Author Topic: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance  (Read 2971 times)

Weaver

  • The Lost
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
  • Karma: +52/-39
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #45 on: March 15, 2016, 05:14:07 PM »
The two that come to mind are Weaver absolutely crushing some attacks, for instance on Tharsis, and recently one incident in the Black Road.

And whilst you did not use the word 'trivial', you did say that they meant 'so little'.

 the assault on Whisperreap - year 8, week 39, day 5
 
 
Participants
Initial Troops
  • 135 archers
  • 122 light infantry
  • 636 medium infantry
  • 16 light cavalry
  • 40 heavy infantry
  • 11 heavy cavalry
  • 3 nobles
  • 236 medium infantry
  • 161 archers
  • 1 light infantry
  • 131 heavy infantry
  • 7 armored archer
  • 1 heavy cavalry
  • 2 nobles
Combat
Ranged Phase
  • 142 shots fired
  • 112 hits
  • 12 enemies killed
  • 4 enemies wounded
  • 167 shots fired
  • 155 hits
  • 84 enemies killed
  • 26 enemies wounded
Melee Phase 1
  • 853 soldiers fighting
  • 27 enemies wounded
  • 18 enemies killed
  • 523 soldiers fighting
  • 261 enemies killed
  • 71 enemies wounded
  • 404 enemies routed
Melee Phase 2
  • 130 soldiers fighting
  • 9 enemies killed
  • 8 enemies wounded
  • 482 soldiers fighting
  • 69 enemies wounded
  • 112 enemies killed
  • 1 enemy routed
Melee Phase 3
  • 466 soldiers fighting
  • 2 enemies wounded
  • 2 enemy nobles captured
Hunt
  • 328 soldiers dropped their equipment to run faster.
  • 39 enemies were killed or wounded while fleeing.
Survivors
  • (none)
  • 209 medium infantry
  • 133 archer
  • 1 light infantry
  • 115 heavy infantry
  • 1 heavy cavalry
  • 5 armoured archer
  • 2 noble
Fate Of Nobles
  • was wounded.
  • captured by the enemy
  • captured by the enemy
Enjoy the read.

Yes, please triple defense bonuses. That will make the game so much better. /sarcasm

Weaver

  • The Lost
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
  • Karma: +52/-39
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #46 on: March 15, 2016, 05:18:03 PM »
Doublepost incoming:

I also have a battle report where some Light Infantry behind walls completely roflstomps experienced heavy infantry.

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #47 on: March 15, 2016, 07:03:39 PM »
we are talking about similar problems, but with different language.

i don't know what kind of complex coding can change things, I could not understand clear example in last proposal. what i advocate is simple tweaks that can change things a lot.

increasing all defenses  give more weight to all estates, making quick travels less important. you will not decide to attack stone wall only because you have enough troops to arrive by say 4 .a.m to the battlefield. you will do that only if you gather enough of strong troops, settle them in nearby areas for days until you gather army strong enough to even think of attack - yet without achieving 100% certainty that you will win. that could give days of chance to defenders to do something.

as long as you can even think of attack on stone wall by one simple battle and one simple troop gathering, they are overly too weak. if we talk about strategic defenses, than strategy is needed to overcome it, not simple tactics.

in the same thinking, it does not make sense that anything but major imperial armies in major campaign can overcome the stronghold.

i believe nobody who likes attacks would be at loss with much stronger defenses, that would only give more challenge and make game deeper, but would eventually lower major influence that timely troop movements have now.

multiplying defense bonus looks as measure simple to implement. as well as speeding up troop training...

Insanegame27

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Karma: +7/-3
  • I am the Bopmaster, master of Bops.
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #48 on: March 15, 2016, 10:24:58 PM »
Right now the whole thing is imbalanced. Faster troop training: I agree on. Increasing defence power? Nonononono.


In the war of Declaring the independence of Dubh Dun, Rathgar eventually assaulted the walls and lost with a number of men ten times what was fielded in Dubh Dun. However, in many other wars people just stick stacks of 600 axemen slightly inside the border of an estate and watch as the lord needs to deal with the food crisis and buildings falling into disrepair.


We need to focus less on buffing defences and more on getting people to assault them in the first place.
Now I have a mental image of horses lined up in a goods factory, building things on an assembly line.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • Karma: +105/-52
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #49 on: March 16, 2016, 01:30:59 AM »
we are talking about similar problems, but with different language.

i don't know what kind of complex coding can change things, I could not understand clear example in last proposal. what i advocate is simple tweaks that can change things a lot.

increasing all defenses  give more weight to all estates, making quick travels less important. you will not decide to attack stone wall only because you have enough troops to arrive by say 4 .a.m to the battlefield. you will do that only if you gather enough of strong troops, settle them in nearby areas for days until you gather army strong enough to even think of attack - yet without achieving 100% certainty that you will win. that could give days of chance to defenders to do something.

as long as you can even think of attack on stone wall by one simple battle and one simple troop gathering, they are overly too weak. if we talk about strategic defenses, than strategy is needed to overcome it, not simple tactics.

in the same thinking, it does not make sense that anything but major imperial armies in major campaign can overcome the stronghold.

i believe nobody who likes attacks would be at loss with much stronger defenses, that would only give more challenge and make game deeper, but would eventually lower major influence that timely troop movements have now.

multiplying defense bonus looks as measure simple to implement. as well as speeding up troop training...

No one attacks Stone Walls without a lot of prep. We are talking more then just amassing troops, we are talking wide ranging scouting so you have an idea about possible enemy forces, we are talking blocking forces with clear orders about who what and what sized forces to try and prevent. In Hawks case we are talking RL weeks of work trying to establish battlefield control around the settlement before even thinking about a sieve. Stone Walls need at least a 4:1 ratio to have a chance of being successful, and even then the losses will be significant. That is not something g you can risk if the enemy is nearby, it is not something to risk if you know the enemy has significant mobile forces left even if they are not nearby. There is little point to taking a stronghold if it destroys you ability to contest future battles.

I don't know what game you play, but the only defences I would ever "rush" attack are palisade. Even wooden walls have the capacity to decimate you if you underestimate what the enemy can get behind that wall in time.

With regards to block area. We already have auto evade. The biggest change we need there is a way to stop instant reengagement when evade is successful. Another option is that block area should not be a auto success. If someone enters you block they should have a chance of avoiding it all together, and the chance could be weighted by terrain, if auto evade is set etc. For instance blocking a bridge should have a higher chance to succed then blocking forest wilderness.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #50 on: March 16, 2016, 10:20:41 PM »
What you mention are again very dynamic actions - scouting, blocking or ambushing all troops that come into some territory, again all actions heavily based on very high activity. intercepting moving troops is probably a peak of utterly high active playing...

one simple tweak could make a miracle in balance change - speeding troop training much would complicate prediction and force those who attack to take at least some risk instead of focusing their play on 100% control and certainty. and, moving troops would not be so overly valuable asset as they are now, simply because new one could be trained faster.

together with increasing defensive bonuses, the idea is to make it near-impossible to undertake attacks against say wood castle or higher with 100% certainty. and even if you lose, you don't lose everything - first, if you would be able to train troops faster, losing many troops would not be a major risk; second, your opponent would also have to take some risk in counterattack.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • Karma: +105/-52
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #51 on: March 16, 2016, 11:11:15 PM »
What you mention are again very dynamic actions - scouting, blocking or ambushing all troops that come into some territory, again all actions heavily based on very high activity. intercepting moving troops is probably a peak of utterly high active playing...

one simple tweak could make a miracle in balance change - speeding troop training much would complicate prediction and force those who attack to take at least some risk instead of focusing their play on 100% control and certainty. and, moving troops would not be so overly valuable asset as they are now, simply because new one could be trained faster.

together with increasing defensive bonuses, the idea is to make it near-impossible to undertake attacks against say wood castle or higher with 100% certainty. and even if you lose, you don't lose everything - first, if you would be able to train troops faster, losing many troops would not be a major risk; second, your opponent would also have to take some risk in counterattack.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #52 on: March 17, 2016, 12:29:46 AM »
Doublepost incoming:

I also have a battle report where some Light Infantry behind walls completely roflstomps experienced heavy infantry.

Triple is figurative, but emphasizes my belief that sensibly better defenses would improve things, yes.

so, as much as i see, your defenders had ca. 530 soldiers? how many of them you did bring in the eve of battle? how long did you stay before battle  began? do you know why your opponent did not wait for longer until being sure to win?

i am able to see such battles only when attacker intentionally wants to test things, not in real war (except when someone slow like me got too late with half of the army).

try to jump in my shoes, or someone in similar position. these forts can be built only in major towns of a solid realm, i would say. some slow guy would like to be able to defend them with say half of defenders presented in your battle against the same level of attackers. that would make sure that at least few my major towns would stay alive when i don't log in full day, while you, if you are active guy, always have all chances to take some smaller towns in the meantime.

you could eventually win by  taking enough of other estates, or you will summon real large army to take major town, or find some other way to win, but I would at least know that not everything depends on me rushing to intercept each and every attack, that  I would at least have some chance without that.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • Karma: +105/-52
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #53 on: March 17, 2016, 02:17:54 AM »
Triple is figurative, but emphasizes my belief that sensibly better defenses would improve things, yes.

so, as much as i see, your defenders had ca. 530 soldiers? how many of them you did bring in the eve of battle? how long did you stay before battle  began? do you know why your opponent did not wait for longer until being sure to win?

i am able to see such battles only when attacker intentionally wants to test things, not in real war (except when someone slow like me got too late with half of the army).

try to jump in my shoes, or someone in similar position. these forts can be built only in major towns of a solid realm, i would say. some slow guy would like to be able to defend them with say half of defenders presented in your battle against the same level of attackers. that would make sure that at least few my major towns would stay alive when i don't log in full day, while you, if you are active guy, always have all chances to take some smaller towns in the meantime.

you could eventually win by  taking enough of other estates, or you will summon real large army to take major town, or find some other way to win, but I would at least know that not everything depends on me rushing to intercept each and every attack, that  I would at least have some chance without that.


No. Your entire argument appears to hang on the reaction of a single player. Its not about what forces a single player can bring, or when a single player logs in. Its about a group of players. The game is not designed nor balanced around single player realms, or single player wars. In a REAL war, you should be aware of your enemies general position. You should have multiple players positioned for scouting for advanced warning, and your forces should be positioned in order to react with minimum travel to as many likely targets as possible.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Weaver

  • The Lost
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
  • Karma: +52/-39
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #54 on: March 17, 2016, 08:52:12 AM »
Have you ever stopped to think why De-Legro, I, and several other players, have no problem to defend towns, or take towns, have never had a problem with any of that, and yet you seem to have a problem with that, and apparently lose every Siege ever, or something, to the point that you feel defenses are inadequate?

Myself and Legro have been been trying to explain things to you, and you keep going in circles and circles, chasing your own tail. I mean, at this point, after everything that was said, there's only one thing left to say.

You are bad at it. It's not the mechanics' fault. It's not someone's activity, or troop numbers, or defenses. I buzzed your towns- you have no defenses. A palisade here and there. Some light infantry. With that you might as well just roll over and die whenever someone comes by.

You say it's a figurative speech, but even if you triple defense bonuses, they still wouldn't help you. And then what. You'll ask for them to double it, because someone brought three times the troops?

It's not about static, or dynamic, wars. It's not about activity or one player trying to gobble up half the world and defend it with every soldier in every realm he has. You can't win because you are one guy against a whole bunch of other guys, and Tom said a long time ago, a whole bunch of guys will always win.

Yesterday it was dynamic vs static, today it's defenses, tomorrow is mercenaries, day after tomorrow will be heavy vs medium infantry. Then cavalry. Then me. Then Tom. Then luck. Then God. Give it a rest already.

I did not wait, my soldiers were there. I knew he was coming there, because I actually had other people tell me this. I had watchtowers. I had preparation. Planning. Prudence. I lured him into attacking it. I seduced him into thinking it was a juicy prize, easy pickings. Then I dismantled him. From top to bottom.

You think that is the only siege like that? I have dozens of them. From being eight times outnumbered, to outnumbering them two or three times. What? You thought you can win a fight by just clicking on a settlement, and the walls will magically fall over, and you will just waltz in there? Did you think in a war two large armies will meet and whoever comes out alive is the winner?

No. You chase. You retreat. You dance. You die. You kill. You win. You outmaneuver and back-stab. You let the enemy attack YOU so they cannot evade when you bring in the reinforcements. You loot and pillage. You don't sit in front of a settlement and loot. You build defenses and you train troops. You pray no one else will join the war cause you'd be f**ked. You try to figure out which side of the front to abandon cause you can't defend both of them.

You use your brain.

So no. I don't know the answer to your questions on how many I brought on the 'eve of battle' or how long I stayed there before the battle began. I don't know why my opponent did not wait any longer. You know why? Because I decided it before he asked the same question. Because your question implies it was a 'spur of the moment' thing. As if I just, accidentally-- or magically-- had troops nearby.

No, I came down on them with such violence of action that if you were on the receiving end of it this topic would not be about 'defenses' or 'dynamic vs static wars'.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 09:05:19 AM by Weaver »

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #55 on: March 17, 2016, 09:58:46 PM »
I don't think so. Number of players in group has little to do with this subject. you seem to judge all my statements only on action of my chars around redgorge mountains, but they waste say less than fifth of my time. i play in realms with at least 5-10 active players, but hardly 1 or 2 of them are active anything close to hawks.

and each and every battle depends on that activity and almost nothing else.

Dorian

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
  • Karma: +26/-11
  • Playing since 2015.
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #56 on: March 17, 2016, 10:10:18 PM »
From my experience not Hawks in general, but rather just Elysium. Their activity is around the clock and it is their activity, coupled with good knowledge on how the game works, which makes them quite dangerous in the field. But then again, that has nothing to do with actual sieges. You can't win a war by holing up behind a wall and waiting. In order to make activity matter less a portion of game mechanics need to change, not the actual bonuses on settlement defense.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • Karma: +105/-52
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #57 on: March 18, 2016, 01:25:31 AM »
I don't think so. Number of players in group has little to do with this subject. you seem to judge all my statements only on action of my chars around redgorge mountains, but they waste say less than fifth of my time. i play in realms with at least 5-10 active players, but hardly 1 or 2 of them are active anything close to hawks.

and each and every battle depends on that activity and almost nothing else.

No, I based it off your own scenario in the previous post about not being online for day. The problem is see is again better  fortifications hell's everyone. So now consider a Elysium fortress. They are already difficult if not impossible to crack, combine their movement levels, their troop numbers and greater bonuses and what are you left with?

From my experience not Hawks in general, but rather just Elysium. Their activity is around the clock and it is their activity, coupled with good knowledge on how the game works, which makes them quite dangerous in the field. But then again, that has nothing to do with actual sieges. You can't win a war by holing up behind a wall and waiting. In order to make activity matter less a portion of game mechanics need to change, not the actual bonuses on settlement defense.


 Completly agree. We know from the early Rathgar wars that you can ignore fortified settlements commanded by low activity players. If you are ignoring them then the bonus is hardly relevant.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

WVH

  • The Lost
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
  • Karma: +20/-47
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #58 on: March 21, 2016, 04:49:25 PM »
I would say most people do not take the time to visualize the game correctly, myself included some times.  You can spend a few min. a couple times a day to keep things moving but if you want a realm that people will respect, you need to set up defenses.

Not talking about walls everywhere here.  I mean you have to use the landscape to help choose where you want the bigger towns to be.  You have to set up watch towers in ways to actually see, instead of just anywhere.  Do you want inn's in settlements that have low defenses (I say no, because someone can get in easy and hire mercenaries), for example.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • Karma: +105/-52
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #59 on: March 21, 2016, 10:47:53 PM »
I would say most people do not take the time to visualize the game correctly, myself included some times.  You can spend a few min. a couple times a day to keep things moving but if you want a realm that people will respect, you need to set up defenses.

Not talking about walls everywhere here.  I mean you have to use the landscape to help choose where you want the bigger towns to be.  You have to set up watch towers in ways to actually see, instead of just anywhere.  Do you want inn's in settlements that have low defenses (I say no, because someone can get in easy and hire mercenaries), for example.


The Dominate/Hawks Border is a good example here. We either have to divert north and cross the mountains, or cross the river right next to one of their best defended settlements. It is a great set up that has slowed the war considerably. Sure we can take to the sea and land on the coast, but doing so is both slow and leaves our own border settlements down in man power.
He who was once known as Blackfyre