Darvin

02-27-2009, 03:55 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?

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?