Page 2 of 2

Re: SUGGESTION: Changes To Victory Conditions

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 8:39 am
by rbodleyscott
sIg3b wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 12:13 am
I would prefer the weight of units for rout % depending on pts value rather than numbers. (Reason being if Elites rout probably more demoralizing than if mob routs.)
There is a (good) reason we did not do it this way - if the cheaper units don't count as much for army morale, they can be (unrealistically) used as suicide troops.

Re: SUGGESTION: Changes To Victory Conditions

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:40 am
by MarkShot
Does anyone remember SMG (Sid Meier's Gettysburg)? It was not enough to achieve the objectives, but you had to hold them for 10 minutes. This:

* Went a long way to make sure desperation attempts could be consolidated.

* It made for some amazing back in forth fights.

So, one could imagine a minimum of turns where the conditions must hold, and the game auto extends to accommodate this or if a reversal takes place.

Re: SUGGESTION: Changes To Victory Conditions

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:40 pm
by sIg3b
rbodleyscott wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 8:39 am
sIg3b wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 12:13 am
I would prefer the weight of units for rout % depending on pts value rather than numbers. (Reason being if Elites rout probably more demoralizing than if mob routs.)
There is a (good) reason we did not do it this way - if the cheaper units don't count as much for army morale, they can be (unrealistically) used as suicide troops.
Is this really always unrealistic? I would be surprised if no general ever callously sacrificed useless rabble for the sake of distraction or something. :)
At least Sun Tse would approve I am sure.

Re: SUGGESTION: Changes To Victory Conditions

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:31 am
by rbodleyscott
sIg3b wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:40 pm
rbodleyscott wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 8:39 am
sIg3b wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 12:13 am
I would prefer the weight of units for rout % depending on pts value rather than numbers. (Reason being if Elites rout probably more demoralizing than if mob routs.)
There is a (good) reason we did not do it this way - if the cheaper units don't count as much for army morale, they can be (unrealistically) used as suicide troops.
Is this really always unrealistic? I would be surprised if no general ever callously sacrificed useless rabble for the sake of distraction or something. :)
At least Sun Tse would approve I am sure.
And yet it wasn’t a common historical occurrence. Probably for the precise reason that it could easily lead to the rest of the army running away, because troops don’t decide when to panic after coldly and logically judging the quality of their routing friends.

Re: SUGGESTION: Changes To Victory Conditions

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:57 pm
by MVP7
rbodleyscott wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:31 am
sIg3b wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:40 pm
rbodleyscott wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 8:39 am


There is a (good) reason we did not do it this way - if the cheaper units don't count as much for army morale, they can be (unrealistically) used as suicide troops.
Is this really always unrealistic? I would be surprised if no general ever callously sacrificed useless rabble for the sake of distraction or something. :)
At least Sun Tse would approve I am sure.
And yet it wasn’t a common historical occurrence. Probably for the precise reason that it could easily lead to the rest of the army running away, because troops don’t decide when to panic after coldly and logically judging the quality of their routing friends.
Very true. I think most wargamers gravely underestimate how bad overall picture of the situation and understanding of wider tactics an average soldier on the field has.

One excellent example is from the Battle of Talavera in 1809. Before the actual battle had even started, the Spanish line fired their muskets without orders at skirmishing French dragoons who were far outside effective shooting range. Four battalions of the Spanish who had fired the volley immediately panicked, dropped their weapons and fled with their officers, only slowing down to loot the baggage train of their British allies. There was no attack or even an imminent threat of an attack against the Spanish, they had simply been scared by the sound of their own volley. Most but not all were eventually rallied while the rest ended up taking part of the British rear echelon with them on their flight.

Moral of the story: realistic tactical assessment plays little to no role in the collective actions taken by the individuals that make an army. There's little a lone general can do to explain them that their ongoing rout is actually unwarranted and that the routed friendlies were actually not that high quality soldiers.

Re: SUGGESTION: Changes To Victory Conditions

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:32 am
by MarkShot
Ha ha ha! Wargamers want far more information than anyone ever actually had; even the historians who study this stuff after the fact! :)

Re: SUGGESTION: Changes To Victory Conditions

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:01 am
by Cunningcairn
rbodleyscott wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:31 am
sIg3b wrote:
Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:40 pm
rbodleyscott wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 8:39 am


There is a (good) reason we did not do it this way - if the cheaper units don't count as much for army morale, they can be (unrealistically) used as suicide troops.
Is this really always unrealistic? I would be surprised if no general ever callously sacrificed useless rabble for the sake of distraction or something. :)
At least Sun Tse would approve I am sure.
And yet it wasn’t a common historical occurrence. Probably for the precise reason that it could easily lead to the rest of the army running away, because troops don’t decide when to panic after coldly and logically judging the quality of their routing friends.
100% correct. An individual can manifest a completely opposite reaction faced with the same stressful situation. Panic is infectious and state of mind irrespective of training has a random element. The better the training the less random the reaction.

Re: SUGGESTION: Changes To Victory Conditions

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:57 am
by matlegob
To my point of view, the best way to simulate it seems to have a secret random level of each army panic:

I.e: for each side a random is made at the start but the player do not know the result of the level of routing troops that will made it all army too rout.

sommething like 35+/- 10% with a 20+/- difference beetween the opponent; and automaticly at 55+/-10

Re: SUGGESTION: Changes To Victory Conditions

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:19 am
by Cunningcairn
matlegob wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:57 am
To my point of view, the best way to simulate it seems to have a secret random level of each army panic:

I.e: for each side a random is made at the start but the player do not know the result of the level of routing troops that will made it all army too rout.

sommething like 35+/- 10% with a 20+/- difference beetween the opponent; and automaticly at 55+/-10
How does that model a real life situation?

Re: SUGGESTION: Changes To Victory Conditions

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:34 am
by matlegob
That also could be a larger base of possibility if the formula is made like a gauss curve

I think that is more realitic because the general does not know when it army will broke up : whe can have a very early panic like a late one

Anothe possiblity is to choose a risk of global rooting each time a single unit root; or booth of the systems

Re: SUGGESTION: Changes To Victory Conditions

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:16 am
by MarkShot
I have no ancient warfare experience, but I can tell you as a manager learning to "fake it" when you doubt something is doable is key skill. Positive thought generates a feedback loop that can carry the day. I think it was no accident that some the most successful ancient generals, put themselves in the line from time to time. Nothing says success more than leading from the front (admittedly a risk; if you go down it backfires; mais toujours l'audace!).

---

Regarding human behavior, it is a well know psychological phenomena that groups do not behave like composites of their individuals. You can get a group to do something that the individuals sampled separately would never do.