peasant, militia and mobile warrior, no matter who controls them' needs to be divided somewhat. One idea I had was to 'tether' mobile units to an estate (again, allowing this via permission lists)....they would then receive food via a 'pipeline'. Thus you must send food towards an estate, then 'pipeline' it from there to the mobile unit. The farther the mobile unit is, the less efficient such a pipeline becomes. The other idea would be to have the unit 'carry' food with it (for up to 1 RL week maybe). It can load up at a friendly estate, 'eats' the food (slowly in friendly territory, more rapidly in enemy territory...and could 'hunt', meaning one lone unit of 100 within one estate does not eat its own food, but the more units there are, the more rapidly they eat their own food. This would force such units to enter friendly estates every now and then to replenish.

- Defensive battles: Allow a unit to 'dig in' and hold a spot...giving it an advantage in a battle if attacked. Could be terrain dependent...and should block (or slow considerably) travel in a radius around it.




Bottomline: Some kind of ability to block or slow enemy armies in your territory would be very useful, some slowdown of marching/fighting relative to RL.

Hope part of this is some use - and thanks for all your efforts!


De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #77 on: November 13, 2014, 12:07:41 PM »
Food storage. Is it available to all troops in a region? In my opinion if it is that should be the first step. Make a settlements food storage exclusive for its use so that is has some sort of buffer that is NOT available to attackers. Secondly fix soldier starvation relative to militia and population. It is impossible to know how these two things will change war, thus impossible to speculate on what more might be required. If your mobile troops actually had a chance to starve then perhaps the camp followers with food may actually become a necessity of war. Concentrating your forces would become more difficult as you can not rely on living off the land and require larger supply from camp followers, leading to greater entourage and greater speed penalties. Smaller units fighting on multiple fronts will place a smaller burden on the regions they are in, hopefully reducing the amount of food you need to draw from camp followers and increasing the time you can spend in the field before the army needs to disperse to restock.


Here is the real key in my mind though, you will in all likely hood have LIMITED war seasons, a period of activity after which you will need to split the armies up so they can restock at settlements with food surplus, something that can not occur if you enter a settlement with a mass of troops. Strategy would then also involve how you restock, how fast you can do it, how much your army needs to disperse, does your enemy need to restock or will they be able to make gains while you must withdraw.


We can't really discuss logistics while ever 5000 troops can sit in a mountain region and not have to worry about starving. Who cares where the food comes from when a lack of food is so insignificant to mobile troops. Change that and perhaps things will move towards the objective we want.
He who was once known as Blackfyre