.

[member66170]

.

 

[rocksinmypath]

Very interesting. I'd like to take a look at the source.

 

[Zaarin]

Sometimes the gifs don't loop and you need to refresh the page to unstick them

They auto-loop in Vivaldi.

 

[Blue whale]

What are different areas of a battlefield? Are they in the same tile or would tiles have multiple terrains inside them?

 

[Josephias]

Not to enter the technical details, but reminds me a lot of how battles in Total War games develop (there you have more positional fredoom than just “lines”, but when the melee of troops forms behaviour looks quite similar to this simulator). ¿Have you taken any idea from there? (afaik, they use parameters like unit weight, speed & relative height to determine damages)

 

[Josephias]

Not sure what weight does in TW games? Is it perhaps similar to what I've called rigidity?

No it’s different, but maybe related. As you use rigidity as a factor in flanking, TW uses weight as a factor in charge / first impact. Heavier units cause more damage when charging towards other (weight*speed is taken into account). And idk if it is implemented, but it could be logical they receive less damage also.

 

[rocksinmypath]

Have you thought about what sort of control it would be appropriate to give players before they enter a battle? Would they just simply decide which units go into which files and which ones are kept in reserve? Would both players make placement decisions simultaneously, without any knowledge of the other's positions? If so, what factors, other than terrain, are involved in the decision-making process?

 

[rocksinmypath]

The cleanest solution I can think of is to have both players select from a preset selection of (symmetric) formations simultaneously. The issue I see with individual unit placement is that the most impactful factor on the outcome of a battle would be unit match-up in each file. If players take turns to place units, the latter-acting player would have excessive advantage because they can see where all of their opponent's units are. With simultaneous resolution, it would be difficult to properly reward player skill. In a battle between a skilled player and one who places units randomly, the latter could just happen to create correct match-ups and win.

Regarding espionage, it'd be interesting if each tile had several layers of information to be revealed. The top layer, which would be discovered by just passing by a tile, would show the general terrain type. A layer underneath it would show a more detailed terrain map, like the ones shown in your examples. Before a battle, players would have to survey the location more thoroughly to gain this piece of information.

 

[Gori the Grey]

To answer your specific question, I like rigidity.

Would it be easy to add to your model armies made up of different numbers of units? Since that would often be the case in a Civ-style game.

I think you could combine this with adjacency bonuses of various sorts to create very interesting challenges in setting up a winning battle array.

The overall game would have to be designed to force pitched battles on a single tile. But they'd be totes fun to watch play out.

But it's really cool in basic concept because of the thing you said:

this look very dynamic, satisfying, and unpredictable

I have some military themed historical atlases that envision major battles as various stages (frames, if you will) of these animations.

One other thought: the quality for the troops that are getting the worst of the battle should include actual injury as well as morale. The losing side will retreat from the battlefield, and the winners control the tile. But there will be the question of how much of an army remains in both cases. Not zero (i.e. some soldiers ran away) but also not 100% (the winning side did inflict some casualties that are reflected in actual loss of numbers).

Another thought. The commander can give special marching orders before the battle begins, that override the usual movement rules. I.e. some units can be told to charge at full speed rather than simply march in formation. That, in addition to arranging troops, will give the player a feeling that he has made a contribution to how the battle plays out.

 

[Gori the Grey]

But again, it depends on how much player intervention with the battles is desired, vs them being simply a resolution of larger scale army building.

Mostly the latter, to get back to the spirit (and speed) of pre-1upt Civ, but a little bit the former, to give players a feeling they aren't just triumphing through a stackier SOD.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

This is the best thread on the forum.

 

[Arcaian]

A really interesting battle resolution system! It's a cool project. In terms of the previous conversation about decision making timing, I think it'd make sense for the defender to get to pick the map (from the generated list of options), while the attacker gets to pick their troop layout knowing the defender's layout decisions (though this definitely assumes a meaningful tactical advantage from the terrain). My two other thoughts at this point:

• If there's a limit of only one unit in each lane from each side, might it not be tactically advantageous to keep all your units in reserve except for your best unit in a lane on a far flank? You'd be getting all the numerical boosts of all the support from your reserve units (if it stacks), it'd only be a 2v1, and if those numerical boosts are sufficient to make up for that you'd end up with quite an unsatisfactory outcome, I think. If you want to keep it to one unit per faction per lane (which is pretty reasonable), you could have units that are unable to move to a new lane attack the units in reserve? Perhaps with a bonus of some sort, given the reserves are not necessarily prepared for the fight?
• For areas with tactically advantageous terrain - holding the other side of a river, holding the high ground, hiding in the forest - it seems a little frustrating that your troops leave the tactically advantageous terrain pretty quickly once they start winning. I'm not sure how best to address this one - maybe some sort of delay at the start of a fight between two units before they get pushed around, and in a range=0 vs range=0 fight, the defender waits in tactically beneficial terrain?

Very cool work!

 

[Arcaian]

The benefit from reserves is capped, but at a very high level. The issue with having lots of reserves is that you're going to get flanked on both sides, and while the extra power you get from reserves partially compensates having an open flank, it struggles to overcome a 2v1 or 3v1 where the flanking unit is dealing damage out for free. Try it on the link above: 1 sword + 3 in reserves gets shredded by 3 pikes all deployed in a line. Extending the line to flank (/prevent flanking) is usually better than reserves, but not always. It depends on terrain, the units, and the overall size of armies. My experimentation suggests it's hard to predict, which is exactly the kind of emergent behaviour I wanted.

The webserver is a fun way to test it out! This is the sort of situation I was concerned about, with one person stacking all their reserves; you can see in a 3v3 on a flat plain, the reserves don't help very much and you lose pretty badly in an equal fight:

However, when you go up to an equal 4v4 where one stations all their troops and the other keeps them in reserve you end up comfortably winning with two units of swords still in your reserves:

Even fighting up a hill into difficult terrain, if it's a 5v5 (with one holding 4 in reserve), the person holding in reserve wins the fight very comfortably. It's a sufficiently strong tactic that even if the side holding its forces in reserve only has irregulars, they still win against swords with 2 irregulars left.

From what I can see, it's primarily due to the fact that the one unit can be stationed on the extreme flanks, preventing a 3v1 (repeating that hill battle with the reserved side's sword appearing in the centre leads to a very thorough loss, the non-reserved forces still have 4 units left) while the remaining troops that aren't fighting the 1 unit can't do anything. It probably isn't hurt by some of these units routing with 70+% of their forces intact from the sheer strength of the heavily-buffed single unit. I think it would be fair if units on the extreme flank could be flanked by units on the other flank (i.e. in my simulations above, if the units on the right side of the battle could move over to the File 2 and it would become a 3v1) or if the units in flanks without the ability to fight could attack the reserve directly.

 

[Arcaian]

I think that's a very reasonable set of changes!

 

[Krikkit1]

To properly do stack v. stack we should have it in the game design

Each Stack would have 3 combat values (range, melee, mount) units in the stack would add to those values... including giving bonuses for

The opposing armies base Range, Melee, Mount
(ie a cavalry unit could allow my stack to get +5 (anti range) str which would mean I get a bonus of the smaller of (my total anti range str or the enemies base range str)
a pike could allow my stack to get +5 (antimount) str which would mean I get a bonus of the smaller of (my total anti mount str or the enemies base mount str)
An overall combat value for the stack that depends on the units in the other stack

Then just add up the totals, unit with higher combat str takes less damage
(other factors determine the total damage done)

 

[Gori the Grey]

This is the best thread on the forum.

I so wish that someone with the graphics skills to do so could now put actual Civ-fighting-style units in place of Olleus' rectangles.

Don't know if those animations can just be stripped out of a Civ game or (with permission) from a mod. And different actions would need to be added: fighting while backing up. I can see in my imagination the battles that would result, and I think they could get for a game that used this model some of the satisfactions of 1upt and SoD. Things would play out more quickly than 1upt, giving an order to every unit every turn. But they would play out in a more graphically satisfying way than the old SoD battles in IV and backward.

Anyway, I think it's great work, and that the designers of Civiliz8ion or some clone should perk up an take notice.

 

[Arcaian]

Mini challenge at the link above:
Army 1 has 3 archers in a defensive stance on the river map. As army 2, you have 3 swords with which to force the crossing. Where do you deploy them, and with what stance, to win with the minimum casualties?

I have to admit, I can't get a victory here no matter what I do

 

[Arcaian]

It took me a while too! Here's a hint:

Spoiler :

A unit in defensive stance will go combative and walk to the end of the map if there is no enemy to the front or sides that could block it.

and a bigger one:

Spoiler :

A long distance flanking manoeuvre can let you cross unopposed

Ah, there is one that I hadn't tired in there! My solution:

Spoiler :

I hadn't considered that if you go for the far flank and leave your troops on defensive, both armies will set there and wait for each other until the flank is complete. That does feel a little game-y, the archers almost certainly would've beaten the 2 swords in a 3v2 if they'd pushed then!

It also only works if the archers choose not to defend the hill and instead set-up on the less hilly left flank and push down into the water, which seems an unreasonable tactic for them to take

 

[Arcaian]

I think it's in a fun place right now!

 

[Blue whale]

will gunpowder units have strong melee and ranged attack?