Armagan, we really needs for a little tactics!

[JetJedi]

Sorry if it was already spoken, but I would like to tell pair words.

If you use different types of units (archers + cavalry) you know as it uneasy. When you order "hold" everyone mix up in a heap, cavalry closes line of a sigh and archers late find out the enemy. I suggest adding a few «tactics» for the decision of this problem. Below I shall result two ideas of the decision:

1. "Separate command". A thing very simple in realization. Binding  types of groups (as in RTS) from the Party window and to order about them separately. Examples: first group (archers) " hold "; second group (cavalry) "follow", cavalry follows me from a line of fire on flank; when the opponent too close - second group "charge". Very simply and effectively. I can conduct one groups in attack and withdraw others, the pleasure from such process promptly increases.    

edit:

Stacks dividing

Opportunity of division for the same groups of units on some slots from the Party screen (it is not necessity for additional unit slots, only those that are already presented). It like in Heroes of Might and Magic. Only here the quantity of slots changes by the level of leadership. What it will gives? It will be possible to divide a cavalry on two groups: one "charge"; another - "follow", for dot impacts. Also it will be possible to divide archers into some groups for (as NikkTheTrick has told) a crossfire.

Formations

The idea can be complicated a little, having entered formations. On the party screen you choose type of formation and army follows them on the battlefield. Formation "line" is possible to arrange so: armies are built in line to "perpendicularly" your body (not line of a sight!). Turn yourself (your horse) to reconstruct line.

It is hardly more complex. But about some problems we shall talk below...


2. "Tactical screen".


Technically it is simple camera fly for the top down view on a battlefield. Fight in this mode stops. You see dislocations of yours and enemy groups. And you can choose units by the mouse and specify to them new dislocations (as in TBS/RTS). Here you can choose formations...yeah...formations… A problem that for this purpose to you, Armagan, it is required to rewrite all AI. Enemy AI should be able to use formations too, differently it will be similar to beating of the child. Difficultly. But if you manage it you will be the greatest person!
_____________________________________________________________


Armagan, we really want little wise fights. Certainly, to enter formations a problem difficult enough, you can begin with something easier. Therefore the offer number one (separate command), in my opinion, is optimum. Very simply in realization and with set of pluss. We hope for you Armagan! Also we wait...

 

[TheMany]

so...pre-programming your party, that sounds pretty fun. Tactical screen would change the whole game

 

[Finrolf]

i just agree with that


( and great work armagan by the way )

 

[JetJedi]

TheMany

As I already spoke, the first offer (separate command) is optimum. It is very simple in realization. I think that the formation will not be superfluous too.

Tactical screen will really change the most part of game. It will required a greater battlefield and a lot of units...

 

[McPa]

Is this post only for Armagan or can we join the party?

 

[jellywerker]

We also needs some good garmmars...

In all seriousness though, this sounds like a good idea.

 

[Merentha]

Formations would require a lot of work. If they can be worked in relatively easily, I am all for it. If not, simply keeping ranged, infantry, and cavalry seperate for the orders would create rudimentary tactics. A favorite idea of mine is a starting box like that in the totalwar games. The higher the tactics skill, the larger the box. Then the three groups could be placed anywhere in the box. Again, more challenging to code, but could be well worth it.

Oh, maybe make four groups, with ranged infantry, ranged mounted, melee infantry, and melee mounted. Bind those to the F1, F2, F3, F4, then you press the appropriate order button. Sigh...basic tactics.

 

[JetJedi]

I think that there is no necessity for any "preconstructed groups". Just opportunity to bind different types of units (numbers of types certainly depends on leadership) from the party screen. On any buttons. I think it simply enough.

 

[Poil]

So would war parties also use tactics, while bandits would just mindlessly charge you (like they do now)? Sounds awesome anyway!

 

[James Sterrett]

The SWAT 3 command interface might come in quite handy for this, with cascading menus accessed through the number keys:

Top level:

1: Everybody
2: Foot soldiers
3: Foot Archers (ranged weapons)
4: Cavalry
5: Horse archers

Second level:
1: Defend this position
2: Follow Me
3: Charge!
4: Mount
5: Dismount

4 and 5 only apply to those with horses.... While not-horsed, they follow commands for Foot Soldiers and Foot Archers.

Thus, tapping 1 then 1 means "Everybody" "Defend this position".
Tapping 5 then 3 means "Horse Archers" "Charge!"

There's a real limit to how complex our commands should be able to get for an medieval battlefield, but being able to give orders to the basic unit types ought to be workable and decently historical.

 

[JetJedi]

Poil

If to enter formations the opponent too should be able to use them (except for a bandits, he-he ). Otherwise it will be similar to beating of the child. I think that it is necessary to begin with easier: separate command. But if Armagan will feel in itself forces for formations - we only shall be glad!


James Sterrett

...hmmmm...I think that binding units on buttons independently - it will be much easier and more clear...

 

[James Sterrett]

While it seems clumsy without trying it (I got used to it very fast - it's essentially a "who" "do what" and I still know a lot of the SWAT3 keystrokes cold several years later), the advantages of the cascading-menu method are:

1) It keeps all the keys right near your movement (WASD) fingers.

2) I'd guess it's easier to code.

That said, I'm not at all averse to using such a system with groupings 1-N (where N = Tactics skill?) that were designated from the Party screen.


I'm not as worried about formations, partly because I think the AI is slowly getting better about handling itself anyway. Maybe I'm just optimistic.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

As long as the orders would be possible realistically I'm strongly for them,
even as detailed as "5 of so-and-so go there" (with a point to "there").
I don't like the idea of a top down view, better if you can only see from your character.
Another thing for realism could be to restrict orders during actual fighting as troops would be unable to hear, comprehend etc.
Simple formations would be good too especially for archers.

 

[Janus]

All this stuff makes me want to go back and play Battlezone II some more. Ah, classic stuff. If only I could figure out where I put it.

I wouldn't want to see overly complicated commands being added to M&B, but I agree that some improved rudimentary troop commands would be great. I like James Sterrett's idea best based on SWAT 3's commands (though I've never played it).

EDIT: and I agree, simple formations would be good too. I've had too many times where I want to place my archers on a hill and have them all firing, but it ends up where only a couple of them can safely fire as bunched up as they are.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

I think it would be better to make groops from the party window.

I would like to have 2 groups of archers: positioned away from each other overlooking the field, they will be able to hit enemies bearing shields from the sides. Crossfire rules

 

[Kelpo]

I think it would be better to make groops from the party window.

I would like to have 2 groups of archers: positioned away from each other overlooking the field, they will be able to hit enemies bearing shields from the sides. Crossfire rules

Hear hear.

 

[JetJedi]

NikkTheTrick

Yeah, I was thinking about it too! Stack dividing as in HOMM. So, I have made some corrections in the first post. Some remarks, some punishments…

 

[robertthered]

What would be great is if there was a secondary pre-battle screen that consisted of a top-down map of the battlefield upon which you place your units within a certain starting area and then give them their orders.

The type and number of units placeable would of course be restricted by how many you could bring in to battle normally and whether they're still unconscious or not.

As far as orders go, you could divide your now postioned force up into groups on the pre-battle screen and then give each group its own queue of orders--select group one and click on the map where you want them to go, setting waypoints along the way, select group two and do the same on a different path, etc. The waypoints would be where new orders are carried out.

Perhaps you want a group to wait at a particular point until your signal (done during the battle), at which point they'd advance to the next point. All you'd do is click on a waypoint and, in the 'order' area at the bottom of the screen, select "wait for signal to advance" or something similar, and they'd move onto the next waypoint once the condition had been met. Or you could even put a time limit on their waiting at a certain location, before advancing to the next point.

This section of the order area might look, very roughly, something like this:

• o None
  o Wait for signal to Advance
  o Wait for signal to Attack
  o Wait for XX seconds before Advance
  o Wait for XX seconds before Attack
  o Wait for Group X to Attack before Advance
  o Wait for Group X to Attack before Attack
  o Wait for Group X to reach Waypoint X before Advance
  o Wait for Group X to reach Waypoint X before Attack

By default the order would be None, meaning that if no specific order is given the group will automatically advance to the next waypoint if there is one, or move to attack from that point if there isn't another after it.

Additionally to the "what to do" section of the order area, there'd be a "how to behave" section:

• Aggressive - default behaviour, attack if attacked, pursue nearby enemies only a short distance if there are further waypoints to be reached. If not, advance on enemy.
  Defensive - try to hold ground, attack only if enemy is very close. Emphasis on advancing to the next waypoint while merely holding off an enemy or maintaining control of a certain area rather than actively eliminating enemies.
  Guerilla - hit and fade, attack and pursue the enemy a short distance then retreat and repeat.

I'm sure there's other behaviours to add, or ways to further refine this section. Some behaviours (e.g Guerilla) really only make sense for the final waypoint.

The next section would be formations--Box, Wedge, Line, etc. This would be greatly enhanced by allowing you determine the basic equipment of your troops within the game in general. If you could ensure a group all had shields you could employ a shield wall using the Line formation and Defensive behaviour.

I'm not greatly in favour of complicated in-battle commands. I don't see it as very realistic in a medieval setting. No radio. All there'd be is instruments, flags and yelling for signalling stages of an already existing plan, rather than issuing new commands.

 

[Luthius]

Thats kind of like a dominians 2 pre battle setup. could work. could even be as simple as giving your troops preferred targets. Cavalry strike at the archers etc..

 

[chaos]

I like the idea of Swat3 Command Interface.
Thats should be that we need