Von_Lipwig's Blog

So in the last post in this blog, I mentioned I would be putting up a seperate blog post detailing how the Battle system works. What little I did say alluded to the fact that battles are not a numbers game anymore. So how does it work instead?


No more numbers
In the previous system we set up for the game, we had thought of a numbers system where every unit would have pre-specified statistics that would influence battle. In this system, players could theoretically calculate accurately if they would win a certain engagement and choose (not) to attack at specific times based on this knowledge. However, this is a very unrealistic approach to battles in a strategy game. Sure, you only engage if you are fairly certain that you are going to win, but you are never 100% sure. After all, even an army that is outnumbered can win if led by a competent commander who does everything right.

I wanted to bring this kind of (un)certainty to the game, and I decided that giving units statistics would go completely counter to what I wanted to achieve.


The new system
SO I went back to an idea I'd had much earlier in the 'development cycle', which is much more player-involved and dependent on a player's actions rather than his ability to do simple maths.

It is also longer-lasting and more management-heavy for the gamemaster, but you have to break some eggs to make an omelette.


The new system will go something as follows:


A battle occurs if two opposing armies occupy the same region, and if they either both want to fight or, if only one army wants to fight, that army has some kind of mobility advantage (ie, more cavalry or scouts or a forced march, so he can force an engagement)

Both players will receive a PM to notify them of the impending battle. They will both receive a (simple) map of the area as well as a list of the units in their army. Players will then have to deploy that army (they can do this with MS Paint or just describe their army deployment to me) and also tell me their first moves.

Keep in mind that in this phase you are NOT restricted to anything as arbitrary as 'movement points' or only being able to move one single unit at a time. If you want, you can have your entire army charge forward. It might not be the best tactical choice, but you can. Alternatively, you can choose not to move from your deployed position, opting instead to let the enemy come to you. You can be as passive or aggressive, as detailed or as general as you want.

Players send their deployment and their first move back to me, after which I will decide what happens and sent a PM back with the mid-battle results. Players can then decide what to do next, and this will go on until either one player admits defeat/retreats, the army routs or is completely annihilated.


At the end of the battle, both players will receive a list of estimated losses and units left. The defeated army will either disappear off the map if destroyed, or moved back to either the closest friendly region or the region it came from.


Player-driven and organic
I chose this system because it does not force the player to get a certain kind of unit or play in a specific kind of way. It is much more organic and realistic, since victory is much more reliant on an understanding of terrain, troop movement, troop deployment and on being able to react to events as they happen in battle. Not only that, it will also reward players for thinking tactically, and will enable players with a smaller army to still win if they play their cards right.

Also, a careful player might choose to engage only briefly, kill as many enemies as possible and then retreat in the very next phase.

This is a much more organic system than any numbers game could provide, and even though it'll be much more work (especially for the gamemaster, who has to decide on all outcomes) I am looking forward to testing it.


Numbers again?
A gamemaster could, of course, use a personal grading system to make it easier to decide on the outcome of a battle. I could, for instance, give points (between 0 and 10) for certain elements of a player's deployment PM and subsequent phase PMs. This would help me decide on some things a bit easier and also provide a reference for any time someone might not agree with an outcome. However, I will generally not respond to such disputes. Napoleon probably didn't agree with his Waterloo defeat either, but he still lost.


Test battle
Soon, I might organise a test battle between some of the people who are helping me with this, to see how it works in practice and if any rules need to be implemented, or any other ways to make it easier on gamemaster and players. It is also to test how quickly such a battle will go. (will it be finished in hours or will it take days?) I will post the entire exchange as a seperate blog post whenever that's done.

If you want to help me test this battle system, feel free to volunteer. I want to test the basics of it at the start of next week. I will most likely restrict this two only 1v1 battles, but in the final game I won't rule out allied armies pitched against eachother. This will likely complicate matters, but that should be rather interesting.