Cheers -- firstly, I'm really looking forward to the game, and am very excited that the emphasis is going to be on trade and the use of having a navy. However, I think also Clausewitz's land system could use some work, in particular to address the ease with which a large force can attack a small force and wipe it out.
The best strategy in a Clausewitz game is to form a large stack and hunt down the other side's smaller stacks before they combine. In theory it's a fine strategy, but in practice it was actually fairly rarely employed. It was hard to bring an enemy to battle, particularly a smaller and more nimble force. Battles where 10k troops wipe out 3k troops were fairly rare, not because 10k troops couldn't do it, but because the 3k would never take the field against them if they could avoid it -- and usually, there is a way to avoid it. It wasn't simply a question of marching faster than the other side -- in the time it took to go from marching order to battle array, the other side could usually march off.
As best as I can tell, most pitched battles in the period in question were between relatively evenly-matched forces. Take one well-known exception -- Agincourt. Here the French were trying to force the smaller English side into battle, but it took considerable maneuvering to do so. The English victory was all the more surprising because Henry never wanted to fight in the first place.
I would propose a simple change that would
1) Make blobbing harder
2) Give the weaker side a viable defensive strategy even if vastly outnumbered -- shadowing the enemy, harassing and waiting for an opportunity
3) Make battles rarer, but less predictable
4) Give flavor to, for example, Spanish partisans, guerrilla leaders like Shivaji, steppe nomads, and other
5) Make underpopulated provinces with rough terrain more expensive to conquer, as they were historically, without giving them an unrealistic troop bonus that could also carry over to the offense.
Therefore, what I would propose would be for each stack of units to have a toggled flag -- either seeking battle, or declining battle. If two enemy stacks are in the same region and both want battle, then they fight. If neither stacks want battle, they don't fight -- although maybe there could be a skirmish mechanism, where they inflict a few casualties/morale losses on each other, preferably without taking into consideration numerical odds.
If some stacks are offering battle, and other stacks are declining battle, then the following happens:
1) Both sides skirmish, as above. Skirmishing might be one randomly selected unit versus another unit, rather than stack vs stack -- thus making numerical odds less important
2) Each side faces an attrition penalty, with the side declining battle facing a higher one. (It's hard to gather food when you need to stay out of reach)
3) The side declining battle suffers a periodic morale loss, unless they have a really good leader. It's demoralizing to constantly be out of reach
4) Both sides move more slowly out of the province
5) Only sides offering battle may siege. They do so somewhat less effectively
6) Each day, there is a small chance that any stack offering battle may force an enemy into pitch battle. This is more likely if the target stack is large, contains artillery, etc. Good leaders or all-cav stacks, or stacks in rough terrain, have an easier time staying out of reach
7) The weaker force faces the risk of an event -- leader accused of cowardice, losing stability, unless you fight. This represents the political factors that sometimes forced an army into battle.
Some other possible options
1) If there's a sudden change of fortunes -- morale falls in the stronger force -- then the weaker force can suddenly switch to offering battle, descend on the enemy, and wipe them out.
2) A stronger force might want to detach a flying column -- all cavalry, for example, to hunt a weaker force in the same region.
3) A similar system might be used at sea, to represent the difficulties of hunting small crafts/flotillas -- ie, pirate sloops -- with large fleets.
I realize that there is no such thing as an easy change in a computer game, particularly one where you have to teach the AI to use a tactic effectively.
Another drawback would be that it would be harder to tell from looking at the map what is going on in a province.
But, I think it would possibly make for a more exciting, unpredictable, and realistic game.
The best strategy in a Clausewitz game is to form a large stack and hunt down the other side's smaller stacks before they combine. In theory it's a fine strategy, but in practice it was actually fairly rarely employed. It was hard to bring an enemy to battle, particularly a smaller and more nimble force. Battles where 10k troops wipe out 3k troops were fairly rare, not because 10k troops couldn't do it, but because the 3k would never take the field against them if they could avoid it -- and usually, there is a way to avoid it. It wasn't simply a question of marching faster than the other side -- in the time it took to go from marching order to battle array, the other side could usually march off.
As best as I can tell, most pitched battles in the period in question were between relatively evenly-matched forces. Take one well-known exception -- Agincourt. Here the French were trying to force the smaller English side into battle, but it took considerable maneuvering to do so. The English victory was all the more surprising because Henry never wanted to fight in the first place.
I would propose a simple change that would
1) Make blobbing harder
2) Give the weaker side a viable defensive strategy even if vastly outnumbered -- shadowing the enemy, harassing and waiting for an opportunity
3) Make battles rarer, but less predictable
4) Give flavor to, for example, Spanish partisans, guerrilla leaders like Shivaji, steppe nomads, and other
5) Make underpopulated provinces with rough terrain more expensive to conquer, as they were historically, without giving them an unrealistic troop bonus that could also carry over to the offense.
Therefore, what I would propose would be for each stack of units to have a toggled flag -- either seeking battle, or declining battle. If two enemy stacks are in the same region and both want battle, then they fight. If neither stacks want battle, they don't fight -- although maybe there could be a skirmish mechanism, where they inflict a few casualties/morale losses on each other, preferably without taking into consideration numerical odds.
If some stacks are offering battle, and other stacks are declining battle, then the following happens:
1) Both sides skirmish, as above. Skirmishing might be one randomly selected unit versus another unit, rather than stack vs stack -- thus making numerical odds less important
2) Each side faces an attrition penalty, with the side declining battle facing a higher one. (It's hard to gather food when you need to stay out of reach)
3) The side declining battle suffers a periodic morale loss, unless they have a really good leader. It's demoralizing to constantly be out of reach
4) Both sides move more slowly out of the province
5) Only sides offering battle may siege. They do so somewhat less effectively
6) Each day, there is a small chance that any stack offering battle may force an enemy into pitch battle. This is more likely if the target stack is large, contains artillery, etc. Good leaders or all-cav stacks, or stacks in rough terrain, have an easier time staying out of reach
7) The weaker force faces the risk of an event -- leader accused of cowardice, losing stability, unless you fight. This represents the political factors that sometimes forced an army into battle.
Some other possible options
1) If there's a sudden change of fortunes -- morale falls in the stronger force -- then the weaker force can suddenly switch to offering battle, descend on the enemy, and wipe them out.
2) A stronger force might want to detach a flying column -- all cavalry, for example, to hunt a weaker force in the same region.
3) A similar system might be used at sea, to represent the difficulties of hunting small crafts/flotillas -- ie, pirate sloops -- with large fleets.
I realize that there is no such thing as an easy change in a computer game, particularly one where you have to teach the AI to use a tactic effectively.
Another drawback would be that it would be harder to tell from looking at the map what is going on in a province.
But, I think it would possibly make for a more exciting, unpredictable, and realistic game.
Last edited: