PDA

View Full Version : The Methods of War


fyro11
05-28-2008, 09:12 AM
Hi there,

In the Total War series (of which I've only played Medieval), I really liked the pre-battle period/phase. The thing I liked is when both armies on either side line up their units, rather than just send them straight from their base to attack the enemy units. The methods of war (generally speaking) can briefly be divided into three:
1) Harassment (by this, I mean the continued assault where a steady stream of units keeps harassing the enemy)
2) Random skirmishes/flashpoints (this is where skirmishes occur wherever army x clashes with army y).
3) Preparative + organised (this is where both sides have prepared to the best of their ability, and line their armies up for war in rank fashion, taunting each other).

Of all the RTS games I've played, most disregard the last method of war, due to the perceived 'problem' I've highlighted and underlined. As you'll see, this last method adds so much more realism and it's not really a problem either.

So let's use a scenario. You are in your stronghold and the enemy surrounds your base, I think all three methods should be permitted. The last one could be implemented in this easy way: stamina. Just add stamina. For trekking all the way from their starting point or base, the enemy that surrounds your base could have lost stamina, even if it not be a lot. The affected units could just about be everything excluding siege. If the enemy has, say, 80% stamina, they would be discouraged from attacking straight away, and instead, could line up their units and siege weaponry (till the units reach 90% stamina), to make the siege effective and devastating.

On the other hand, this time period could give the defenders an oppurtunity for a 'sortie', i.e. come out of the base and lay as much damage on the enemy, and then run back inside. This, in turn, would lessen the blow of the siege. Also, the old-school tactic of attacking straight from the off would still be available but the enemy would know that their chances of succeeding would be somewhat decreased due to less stamina.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts that came to my head. Of course, it's totally up to you.

EDIT: I should also mention that the reduction in stamina would affect all the stats of the unit, i.e. decrease them by 20% if they were to have, say, 80% stamina.

This system would also promote scouting to see the number of enemies and where the enemy is located, etc. Alternatively, scouting may just be a bad idea, though I sometimes imagine individual riders on horses scouting through the forests to explore the woodland home of the Elves, and all of a sudden "whoosh"- "thwack"!, an arrow out of a ranger's bow knocks the rider off the horse. It'd be amazing.

frankein_fish
05-28-2008, 10:00 AM
Hmm not bad im a total war fan too played all games except Shogun :p
Well as i said: great idea

Joseph Visscher
05-28-2008, 11:06 AM
Hi there,

In the Total War series (of which I've only played Medieval), I really liked the pre-battle period/phase. The thing I liked is when both armies on either side line up their units, rather than just send them straight from their base to attack the enemy units. The methods of war (generally speaking) can briefly be divided into three:
1) Harassment (by this, I mean the continued assault where a steady stream of units keeps harassing the enemy)
2) Random skirmishes/flashpoints (this is where skirmishes occur wherever army x clashes with army y).
3) Preparative + organised (this is where both sides have prepared to the best of their ability, and line their armies up for war in rank fashion, taunting each other).

Of all the RTS games I've played, most disregard the last method of war, due to the perceived 'problem' I've highlighted and underlined. As you'll see, this last method adds so much more realism and it's not really a problem either.



Dawn of fantasy does not go in periods/phases, it is in real time.

All of what you have stated is possible in Dawn of Fantasy, It depends on the players playing, most(orcs lets say) will most likely just attack you on sight and try to loot your dead army for resources. Unless you defeat them.

attacking a stronghold randomly without command and or sending in units in one small group at a time will not do much of anything, so you may see a bit of player to player taunting as you both assemble massive the armies around and in your stronghold.
If your enemy is skilled and commands well, and uses siege towers, ladders, battering rams on gates and other siege equipment to allow his armies on top of and inside your stronghold... yea your pretty much screwed, unless you got a large enough force to fight inside your walls, thing is, is if he is smart, he will start destroying all your houses so your population limit goes down so you cant make any more units temporarily; you could get stuck trying to build houses instead of training troops while he brings in his new second army he just build. Things can get complex. :P




So let's use a scenario. You are in your stronghold and the enemy surrounds your base, I think all three methods should be permitted. The last one could be implemented in this easy way: stamina. Just add stamina. For trekking all the way from their starting point or base, the enemy that surrounds your base could have lost stamina, even if it not be a lot. The affected units could just about be everything excluding siege. If the enemy has, say, 80% stamina, they would be discouraged from attacking straight away, and instead, could line up their units and siege weaponry (till the units reach 90% stamina), to make the siege effective and devastating.

On the other hand, this time period could give the defenders an oppurtunity for a 'sortie', i.e. come out of the base and lay as much damage on the enemy, and then run back inside. This, in turn, would lessen the blow of the siege. Also, the old-school tactic of attacking straight from the off would still be available but the enemy would know that their chances of succeeding would be somewhat decreased due to less stamina.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts that came to my head. Of course, it's totally up to you.

EDIT: I should also mention that the reduction in stamina would affect all the stats of the unit, i.e. decrease them by 20% if they were to have, say, 80% stamina.

This system would also promote scouting to see the number of enemies and where the enemy is located, etc. Alternatively, scouting may just be a bad idea, though I sometimes imagine individual riders on horses scouting through the forests to explore the woodland home of the Elves, and all of a sudden "whoosh"- "thwack"!, an arrow out of a ranger's bow knocks the rider off the horse. It'd be amazing.





1. Most Human strongholds have back gates so you can send out armies (or scouts) from the back to flank your attacking enemy, unless the enemy is laying seige to you from all sides. in that case, hold on, fight hard or perish. Lol.

2.Many military units have abilities that are activated with what stamina they have, therefore, if they are tired, they do have a less chance of beating the enemy if the enemy is using his abilities; for example: if you have 20 enemy swordsmen running across a field to your 20 swordsmen, and they are near to, or out of stamina, your army can then use abilities to crush the weakened army, swordsmen for example can create a block formation, which gives them; I recall 20%+ more armor, inturn will crush the tired swordsmen as every hit they do is less effective.
Just about every unit has at least 1 ability to use when it has the stamina needed to perform it.

3. All units have several Stances, therefore it is easy to tell your units to ‘hold ground’ rather then just attacking on sight and going in like a random horde.

Puppeteer
05-29-2008, 06:47 AM
Hey Fyro, do I know you from somewhere? :D
Will there be a serparate bar of stamina below the health bar?

fyro11
05-30-2008, 09:25 PM
Thanks very much Joseph; I'm glad to hear the system you have in place, and will to a good degree, bring about the type of warfare that I have in mind.

I remember the old method of destroying the enemy's houses from AoE1 and 2, so yes it is very effective. Just as a separate question, will the houses be in the inner 'sanctum', or the outter?

Oh, and whose that, Puppeteer? Pfftt! Will this weirdo please stop stalking me? :P

Nah, I like the idea though of having a stamina bar. Though if the stamina only disables a battalion from using an ability, then maybe it could just be like an on/off 'dot' touching the left/right side of the health bar?

I would love it, if the stamina reduced a battalion's movement and attack speed. That would be subtle, but yet the perfect recipe for realistic, lifelike battles. The option of a stream of units would still be an option through maybe transportation (if it exists), or even at lesser ability (i.e. lesser attack and movement speed). But even if you guys think it'd be better without the above suggestion, then I'm still happy with your decision and (over)excited about the game. :)

Puppeteer
05-31-2008, 12:30 PM
I've never been fond of stamina, as though it makes sense and is realistic I never liked it's drastic effects. Afterall, after all that marching it won't have much of an effect to such an extent as some developers add to games when the adrenilin kicks in! :D lol

iceblast
05-31-2008, 03:28 PM
Man please no stamina that is realistic but too realistic for a rts game :(

fyro11
05-31-2008, 07:22 PM
Man please no stamina that is realistic but too realistic for a rts game :(
Actually, my suggestion was that stamina should be lost very slowly. Marching from one end of the map would make you lose from 100% to 85%. And I think you guys are missing the actual point about realistic battles. Ahh, I just don't want to explain all that again. Basically, if your opponent marches to your gates, he would've lost some stamina, affecting the performance of his soldiers. So either he could just attack straight away like in traditional RTS, or, he would line up his units and trebuchets and rams while they regain their stamina. Imagine rows of perfectly lined battalions like in real life. This is what I mean by real life. They line themselves, you prepare all your units on the walls and your siege weaponry. The enemies blow their warhorns all of a sudden and chaaaarge at your walls.

I hope you guys can picture what I can, LOTR style (not the game, the movies and books!). Imagine how the army of Saruman lined up at Helms Deep, remember Théoden at Pelennor Fields, the Battle for Minas Tirith etc.

Puppeteer
06-01-2008, 06:22 AM
You could do that without actually implementing stamina... I see your point but it doesn't mean that adding in stamina will unlock that ability.

olauwers
06-01-2008, 06:40 AM
Actually, my suggestion was that stamina should be lost very slowly. Marching from one end of the map would make you lose from 100% to 85%. And I think you guys are missing the actual point about realistic battles. Ahh, I just don't want to explain all that again. Basically, if your opponent marches to your gates, he would've lost some stamina, affecting the performance of his soldiers. So either he could just attack straight away like in traditional RTS, or, he would line up his units and trebuchets and rams while they regain their stamina. Imagine rows of perfectly lined battalions like in real life. This is what I mean by real life. They line themselves, you prepare all your units on the walls and your siege weaponry. The enemies blow their warhorns all of a sudden and chaaaarge at your walls.

I hope you guys can picture what I can, LOTR style (not the game, the movies and books!). Imagine how the army of Saruman lined up at Helms Deep, remember Théoden at Pelennor Fields, the Battle for Minas Tirith etc.

Well, yes, only, in an RTS, by then, all of your nice batallions will have been shot by the enemy's archers...

fyro11
06-01-2008, 12:34 PM
Well, yes, only, in an RTS, by then, all of your nice batallions will have been shot by the enemy's archers...
Like in real-life? You wouldn't stand them that close. :rolleyes:

Ok, I suppose more people do not want it, so I'll stop arguing this point. It's not a big deal, anyway, so no problems.

olauwers
06-01-2008, 02:05 PM
Like in real-life? You wouldn't stand them that close. :rolleyes:

Ok, I suppose more people do not want it, so I'll stop arguing this point. It's not a big deal, anyway, so no problems.

Oh no, I like it very much. I only think it should be implemented in such a way that you actually stand a chance lasting through your position-taking. In real-life, you would not be defeated by the enemy's archers, as first, the enemy will hae to observe how much and which kind of troops there are, must get their army dressed and weaponed (because, yes, in real life, they did not constantly ran around in suits that weigh 50 kilos, with a weapon of 5 kilos, in which it would get really, really hot), they have to get them on the walls, ...
Basicly, they have to do the same as the enemy, but then inside the castle.

However, in RTS, your archers will already be on the wall in full numbers.

Thus, if you can balance it out for the ones in the castle to have some sort of delay in attacking, then this would be the ultimate awesomeness.

LordSlayer
06-01-2008, 03:28 PM
Thus, if you can balance it out for the ones in the castle to have some sort of delay in attacking, then this would be the ultimate awesomeness.

Might be good, as long as the delay doesn't aply if they knew in advance that a confrontation was imminent.

olauwers
06-01-2008, 04:39 PM
Well, of course, but still, it should be balanced. Otherwise it'll just be turtleing like hell. Which I like very, very, very much, but which will probably drive away most players.

Onebadterran
09-22-2008, 07:40 PM
Stamina sounds like a great idea; personally from my experiences it makes for an interesting game, even if it is just limited to how much a unit can charge the enemy.

All types of units should recieve weariness, including siege. Siege units are powered by real people, inside of the battering ram, loading the trebuchet/catapult (two different things) rocks, pooring oil to set fire to the inner city, etc.. Those people would get tired just as the rest of the army would during travels.

Even with archers firing they wont necessarily kill. In ancient times there was this great invention called the shield and platemail armor, works great against just about any type of weapon (not including siege/advanced gunpowder). The archers would also probably have limited fire arrows/arrows and would have to go to a tower or some station where there are arrow stocks ready to be replaced.

Also, boiling oil on the walls to stop invaders as well as ladders (along with the other siege weapons) would add more possibilties, ladders being the first siege units that are able to be built and boiling oil an advanced defensive/offensive technology.

Puppeteer
09-23-2008, 10:30 AM
If you look at the screenshots of the men fortresses on the website, you can see engineers standing by pots of boiling oil on the walls. It looks pretty cool :)
And I think that weariness for siege units should not affect damage so much, but aim and for trebuchets trajectory (so okay, damage there :p). That would make more sense.

Lordadamar
02-07-2009, 11:52 AM
For all of you that like stamina take time to play Medieval Total War II, I have been in Mutliplayer battles with No time with 4000 troops on the map Battles I should I have won hands down and loose because of Stamina..

Picture you have 600 archers beating down there lines you cant rush them with your infantry cause they have a 1000 Mouted units which will run you down and beat you like a red headed step child, and you archers suddenly get tired and shoting slows to nothing, your a sitting duck.. cause who the hell carries enough pikemen to stop that many mounted units.

I guess theres goods and bads to stamina but if theres no battle time limit who knows who will win...

Which brings up the question" Will there be Battle time limits? "

Puppeteer
02-07-2009, 12:21 PM
Stop firing because of lack of stamina? Jeez, how long where they firing for (their time)? That sounds ridiculous.

Lordadamar
02-09-2009, 06:39 PM
I tried to get an accurate time but with variables like


1. amount of targets in range.

2. AI chooses a time limit for every battle. Based on units.

3. and If you choose no time limit.

its seems like 3 mins on constant attacking especially archers even if they still have 40% ammo left that are tired and shooting slows to a crawl.

and swordsman/pikemen/spearman get tired in about the same time frame and they will just stand there and get slaughtered.

Now you could argue attacking in waves but when the games AI charges 1000 men at you waves arent an option...

I hope DoF Unit AI is better I really hate it when a 500 of my troops are sent to attack and maybe only the front 50 are really attacking I would assume the Total war series couldnt work out particle collisions cause if the units are not of the same type they dont stand side by side with others and fill in the gaps

MrBlack103
02-10-2009, 03:27 AM
I love the concept of stamina, but just to shut up all the "We hate stamina!" people out there, implement a "minimum" stamina, where your troops will still be able to fight (though have to rest to regain it), but at only 60% effectiveness or something.

I think that the only way of recharging stamina (without magic, items etc) should be to not do anything. Walking/marching should freeze stamina regeneration, fighting should drain it, and sprinting/charging etc should drain it fast. Having a hero to lead the charge could maybe affect this?

Andy Joslin
02-10-2009, 08:03 AM
At the moment, normal fighting effectiveness is not at all affected by stamina except for the fact that your units cannot run or use abilities while below the needed stamina.

Units losing fighting effectiveness through lack of stamina would not be fun.

Puppeteer
02-10-2009, 11:49 AM
Agreed. Keep the system implemented.

3 mins on constant attacking especially archers
That whole post was pretty garbled, so I'm trying to decipher what I can. 3 minutes? The agreed maximum firing rate was about 12 per minute. So 36 arrows? You've got to be kidding me, that game can't seriously think that that is at all realistic. You would never "stop" in the middle of combat. No one is that tired, unless they're ill, grievously wounded or lack the adrenal glands.

MrBlack103
02-10-2009, 11:52 PM
You would never "stop" in the middle of combat.
Not unless you've been fighting all day. Think of that recent tennis match where one guy just collapsed because he'd been playing for so long.

Lordadamar
02-12-2009, 09:17 AM
GARBLED Hardly, Some people read to far between the lines looking for extra meaning...

I said 3 minutes on Constant fighting, never said how many times they fired.
If I had to guess I would say an arrow shot every 4 secs appox. To simplify that appox 15 a minute.


There are 2 main types on missle units Crossbow and Archer there IS a variation in delay in both types. ( DELEY meaning time between shot )


And Like I said before Constant fighting for 3 minutes means appox 45-50 shots at this point the stamina effect slows fireing rate ( 15 per min appox ) about 30-40% and even more when it says your troops are exhausted.

I do not think Stamina is bad I just think there has to be a balance with it. I sure use stamina in my favor as much as possible when I play these types of game my posts were just to show the how some games could use an overhaul in this area. and if you use this system dont let them satnd there lower effectiveness or something...

Puppeteer
02-12-2009, 12:32 PM
Or some people don't know how to structure a post well enough. Sure, the firing rate may drop 50% but unless it's been a really long haul of a fight, I don't think the rate of fire would "slow to a crawl". Although, if it did slow to less than 10% it would wean out the people who don't know tactics, at the expense of realism and gameplay. This Total War version of stamina seems ridiculous.

The Witch King of Angmar
02-12-2009, 05:01 PM
Honestly I have to agree with Puppeteer on this. Getting into stamina in a RPG-like setting would be fine but not in a RTS. That's a little too realistic.

nickson104
02-18-2009, 05:30 AM
Honestly I have to agree with Puppeteer on this. Getting into stamina in a RPG-like setting would be fine but not in a RTS. That's a little too realistic.

Unless perfectly balanced and even researched...

And just to clear this up

quote: Not unless you've been fighting all day. Think of that recent tennis match where one guy just collapsed because he'd been playing for so long.

That is not a matter of life or death though is it? when faced with death you can push your body further than possible through sheer survival instincts and determination, its a bit different to being set on winning to be honest. You just wouldnt stop fighting in a huge battle and have a sit down because your tired, you just wouldnt because you will get killed in an instant...

MrBlack103
02-19-2009, 12:12 AM
Well no mortal person can keep it up indefinitely.

Bryan Oakley
02-19-2009, 12:23 AM
Well no mortal person can keep it up indefinitely.

No, of course not. The battle would either end or you would die from somebody else with more stamina killing you.

nickson104
02-19-2009, 06:21 AM
And there is no way that if you were that tired that you would survive, unless of course the other army is even more tired