Medical Triage

Users who are viewing this thread

I just had a little thought. We all know how annoying it is to lose a knight because he was dumb and ran into a group of 3 river pirates and got beat down. Or how an enemy crossbowman will get a lucky headshot on your sergeant and kill him. Now i'm not sure what the base percentage chance an ally will be knocked out instead of killed, anyone know? But in any case, what if that percentage was much much higher initially when combined with surgery, but gradually dropped with each friendly that fell in battle. So lets say with a high surgery level, i lose 1 guy, so he has about a 90% chance of just being knocked out. Then i lose a second, and he has about an 80% chance. Something like that, you get the idea. This would also be very realistic, because the more injured men you have, the less the chance of each of them surviving. Medical triage and all that. This would greatly reduce the pain of frequently losing one guy every other battle because he decided to run off. But if your army is slaughtered, you would lose considerably more under this new system than you would currently, so it wouldn't really unbalance anything overall.
 
That is interesting, but there is a case where I can see this being worse.

I very rarely have more than 3 people fall during a battle. This is because I, Marnid, and Borcha run around on chargers and break stuff up, while my all infantry army mops up. Usually they do a pretty good job of mobbing and rarely get killed. It also helps that I massacre about 70% of the enemy for them, I'm a good leader like that.

Despite this, I still have to either pay attention to surgery or keep an eye on attrition. With a really high chance of the first falls being unconcious, I probably wouldn't have to replenish the troops often at all, I probably wouldn't even have to get leadership up to a comfortable amount of party slots for the purpose of upgrading.
 
Maybe if higher level units had a lesser chance of being killed?(well, other than the fact that they are better in combat) Although if we fix biggest drawback of M&B, the combat AI, this probably wouldn't be necessary.
 
Perhaps the reason alot of us like to leave our troops back is because, even with a high surgery, they still have a good chance of dying instead of just being knocked out. If we knew that we could take a few losses with a minimal chance of them being permanent, maybe we'd use our troops as more than just mop-up units. The biggest problem though is that the hero is a overpowered, but i can't see that changing without a bunch of people complaining.
 
if your knights got better AI, all your footmen would be slaughtered by enemy knights. Unless there are Pikemen added with added damage to horsemen, it might be okay to add better AI to horsemen. Pikemen should have a minimal range so they can be slaughtered by swordsmen. But pikemen should slaughter horsemen.

a little like this:
Pikeman > horsemen > swordsmen/archer > Pikemen
 
DaLagga said:
If we knew that we could take a few losses with a minimal chance of them being permanent, maybe we'd use our troops as more than just mop-up units.

This is true, however, I'm not intentionally using them as mop up. That is, I'm not telling them to hold position for a while, then charge. I'm not even really trying to keep enemies away from them. The fact that they mop up is just what happens with the current state of the AI.

I do think you're on to something, please don't mistake my thoroughness for an attack on your idea.
 
tsuken said:
if your knights got better AI, all your footmen would be slaughtered by enemy knights. Unless there are Pikemen added with added damage to horsemen, it might be okay to add better AI to horsemen. Pikemen should have a minimal range so they can be slaughtered by swordsmen. But pikemen should slaughter horsemen.

a little like this:
Pikeman > horsemen > swordsmen/archer > Pikemen

I like that system simple yet effective, but infantry are told that if hey are on a horse they are a bigger prize b/c they have a horse best way to avoid this is to have them dismount unless you are fighting AI knights.
 
Oh no vinz, i actually like attacks on my ideas. Only way to make them better :smile: I just want my troops to be more effective and not afraid use them to attack because i might lose some needlessly. Needs to be less emphasis on going solo and more on playing as a party character. Solo should be a viable option, but inferior and more difficult than with a group IMO. So thats what most of my suggestions aim at doing.
 
Interesting suggestion, really.

Upside: You'll be able to push your troops to combat more liberally, try out new tactics, etc...

Downside: Battles may feel less critical.

I'll think about this.
 
tsuken said:
if your knights got better AI, all your footmen would be slaughtered by enemy knights. Unless there are Pikemen added with added damage to horsemen, it might be okay to add better AI to horsemen. Pikemen should have a minimal range so they can be slaughtered by swordsmen. But pikemen should slaughter horsemen.

a little like this:
Pikeman > horsemen > swordsmen/archer > Pikemen

No, actually not unless the infantry were spread out.

Infantry that hold against charge > cavalry
infantry that do not < cavalry

holding against a charge definitely should be a function of the quality and equipment of the infantry - green/inexperienced/flanked/poorly equipped = more likely to be ridden over and veteran+/pike/spear/large shield/surrounded by friendly troops = less likely to be ridden over.

This way, charging a group of pikemen would be a really bad idea, where as running down/running over a bunch of bandit feebs would be what cavalry is all about.
 
Well armagan, i noticed you decided that it was a good idea to up the battle size 50%. Even though i didn't think that was necessary, maybe its a good idea if used in conjunction with my idea. Larger battles are going to mean more losses on your part, no matter what you're fighting. So there's a far greater chance with much larger battles that one of your units will run off and die. This should help to curve those annoying losses and keep the difficulty from rising too much with the increased battle size.
 
In wars and skirmishes people die...on both sides, no matter how well armed or armoured they are...'nuff said...

Even if a group of armed-to-the-teeth knights were to attack a large group of bandits or even mere peasants, there should be a chance that you'd lose a couple of units...

Altho there's that AI issue still that needs fixing...the least one should expect from a fully armed knight on a horse is to hold his ground for a while at least vs a horde of bandits and take out a few before falling...
 
DaLagga said:
Well armagan, i noticed you decided that it was a good idea to up the battle size 50%. Even though i didn't think that was necessary, maybe its a good idea if used in conjunction with my idea. Larger battles are going to mean more losses on your part, no matter what you're fighting. So there's a far greater chance with much larger battles that one of your units will run off and die. This should help to curve those annoying losses and keep the difficulty from rising too much with the increased battle size.

Increased battle size is an option to make players with monster machines happy. In line with your suggestion, I am increasing the overall probability of surviving a fatal blow but the probability will remain constant throughout the battle. It won't start high and fall down later. That could encourage a more calculated play-style.
 
Back
Top Bottom