SP - Battles & Sieges Change the way reinforcements work

[Nani_The_Great]

Hey y'all,

Currently, if you're playing on a Battle Size that is lower than the amount of soldiers present, the battle will utilize a reinforcement system. I say reinforcement - and that is what it's called - but what we're really talking about here is a spawn system.

The problem with it is that if you're playing on any setting lower than the amount of soldiers in a given battle is that it gives an unfair advantage to the losing side. For the sake of simplicity, let's imagine two armies fighting with a 100 battle size limit, and both armies are using exclusively infantry. One of them advances because it has the advantage in terms of troop quality, and the first 50v50 skirmish ensues. The advancing army comes out on top and loses about 20 men, whereas the defending army loses the better part of 40.

What this should mean is that the advancing army wins this skirmish. What currently happens in this game, though, is that the defending army gets reinforced with 40 men, while the advancing army gets 20 men; both are back at 50, and the melee can continue. In theory, there is nothing wrong with this at all - it allows the battle to play out as fairly as possible for people with limited processing power (or in battles with too many troops to count) without giving one side any advantage it didn't already have.

The problem arises when you start to notice how these reinforcements reach their armies: all armies have a set spawn point, and this is where all of the reinforcements spawn in. Instead of 50v50 turning into 10v30, what we have currently is an advancing, winning army often getting surrounded by the sudden appearance of fresh troops, while their own reinforcements are oftentimes hundreds of meters away. This makes fighting at an advantage ironically quite dangerous, since killing the enemy essentially gives them free replenishment, and if you're fighting anywhere near their spawn point, you will soon find your winning, numerically superior army surrounded by an enemy that was losing hard just a moment ago.

My suggestion is to simply do away with the respawn system. Reinforcements are essentially unfixable since it will always give an unfair advantage to the losing side, even if you make the spawn points dynamic or lock them to the edge of the map; so long as the defenders are close to the edge, we will be in the same situation with troops appearing out of nowhere and suddenly surrounding enemy formations. I think the best way to solve this is to break big battles up into skirmishes, where a proportionate amount of troops fight, and after the battle is over, another skirmish starts, losses and routs all accounted for. Warband had a system that was similar to this, but it also had the dreadful middle-of-the-map respawn system mixed in.

Note: I am not saying that all big battles should be skirmishes. If your PC can handle the biggest battle sizes, then the battles should be as big as possible. I'm merely arguging against the respawn system as a whole, since I feel that it really puts a dent into the quality of battles. Spawning (troops popping up on the battlefield at any point) as a whole is just bad in my opinion, but reinforcement at the edge of the map could still be implemented as a mechanic for armies that appear late to a battle etc.

 

[Wulfger]

I agree that this is a huge problem with how battles play out at the moment, but changing it to a series of smaller skirmishes risks eliminating the feeling of participating in large battles which is fairly central to the game, in my opinion. I think a better solution would be to continue to allow troops to spawn in, but rather than have the spawn points be fixed at either end of the map have them be a set distance behind the "center" of your rear-most group of units. This way if the bulk of your army is sitting back while you harass with horse archers any reinforcing horse archers will rightfully need to go catch up, but if the bulk of your army is together you can reinforce almost immediately without being penalized for taking the initiative. I think this would also keep battles more structured, right now it seems like in large fights it almost always devolves into masses of infantry and ranged milling around in a few different groups, spawning right behind the main body of your troops means they'll hopefully be able to keep more a "front line." If an army is pushed back all the way to the edge of the map such that their spawn is outside it any reinforcements coming in should automatically flee, which will penalize a player for just hiding in the corner and incentivize active battles in the center of the map.

 

[kefaso]

Yes, agreed, this is a huge issue, spawning should be in a distance relative to the friendly units, not at a fixed position.

This is also true in sieges, where you can break through the gate, work your way through the immobile slob of soldiers defending the gate from the sides, or even the back (as it's easy to go around them) and suddenly new units spawn right behind that blob, even if you're standing right there.

Hurts the immersion.

 

[TheShermanator]

Just started a huge post on this - but then found this thread:

But yeah, I think battle reinforcement mechanics (i.e. when armies are larger than max allowed size, such that reinforcements spawn in on the battlefield to replace the fallen) present an issue, and I can't think of many ways to improve it myself (besides I guess buying a new better-than-mid-range gaming rig!).

Anticipating and gaming your own reinforcements vs. enemy reinforcement is a major part - arguably the most important part - of every large battle I've fought in the game. Generally this mechanic + Lancaster's Square Law means that the team that keeps their force together has a huge advantage. Of course, this makes the defenders advantage huge. If both armies are above the limit, therefore, I actually try to game it on the campaign map so that I have less men than the enemy so that I can be sure that they will attack me. Then, you find a good position reasonably close to your own spawning zone / away from the enemy spawning zone and hold. As long as you win the first engagement (of evenly matched forces), you can pretty easily mow down the successive ragged waves of enemy reinforcements just by waiting for them.

(Also, it means that you have to micromanage cavalry crazy carefully. Even if you engage at an opportune time, you have to be careful of getting them caught in the hard-to-predict enemy reinforcements.)

But, conversely, if you don't do gamey defensive-ness, you can get punished for offensively seeking out and killing enemy troops - your men can get caught and killed because of magically appearing enemies after you've skillfully broken enemy lines.

All of these same issues, more or less, are exacerbated in sieges. Generally, the defender's advantage applies. But more specifically, the player can get caught in impossible situations if he/she doesn't anticipate where and when reinforcements will spawn. Several times I've carefully blocked and cut my way to the edge of the enemy's shield block, used my position to kill them from the side, but then gotten abruptly surrounded and cut down by eager reinforcement that spawned in behind me.

 

[TheShermanator]

Possible solution: Maybe if the spawning zone was right on top of the relevant troop formation (e.g. infantry reinforcements spawn on top of group 1)? That would at least mitigate the defender's advantage + Lancaster's Square Law dynamics outlined above. E.g. If you attack with 1000 vs. 300 (let's say equal troop quality), and the limit is 300, you would still have to attack on the battlefield with 300 on 300. But then 50 die on each side, you would instantly get 50 replacements on the spot, and the enemy would not, making it 300 vs. 250. Then 300 vs. 200 when 50 more enemies die, etc. Lancaster's Square Law would snowball you to victory incrementally, then exponentially (as it should, all other factors being equal).

 

[eritchie]

Possible solution: Maybe if the spawning zone was right on top of the relevant troop formation (e.g. infantry reinforcements spawn on top of group 1)? That would at least mitigate the defender's advantage + Lancaster's Square Law dynamics outlined above. E.g. If you attack with 1000 vs. 300 (let's say equal troop quality), and the limit is 300, you would still have to attack on the battlefield with 300 on 300. But then 50 die on each side, you would instantly get 50 replacements on the spot, and the enemy would not, making it 300 vs. 250. Then 300 vs. 200 when 50 more enemies die, etc. Lancaster's Square Law would snowball you to victory incrementally, then exponentially (as it should, all other factors being equal).

Hey y'all,

Currently, if you're playing on a Battle Size that is lower than the amount of soldiers present, the battle will utilize a reinforcement system. I say reinforcement - and that is what it's called - but what we're really talking about here is a spawn system.

The problem with it is that if you're playing on any setting lower than the amount of soldiers in a given battle is that it gives an unfair advantage to the losing side. For the sake of simplicity, let's imagine two armies fighting with a 100 battle size limit, and both armies are using exclusively infantry. One of them advances because it has the advantage in terms of troop quality, and the first 50v50 skirmish ensues. The advancing army comes out on top and loses about 20 men, whereas the defending army loses the better part of 40.

What this should mean is that the advancing army wins this skirmish. What currently happens in this game, though, is that the defending army gets reinforced with 40 men, while the advancing army gets 20 men; both are back at 50, and the melee can continue. In theory, there is nothing wrong with this at all - it allows the battle to play out as fairly as possible for people with limited processing power (or in battles with too many troops to count) without giving one side any advantage it didn't already have.

The problem arises when you start to notice how these reinforcements reach their armies: all armies have a set spawn point, and this is where all of the reinforcements spawn in. Instead of 50v50 turning into 10v30, what we have currently is an advancing, winning army often getting surrounded by the sudden appearance of fresh troops, while their own reinforcements are oftentimes hundreds of meters away. This makes fighting at an advantage ironically quite dangerous, since killing the enemy essentially gives them free replenishment, and if you're fighting anywhere near their spawn point, you will soon find your winning, numerically superior army surrounded by an enemy that was losing hard just a moment ago.

My suggestion is to simply do away with the respawn system. Reinforcements are essentially unfixable since it will always give an unfair advantage to the losing side, even if you make the spawn points dynamic or lock them to the edge of the map; so long as the defenders are close to the edge, we will be in the same situation with troops appearing out of nowhere and suddenly surrounding enemy formations. I think the best way to solve this is to break big battles up into skirmishes, where a proportionate amount of troops fight, and after the battle is over, another skirmish starts, losses and routs all accounted for. Warband had a system that was similar to this, but it also had the dreadful middle-of-the-map respawn system mixed in.

Note: I am not saying that all big battles should be skirmishes. If your PC can handle the biggest battle sizes, then the battles should be as big as possible. I'm merely arguging against the respawn system as a whole, since I feel that it really puts a dent into the quality of battles. Spawning (troops popping up on the battlefield at any point) as a whole is just bad in my opinion, but reinforcement at the edge of the map could still be implemented as a mechanic for armies that appear late to a battle etc.

I completely agree and since having fixed the constant war problem with a mod this is now my single biggest issue. I am fighting these big battles 1000 vs 1000 and i take my troops to a good spot to begin the fight but then when i get reinforcements they are spawning right in the advancing enemies army/reinforcements and it is meaning i am losing huge numbers of quality soldiers for no good reason. If i try to push the enemy army they then get reinforcements spawning all around my advancing army. If you tell the infantry to gather at a certain point all the reinforcements try to make it there and just get slaughtered by enemy troops, if you tell them to charge then the whole battle just turns into one big mess. I dont know what the right way is to fix this but it seems to have got much worse recently. I am generally having to reload these big fights more than one time the last two weeks or so because of this and it is pretty frustrating to say the least, Ive actually taken to trying to avoid any encounters of over 1000 armies recently because it is just infuriating to watch your men just being slaughtered for no reason. I feel the simplest way would be to just decide the battles with 6-700 men each (that amount of reinforcements seems to be more manageable)

 

[TheShermanator]

I agree. There's another thread about this in which scaling down total battle size, and then modifying the initial deployment in terms of the relative proportion of men in each army, is the solution. E.g. If the total limit is 500, and an army of 600 encounters an army of 400, then the battle actually takes place between 300 vs. 200 with no reinforcements.

 

[eritchie]

I agree. There's another thread about this in which scaling down total battle size, and then modifying the initial deployment in terms of the relative proportion of men in each army, is the solution. E.g. If the total limit is 500, and an army of 600 encounters an army of 400, then the battle actually takes place between 300 vs. 200 with no reinforcements.

Yeh i think you could even have some like say (20% reinforcements without making too much of an impact but sometimes you are literally fighting 2x as many reinforcements as the original army (playing on max)

 

[TheShermanator]

Yeh i think you could even have some like say (20% reinforcements without making too much of an impact but sometimes you are literally fighting 2x as many reinforcements as the original army (playing on max)

I'd be good with that too, honestly. Almost anything seems better to me right now than the cheesiness of gaming reinforcements the status quo.