Magna Mundi Developer's Diary #18: Land Combat (2 of 3)

[ubik]

The most complex battle system ever devised for a strategic game. If not, the one of the most. And I like that.

Not, by a loooooong mile. Without thinking more than a second, I can tell you Norm Kroger battle algorithm beat this by a factor of 100:1, for instance.

And in fact, for you, its not that complex. Just pick your armies well, assign your commanders better and make your strategical decisions best. Then, pray for the dice.

[ubik]

What if 2 enemy armies in 1 province doesnt automatically lead to a battle? What if it would take another action of the parties involved to start a battle? This way 2 armies could stand in 1 province constantly scouting each other with small losses until one of them decides to perform an attack.

Thats what happens...

This system would also make limited battle time possible, in particular I mean each phase of the battle isnt repetitive but unique once the button to combat is pushed. Say each battle phase takes x,y,z days (fix values - f.e. scouting 10 days, skirmish 10 days, decisive 5 days). After decisive phase of battle is finished the armies stop fighting and return to their camps and the parties could then decide to stay or attack again. This way draw battles would be possible and the battle part of the game would require additional attention of the player thus adding an additional layer to the game.

Well, I have seen battles last for several months... I don't like at all a fixed number of battle days. It depends entirely on the dynamics of a single battle. Also, allowing enemies to stay on the same province like you sugest would unecessarily turn up the complexity of the system by several degrees for no gain.

[ubik]

I´m loving the battles, all the descriptions will make the game really inmersive.

However I have one concern, won´t will the player be flooded with messages if there are battles in several provinces at the same time?

You pick which one you want to check. You can close and open the reports at will and the story unfolding will be stored there while the battle lasts.

[ubik]

Apparently the French reserves are losing a lot of morale during the battle, even more than the fighting army. Why ?

Because of a bug!

[ubik]

Could this depend on the variant of rebel unit? I can imagine plausible scenarios in which the rebel army is better equipped and motivated than the government.

That depends on the morale of the Govenrment armies.

[ubik]

I fear I will never be good at playing this game, let alone understand why ANYTHING is happening, aah, it'll be just like playing the mod for te first time again. Regardless, I think I'll enjoy it.

What are your doubts exactly? Help us improve.

[ubik]

What's does that Plunder next to the word Reconnaissance mean?

Leftover.

[ubik]

That sounds very interesting. Could you elaborate a bit more?

Hummm... well... you know that cavalry runs, light moving faster than heavy. Infantry walks, light walking faster than heavy. Artillery crawls. You also know some terrains are harder to pass than others. You'll be given a rough estimate when arriving at the province for each army and that is about it.

Also, should I ask now about how taking over provinces works, or is that for the next DD?

Next Dev Diary.

[ubik]

The game seems to grow even more in every published DD.
There seems to be a lot of potential in this.
But it can´t be easy to put all thing together and manage to balance it in the end.

Good point!

[ubik]

Am I correct in assuming that open terrain will have shorter scouting/skirmish phases compared to hills or forests (all other factors being equal)? Or, conversely, that heavy troops will be able to get to their decisive function faster in deserts/plains/farmlands?

You are not guaranteed to ever reach Decisive Battle. That is for both generals to decide. In fact, even if you have heavier troops and your general finally manage to engage in Decisive Battle, the morale hit you have taken already may be enough to give a victory to the "lighter" side. Skirmish should not be considered a bridge between spotting and the "real combat". It's real combat by itself, many times the factor deciding everything.

[Gwyn ap Nud]

Exciting! Though I do worry a battle could go on way too long... I'd rather not have a many-months-long conflict in my province, thank-you-very-much! You might wanna consider putting a max on each phase?
Even if you don't, looks like a great system you have!

[ubik]

Exciting! Though I do worry a battle could go on way too long... I'd rather not have a many-months-long conflict in my province, thank-you-very-much! You might wanna consider putting a max on each phase?

No, sorry. Runs counter with what I want to accomplish.

[thedarkclown85]

So its clear that you as a player can no longer decide when to flee from a battle, since this is now up to the general. But what about there to flee? In EU3 it can often be very important which province your army retreats to, but do you the player have any influence on this in magna mundi or will the general just pick a random province to retreat to as well?

[Green Giant]

Ubik,

What is stopping a 20,000 footsoldier + 50 cavalry army from getting the cavalry bonus in all phases over a 20,000 footsoldier army with no cavalry?

That wouldn't be right.

[ubik]

So its clear that you as a player can no longer decide when to flee from a battle, since this is now up to the general. But what about there to flee? In EU3 it can often be very important which province your army retreats to, but do you the player have any influence on this in magna mundi or will the general just pick a random province to retreat to as well?

General retreats from where it comes.

[ubik]

Ubik,

What is stopping a 20,000 footsoldier + 50 cavalry army from getting the cavalry bonus in all phases over a 20,000 footsoldier army with no cavalry?

That wouldn't be right.

Of course not. On several accounts:

- A single army cannot have more than 20.000 men. And THAT is maximum, ever. You need to heavily invest on Land Traditions to get there.
- A cavalry regiment depleted to 5% strength is highly improbable.
- If the other side is building a mega army without any cavalry, that's just its problem. Not very smart.

[GamerKG]

One thing I would like to point out:

Make it obvious as to what the armies are doing. If the armies have not engaged, make it obvious I can still order my general to flee the province, or to stop moving, or whatever. Or if they are in scouting phase then I should (or should not yet) send armies to support the engaged army. Make it obvious that my armies are still in reserve and can be ordered around.

Also, can we have a flag (there was one in eu3) that goes for an amphibious assault? I understand that this is not useful for battle purposes, but it would be nice if the general could remember to retreat to the ships he came from instead of further into enemy territory...

EDIT: Also, I would be happy to help translating to English (American English, in case it matters). I love editing

[Thistletooth]

Not, by a loooooong mile. Without thinking more than a second, I can tell you Norm Kroger battle algorithm beat this by a factor of 100:1, for instance.

And in fact, for you, its not that complex. Just pick your armies well, assign your commanders better and make your strategical decisions best. Then, pray for the dice.

What kinds of decisions are there to make regarding your commanders? Just the same old "good shock for cavalry-heavy armies", "good maneuver for low supply provinces" kind of things, or will there actually be more to consider? I understand the idea that maneuver-heavy generals will favor Fabian tactics or attrition, while shock monkeys will want to hurl themselves on the nearest pike square, but will there - I pray - be personalities to these leaders? I would love, love, love for MMtG to adopt Vickyish personalities to give your generals some uniqueness and potentially give each new campaign a totally different feel depending on what kinds of "talent" you have to draw from.

Of course not. On several accounts:

- A single army cannot have more than 20.000 men. And THAT is maximum, ever. You need to heavily invest on Land Traditions to get there.

Hmm...now even back in antiquity, it wouldn't be unusual for a state to be able to amass 20K or more soldiers for an important campaign. Assuming MMtG national armies are going to be composed of more divisional-sized formations (I hope the 1.0 AI will be competent enough to move them in close formation), are there going to be ways to staff these formations with leaders without breaking the bank? MMtM allows you to hire as many generals as you have diplomats, of course, but in most cases it's quite expensive. Hiring a leader for every 5K soldiers could be a daunting task, especially given their often short lifespans.

[ubik]

What kinds of decisions are there to make regarding your commanders? Just the same old "good shock for cavalry-heavy armies", "good maneuver for low supply provinces" kind of things, or will there actually be more to consider?

Lets place it this way. If you have a bad commander of higher rank, he will take charge of the battle. This have a huge impact as the armies have a maximum number of men, you can even find yourself with much stronger armies but with a commander unable to lead them all... while at his side, the junior commander is a brilliant strategist able to command 9 armies at the same time.

I understand the idea that maneuver-heavy generals will favor Fabian tactics or attrition, while shock monkeys will want to hurl themselves on the nearest pike square, but will there - I pray - be personalities to these leaders? I would love, love, love for MMtG to adopt Vickyish personalities to give your generals some uniqueness and potentially give each new campaign a totally different feel depending on what kinds of "talent" you have to draw from.

They have personality traits. Check last Dev Diary.

Hmm...now even back in antiquity, it wouldn't be unusual for a state to be able to amass 20K or more soldiers for an important campaign. Assuming MMtG national armies are going to be composed of more divisional-sized formations (I hope the 1.0 AI will be competent enough to move them in close formation), are there going to be ways to staff these formations with leaders without breaking the bank? MMtM allows you to hire as many generals as you have diplomats, of course, but in most cases it's quite expensive. Hiring a leader for every 5K soldiers could be a daunting task, especially given their often short lifespans.

You don't need a leader to commaand your armies, your leaders don't cost you gold (but cost you maintenance) andf you are limited in your military leadership, both land and combat at the same time, by the military rating of your ruler. Also, you may have several armies. But each army can hold only so much men.

[GamerKG]

General retreats from where it comes.

Yay! So they'll get back on my ships instead of running stupidly to their death in Anatolia!

EDIT: What if they started there? (defender) Do they go to wherever they came from a loooong time ago? What if they were created there and never moved?