Ambush, bait and other environmental tactics

Users who are viewing this thread

phenix

Regular
From what I have read of pre-industrialization warfare (sources such as battles of Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and Hannibal, classical epics such as Romance of the Three Kingdoms, one of the greatest ancient Chinese literary pieces on warfare, classical warfare manuals such as Art of War and records of Spanish Conquistadors'  battles to colonize the Americas) use of environment and pre-battle setup are essential elements of tactics. Battles are won by taking advantage of the environment such as ambush in the forest. I realize that only so much can be implemented in a game and that a game is not a complete simulation, however, the game doesn't offer any significant use of the battlefields' environment and no pre-battle plan or setup is even allowed. All of the AI knows exactly where every troop is so the element of surprise or any kind of ambush tactic is completely disregarded. Something that tries to simulate tactics or setups should be implemented if this game is trying to be realistic about battles.
 
you can use terrain editor or edit mode by clicking ctrl+e in battle with cheats on, allows modifications to hill height, adds trees (weakens cavalry and archery), add buildings, change and create spawn points of you or your enemy, the ground texture, etc.


with this you could spawn dummy units somewhere and sneak up on the enemy force relatively unnoticed (a few units see you) and destroy them. so there is implication of "tactics" you just have to do change it yourself. i recommend testing around it with this first if you dont already use it, it can be tricky in the beginning. 

also dont forget

https://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?cid=8&id=1228
 
I just think that such a feature should be more seamlessly integrated into the game maybe have it optional for lazy people because the editor feels more like you are changing the game externally instead of changing the situations of the in-game characters. Also the AI knows exactly where you are no matter the terrain.
I'm just saying that the editor is more of a game modding and creation tool instead of an in-game feature that extends the gameplay. If anyone misunderstands, I am not saying that mount&blade is not good because it lacks such features, I am just saying that such features would be great to extend mount&blade's gameplay.
 
ok mount and blade was pretty much made to be modded. it was centered around making mods easier to create. i know the ai knows, however most will be pre-occupied killing your dummy only a few notice and attack you.

please dont be lazy. just change the game with editing, i dont think you understand how fortunate it is to even have an editing function come with mount and blade. to allow everything the way you want to it to be, hard or easy. the best way to challenge yourself is to create it yourself.
also ambushes and the like don't give you much of an advantage if your enemy is on the move, since they will simply strike back after the first attack or simply notice you while charging. horses are loud and plant life make sound when moved in so they would definitely hear you. so it really would be pointless to have it, too much work for too much of a useless thing. and this game is centered around SKIRMISHING and sieges, not massive 10,000 men battles where simply charging is an example of extremely poor choice of tactical alternatives. this game is more like 90vs90. and when skirmishing with small numbers of troops such as you do in this game, no significant amount of tactics is required other than the basics to be at top strength in a fight. 
 
Oh stfu! "Mod it in!" **** with your lame ass argument against it Dark GDK must be the greatest game ever (Its a game creation program that does little more then act as the basic engine for constructing a game.. but since you can mod it into any game, that must make it a great game, huh?)
 
MZylythe: my opinion is that something like this (a simple version would be fine) can greatly enhance the native gameplay, making the battles a lot more strategic and emersive (great for both role playing, if you're into that, and strategic challenging, especially with the multiplayer coming out in warbands). A feature like this is in the same group as features like riding a horse or giving troops orders, if implemented at all it should be in native. Also the editor is there for editing the game, it is a tool for modders to create and edit (hence the name editor) it is not a gameplay feature. I want to play a battle where I can ambush enemies, I don't want to play God and leave the game to add in hills and dummies so that my troops can attack enemies without getting noticed. Using an editor completely defeats the purpose of this feature (which is to make the battles more realistic), and if overused (which is very likely) completely defeats the purpose of the whole game. Btw, your statement that 90v90 skirmishes with small number of troops requires no tactics is ridiculous. Realistically, the commanders of these skirmishes will fry their brains on tactics and strategy because it saves lives. You sure don't know much about troops and warfare if you think smaller scaled battles requires no planning. If you look at it as a game, it is still significant because even 1 or 2 men can make a difference of victory or defeat, with tactics 10 can defeat 20, 90 can surely defeat 90. 
 
"He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious." - Sun Tzu

Sometimes, less troops is a strategy, enviromental tactics should be based on the number of troops, and springing such a trap should give one a HUGE tactics bonus (A 30 vs 100 battle could end up having even men on the field in some cases)

And yes, saying "Use the editor" is like saying "Make the game" what if they didn't have horses, would you be satisfied with "Mod them in"?
 
DamienZharkoff said:
"He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious." - Sun Tzu

Sometimes, less troops is a strategy, enviromental tactics should be based on the number of troops, and springing such a trap should give one a HUGE tactics bonus (A 30 vs 100 battle could end up having even men on the field in some cases)

And yes, saying "Use the editor" is like saying "Make the game" what if they didn't have horses, would you be satisfied with "Mod them in"?
Yes! That's what I'm talking about, this game needs more Sun Tzu because anyone that doesn't read Sun Tzu cannot even start to call themselves knowledgeable in warfare. This game should reward players for the stuff Sun Tzu emphasizes. To "mod in" tactics in a game that uses troops is like to "mod in" shooting in a FPS.
 
I think this would be a great idea.  I hate that the AI knows exactly where you are.  The tactics in the game as it is now is "set your archers up on the closest hill before the huge meat-grinder that is your enemy gets to you" and of course, the enemy is making a straight b-line towards you, right from the start as they know exactly where you started.  I would very much like to set up an ambush or set some trap in a forests or even be ambushed when attacking farmers.  It'd make the game a lot more interesting and less monotone.
 
I agree that mount and blade is a very nice game but lacks combat tatics.
However, it would be very hard to make these tatics work. Beside what has been already discussed (the AI's omniscience), there are other problems that would make tatics harder to be placed in the game.
For example, you can't divide your troops in groups as you please; you can only divide them by their types (archers, cavalry and infantry). That way, it's not possible, for example, to have some soldiers to charge your enemy while two groups of archers rain death upon them from oposed sides of the battlefield and a part of your cavalry charge them from behind.
Even if you could do that, having your men positioned correctly would take so much time that most of the "bait" would be completely dead when you do it. Also, the troops being repositioned would very likely be seen while moving, even if the AI wasn't omniscient.
In the other hand, being able to position your troops before the battle starts would make the player (and NPCs with that ability) very overpower.
Other problem is that you can only make your troops stand in the position YOU ARE STADING. You cant send them to a specific position in the battlefield.

I have some suggestions that could make ambushes, baits and enviromental tatics more plausible:
In the world map:
-> A party skill called "hide" or "camouflage" that would make your party harder to see while in the woods or other terrains. It would also make the party look smaller (less members).
-> when being pursued by an enemy, have the option of "prepare for battle" in the camping menu. The party would stop walking until the pursuer reaches it. However, when the battle starts, the pursued party would have some seconds to position theirselves before the pursuer enters the battlefield.
-> Another option of action while camping: "set trap". The party would divide in smaller groups that would stand ground around a perimeter. Them, the player would be able to bait enemy parties into that perimeter, considering that the group with the player would be small and therefore atractive to bandits, looters and enemy lords. When that happens, all the groups of your party converge to the enemy and attack it.
In battles:
-> being able to send your troops to one position (like pointing and clicking the mouse over a hill).
-> being able to, before the battle starts, divide your party in groups, that would substitute the "calvalry, hear me", "archers, hear me" stuff. The result would be "group 1, hear me", "group 3, hear me". With that and the item above, you WOULD be able to do what i said in the beggining: have some soldiers to charge your enemy while two groups of archers rain death upon them from oposed sides of the battlefield and a part of your cavalry charge them from behind.
and, at last, one element that would make gameplay more fun but also add some tatics to it:
-> when joining a battle already in progress, the battle had to effectively be in progress. I mean, when your party enter the battlefield, the combatants are already engaging theirselves. Also, the player could be able to join the battle from the oposite side (in other words, to enter the battlefield from behind of your oponents).

Sorry for making a huge post in bad english. I hope you can read it until the end  :???:

 
Back
Top Bottom