Slight concern about battles

[SGZ]

Watching the twitch video w Ian on Pocus I was left with a concern about battles. The issue I see is that they seem to resolve after just a round or 2 of combat and low % losses on both sides ( in the order of 20%). I'm aware this is historically accurate but in game play terms is likely to lead to a sequence of similar battles over multiple turns with 1 army being gradually worn down, before any decisive outcome can be found. I for one, would much prefer battles to be hard fought and decisive. Reading the below review about EU: Rome highlights exactly this problem in that game.

One distraction in an otherwise great game is the ping-pong effect that happens in many battles. After losing in combat, armies rarely shatter but instead take about 15% casualties and retreat, often into another enemy region. To destroy them, the victor must follow the retreating army to the new province, fight and win again. The loser then retreats back into the original province, where the victor must follow and win again. It is common for this back-and-forth, running combat to take six iterations before the enemy unit is destroyed. While the Ancient World certainly saw one army chasing another, sometimes for years, it also saw entire armies crushed and scattered in a day. So those dramatic scenes from history, where defeated generals fall on their swords and their army melts into oblivion, just don’t occur in EUR.[/i]

link to full review : http://armchairgeneral.com/europa-unive ... review.htm

Thoughts ?

[loki100]

bit misleading to be honest. You only get multi-turn battles with relatively large armies in restricted terrain where its hard to do much damage. Most often its resolved in one turn. If you lose, and are outnumbered in terms of cavalry, you get a slaughter as you retreat/rout. If you have plenty of cavalry, you may escape with the core of your army intact.

It seems to work out better than the old AGE system which did have a tendency to ping-pong battles

[SGZ]

bit misleading to be honest. You only get multi-turn battles with relatively large armies in restricted terrain where its hard to do much damage. Most often its resolved in one turn. If you lose, and are outnumbered in terms of cavalry, you get a slaughter as you retreat/rout. If you have plenty of cavalry, you may escape with the core of your army intact.

It seems to work out better than the old AGE system which did have a tendency to ping-pong battles

Thanks Loki100. I hope you are correct. Just wondering how you know this for a fact ?

[Tamas]

bit misleading to be honest. You only get multi-turn battles with relatively large armies in restricted terrain where its hard to do much damage. Most often its resolved in one turn. If you lose, and are outnumbered in terms of cavalry, you get a slaughter as you retreat/rout. If you have plenty of cavalry, you may escape with the core of your army intact.

It seems to work out better than the old AGE system which did have a tendency to ping-pong battles

Thanks Loki100. I hope you are correct. Just wondering how you know this for a fact ?

He is one of our key testers. Normally we do not like testers divulging information like that (as things are bound to change) but he only wrote what I wanted so no problem there.


As he mentioned pursuit is a big part of overall battle results. Who breaks first can really get punished, just like in case of most armies and wars in the era. But that also does not come automatically. If you lack cavalry and light troops you won't be able to make real use of the enemy's rout.

[TheGrayMouser]

bit misleading to be honest. You only get multi-turn battles with relatively large armies in restricted terrain where its hard to do much damage. Most often its resolved in one turn. If you lose, and are outnumbered in terms of cavalry, you get a slaughter as you retreat/rout. If you have plenty of cavalry, you may escape with the core of your army intact.

It seems to work out better than the old AGE system which did have a tendency to ping-pong battles

Thanks Loki100. I hope you are correct. Just wondering how you know this for a fact ?

He is one of our key testers. Normally we do not like testers divulging information like that (as things are bound to change) but he only wrote what I wanted so no problem there.


As he mentioned pursuit is a big part of overall battle results. Who breaks first can really get punished, just like in case of most armies and wars in the era. But that also does not come automatically. If you lack cavalry and light troops you won't be able to make real use of the enemy's rout.

I like the sound of this! I would like to add, that though Cavalry and lights are important, they shouldn’t be the only factor. Sometimes a general pinned a foe ( or found himself pinned) against a river etc, or perhaps was able to spring a turning movement, leaving a broken enemy really no where to flee. These could be abstracted based on things like terrain, General skill , length of communication lines, deep in hostile lands etc and offer a small chance of the “big kill” battle. Basically what I am suggesting is Lack of Cavalry to pursue shouldnt automatically preclude crushing losses . Cheers!

[SGZ]

The GreyMouser makes a good point. But I'm reassure by the info above. Doubles my enthusiasm to get my hands on this game. Will be epic.

[edb1815]

I hope there would be a pursuit effect if one were using FOGII to resolve the battles. Using those same metrics of course.

[SGZ]

It'd be cool to have an optional RPG mode where as well as managing the empire you could assume the role of a single general. The battles of that specific general and only that general, could then be played in full in FOG2 whilst your other armies battle's wouldn't have that option. This would add a new strategic element to getting you "Hannibal" or "Alexander" in the right place at the right time.

[juanval]

Watching the videos I don't know how units that are in reserve work. The pursue phase is not clear either. At the moment I'm very entusiastic with the automatic combat system. Factors like frontage, leadership, support, efectiveness are very interesting mixing them with the fortune of dices.

A dev diary talking about combat would be great.