PDA

View Full Version : Decisive Force?


Darvin
02-27-2009, 04:55 PM
Perhaps it's still somewhat premature, but there's one itching question I have about this game: how is it going to handle decisive force?

In most games, you get exponential returns in combat. If you send 10 of your units to attack 10 enemies (presuming all other things equal) it will come down to the last man. However, send 15 guys to attack the smaller force of 10, and chances are you'll have more than 5 units left over. In fact, in many games you might take only 2 or 3 losses. Putting more units into a single fight gives you a decisive edge.

Now, I've always found this bad for gameplay, and somewhat unrealistic. If World War I taught us anything, charging twice as many soldiers into machine gun fire just gets twice as many soldiers killed. Napoleon's grand strategy was "divide and conquer" not "advance as a single decisive force and conquer". There's also a certain matter of those Spartans at Thermopylae, who certainly weren't too disadvantaged by their numerical situation. Gameplay-wise, it leads to situations where you feel forced to keep your army in one big group, limiting your strategic options to subdivide your forces, and also makes it very hard to make a comeback if you have a numerical disadvantage ("steamroller" effect).

So, I'm wondering if DoF has any ace up its sleeve to deal with the issues of decisiveness? Will there be ways to make smaller forces more effective and less risky propositions, and be able to appropriate match (or at least delay) larger forces without just getting crushed by sheer numerical advantage?

Feweh
02-27-2009, 08:04 PM
For some reason i highly doubt it,

but i know exactly what your saying.

Darvin
02-27-2009, 09:47 PM
For some reason i highly doubt it,

Same; why do you think I put this topic in the "suggestions" forum?

The_Biz
02-27-2009, 10:45 PM
there's nothing unbalanced with having 15vs.10 and having 10 left over.

that's how combat works in almost all games

Darvin
02-28-2009, 12:48 AM
This topic isn't about balance whatsoever. This topic is about gameplay mechanics. Just because other games do it that way doesn't mean it should be that way. As I stated in my original post, there are numerous gameplay reasons why this isn't favourable.

First, you have the steamroller effect, where if you lose one major battle it's effectively impossible to recover because the enemy's force is so large that you cannot raise a comparable one that can even slow it down. Secondly, you have the issue that the need for decisive force prevents you from splitting up your army, reducing tactical options (ie, divide and conquer).

Joseph Visscher
02-28-2009, 11:23 AM
DOF's combat is quite different, it is more RPG style than any other rts I've seen. If you have 2 v 1 soldiers of the exact same type, rank, research, armor, stance, and ability then those 2 soldiers will take turns attacking the lonely soldier, all he can really do is block the attacks, his chances of attacking back will be reduced as he has to block more attacks.

Out numbering your enemy is a pretty good tactic, but doesn't always work if he uses archers correctly and you don't spread out your troops, well that machine gun tactic will come into play ;) ; you must also take skill level of your units and his.
The rank and skill of your units has a large impact on combat, it could be very easy to recreate a "300" moment with high ranking units blocking a small pathway with hundreds of unranked and unskilled enemies.

fyro11
02-28-2009, 12:54 PM
If this is about guerilla and stealth warfare, then I'm all for it. As a lot of us know, BFME2 attempted this with stealth units, the Elves being the major faction. However the game mostly functions on harassment, rushes and largescale assaults. There is little more to it. The stealth just didn't operate effectively, and seemed like a sloppy job.

This game definitely looks more dynamic, and could make good use of guerilla warfare, imo.

Lordadamar
02-28-2009, 02:35 PM
I think if you compare this to ME2TW for the mechanics you might be close Its not necessarily the amount of units its the training or upgrades your units have vs your opponents. Assumeing DoF has unit upgrade trees.

I have taken 1200 troops against 2000 and won several times, It takes strategy and a awareness both of which you hope your opponents lacks.

Personally I think stealth should be limit to natural surrounding like trees rocks, etc. in ME2TW you gain a certain amount of stealth by keeping you units in wooded areas...

THYMOLE
09-14-2009, 02:49 PM
So soldiers actually think instead of running through an attack animation?

Excellent....

Darathor
09-14-2009, 04:15 PM
It's really unique that blocking doesn't let your unit attack nearly as much, it sounds as if it will make it more realistic. If your fighting two people, you will block more often the you attack if around the same skill. It seems like it will give the advantage more often to orcs over elves(and humans to a lesser extent) as they likely outnumber other armies.

nickson104
09-14-2009, 05:22 PM
It's really unique that blocking doesn't let your unit attack nearly as much, it sounds as if it will make it more realistic. If your fighting two people, you will block more often the you attack if around the same skill. It seems like it will give the advantage more often to orcs over elves(and humans to a lesser extent) as they likely outnumber other armies.

However the elves have the strongest archers and can rain volleys on the orcs before they approach, also their infantry although few, are very strong and will be able to take on a few orcs easily...

The humans are more organised and formational, therefore having defensive bonuses i think and they are generally more heavily armoured

Darathor
09-14-2009, 05:59 PM
The thing is though, will they have to block many of their attacks and let the archers thin out the enemy ranks before they really start doing damage? I don't always want to use archers as a crutch because while I will use them for every battle nearly, I want to be able to win without so many archers.

sneaky_squirrel
09-14-2009, 09:56 PM
You are literally "forcing" me to get my hands on this game one way or the other ;p.

wills370
09-15-2009, 01:50 AM
Hmm i think the game mechanics should be pretty good. I hope the veteran affect is greater in that then previous games ive seen where by they just seen to last alittle longer then the adverage joe.

With regard to the overall play i beleive you will have to opt for carrying large armies. Although with the capability of having more then 1 you could weasily have scouting/raiding forces. and have the main bulk of your forces traveling to where is apropiate.

So this should give you the divide and conquer feel your after.

nickson104
09-15-2009, 05:41 PM
The thing is though, will they have to block many of their attacks and let the archers thin out the enemy ranks before they really start doing damage? I don't always want to use archers as a crutch because while I will use them for every battle nearly, I want to be able to win without so many archers.

Well in most fantasy elves are portrayed as superior and very agile... This agility would grant them speed so I would presume they may have the ability to get quick attacks in from time to time with a faster attack/block speed?

But yeah... Each race has its own playstyle... The orcs would be numbers and a few very strong single units such as trolls... The Humans would be formational and possibly the best race to turtle with their large stone walls... etc...
Also added to these fighting styles is the differing economy systems and then they would influence your fighting style and tactics... E.G: I am Human, I cannot allow these orcs to ransack these farms, their invaluable to the upkeep of my army and without them We shall soon fall...

Also Add to that the fact that all units have their own experience and level systems, so a veteran will be able to fend off a larger force than a fresh recruit... And then there are also the abilities that they have (if i remember rightly) these abilities use stamina, as does running, therefore a well rested army will be better prepared to fight

Joseph Visscher
09-15-2009, 08:05 PM
Dawn of Fantasy combat mechanics are still in the air, but we can confirm that 1 unit will still fight back when completely surrounded, but he will block a lot more but will attack more often and aggressively when he gets his window of opportunity.

1 Battalion of Elven Grand Masters(strongest) will still take out 8-12 battalions of Goblin Skirmishers(Weakest), not to worry. :p

sneaky_squirrel
09-15-2009, 08:07 PM
Love the combat style ;p.

MrBlack103
09-15-2009, 10:37 PM
1 Battalion of Elven Grand Masters(strongest) will still take out 8-12 battalions of Goblin Skirmishers(Weakest), not to worry.

Then again, the orcs can probably spare them.:p

sneaky_squirrel
09-15-2009, 11:03 PM
Question ;p.

Will you have agreessive units?
(That might ignore one or two attacks to swing his sword additional times, or units that might not actually even bother blocking at all like large trolls for example)

MrBlack103
09-16-2009, 01:52 AM
Like berserker type units, right?

sneaky_squirrel
09-16-2009, 10:44 AM
Exactly, as well as a unit that can block double and more effectively against melee attacks, or maybe one that is almost immune to ranged attack.

Strategy would prolifer with these units ;p.

wills370
09-16-2009, 05:44 PM
im guessing that will proably be worked out in the final stages of the game when they are working out balances. As you dont want to have a instance where a few battalions of one unit becomes unbeatable by any other. (like an army of hv kataphracts (or however you spell it) in TW.

therefore i would imagine you would have diffrent units. The heavy armoured attackerr units (like trolls) or the armoured defence units (like the human warriors). And thoose inbetween. they would most likely i would imagine have diffrent styles of fighting with regard to agression and block/attack ratio.

Darathor
09-16-2009, 06:37 PM
Actually, ogres don't have much armor at all, if you just look at them, they're wearing little more than a loincloth.

Josh Warner
09-16-2009, 08:00 PM
Actually, ogres don't have much armor at all, if you just look at them, they're wearing little more than a loincloth.

Ogres typically have had high damage reduction/resistance/armor/what have you in games, at least any that I've played with them in it, combined with high health. Be they wearing armor or not, I guess it's attributed to just having thick/calloused skin or something. It's true he's basically wearing nothing though, which is disturbing. Thanks for pointing that out. ;p

wills370
09-17-2009, 03:34 AM
Actually, ogres don't have much armor at all, if you just look at them, they're wearing little more than a loincloth.

An oversight in my post. Although like the post above me. I was talking about the genrally accepted atributes of having thick armour like skin etc.

On a side note will the horses be able to join up and create larger formations for bigger impact when you select groups of them? e.g. 4 groups of knights formed into 1 wedge. As that would have a far bigger affect on a sieging force then 4 individual wedges of knights attacking a point.

Kaznafein
09-18-2009, 01:58 PM
Well talking about the orges I read you can research upgrades and your units become more experiened eithier one of this things I would think could change the appearance of the orge such as him wearing a curaiss or helm.

wills370
09-21-2009, 08:21 AM
Well talking about the orges I read you can research upgrades and your units become more experiened eithier one of this things I would think could change the appearance of the orge such as him wearing a curaiss or helm.

Hmm nice idea. OR possibly there standered grows bigger or more elaborate so that they are more noticable on the battlefield. (raises moral of your own troops and puts fear into the enemy etc:P )