SUGGESTION: Changes To Victory Conditions

[Schweetness101]

I've been playing for a little while now and I had some thoughts about changing up some of the victory conditions. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find where.

Overall, I really like the 60%/above 40% and 25% more than enemy routed lose conditions more than most other games in this kind of genre, which often require unrealistic total annihilation to win. But, I had a few thoughts on ways it could be improved. Not that you would implement all of these at once or anything, but just something to get a conversation started:

-rout gap above 60% must be at least 5% so you can't win with a 60-59 split (which is currently possible i think?)
-some nations get a higher percent routed troops needed to lose, but fewer and more expensive units, or vice versa.
-some nations rout with normal conditions but only when say at least 1/3 of their main infantry force (med and heavy) is routed. That would be very faction dependent, but could help with the issue where the core of a mostly infantry army is still intact, but because their skirmishers and other light units have been run off they are already close to 40% routed
-some units that don't count towards % routed at all, like maybe skirmishers or rabble or something, would be faction dependent.
-lowering of % routed required to lose if the C-in-C general dies

Maybe it wouldn't really add much in the end, and would just make things more confusing and difficult to balance though. Some of this might already be in the game? What I was kind of imagining though is scenarios like say:

Sparta: can only bring a small number of elite and very expensive Spartiates, plus a bunch of helots, but the helots do not count towards % routed and the Spartans only rout at 80% losses. Although maybe that latter is accounted for with unit quality determining auto break loss percentages.
Romans: Will not rout so long as 50% of legionnaires are still on the field (although this would make them even more op)
Persia: suffers a catastrophic drop to % needed to rout if general dies/routs (because he is the god king and if god runs away well...), but maybe a buff to that percent if he is still alive
etc...

Those are maybe a bit historically ignorant on my part, I'm just trying to give the basic idea here.

Any thoughts? Suggestions?

PS: I know that this isn't actually going to be implemented because the game has been out for quite awhile, I'm just interested in discussing whether they would add anything assuming they could be implemented

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks.

I will be interested to see the responses of other players.

[Gaznak]

I like the idea of lowering the % to win if the commander is killed. Right now that seems to have too little effect on the battle.

I had an idea for implementing a system where once the battle is "lost" under the current system, instead of the battle ending, two things happen. 1) Every unit gets a -ive cohesion modifier 2) Every unit rolls for cohesion loss at the start of their turn no matter their circumstances.

In this system you could have a "last stand" where your army is collapsing but could potentially turn things around if they hold together.

Probably would be not great for multiplayer, as it would just be delaying the inevitable, but could be fun for single player.

[MVP7]

The faction specific differences do sound nice but they would indeed be hard to do in non-arbitrary manner and a nightmare to balance (especially for multiplayer).

I do like the 5% rout-gap idea, although there should still be another hard limit around 75% to prevent battles from dragging on to the last units.

I also like the idea of lost generals effecting rout limits. It could be expanded to every routed and killed general having an effect on the required rout gap and/or limit. For example, if one side lost a general then the normal >60% routed or 25% rout-gap would be reduced to 55% routed or 20% rout gap. For lost C-in-C the effect would be larger. This would make loss of general much more likely to end a battle rather than it being no more than a minor inconvenience (barring an unlucky cohesion loss cascade).

[matlegob]

I really like to see those 2 modificatios:

-rout gap above 60% must be at least 5% so you can't win with a 60-59 split (which is currently possible i think?)

-lowering of % routed required to lose if the C-in-C general dies

[sage3]

Personally I'd also like to see a non-deterministic element - this could be something like a chance the battle will end when victory conditions are met (but then, if they are "unmet" before the end of battle fires, the battle can keep going -- think a wavering army). I like the ideas above in general, especially the general being killed impacting game end.

[jomni]

There is already a “remove the head mode” in multiplayer. Sudden death when C-in-C dies. I don’t think it’s popular.

[Mord]

I also like the idea of generals adding to the rout percentages. It gives them more value than they have now.

Mord.

[hjc]

-some nations rout with normal conditions but only when say at least 1/3 of their main infantry force (med and heavy) is routed. That would be very faction dependent, but could help with the issue where the core of a mostly infantry army is still intact, but because their skirmishers and other light units have been run off they are already close to 40% routed
-some units that don't count towards % routed at all, like maybe skirmishers or rabble or something, would be faction dependent.

I quite like these ideas, particularly the two concerning skirmishers/rabble not counting (or counting less) toward the rout percentage. It could be tricky to implement well: as you said depending on faction, but worth pursuing.

Good post, Schweetness

[Scartabelli]

rout gap above 60% must be at least 5% so you can't win with a 60-59 split (which is currently possible i think?)

I really like this idea, especially since I found myself a few times in similar situations in multiplayer (in Pike and Shot) when we both were somewhere around 59-59 and I lost because of unlucky cohesion roll for some small insignificant unit that just increased it to 60% routed while I literally had a unit of cavalry directed right behind opponent's fragmented tercio that would increase the percent of his routed units far above 60% mark. Freaking infuriating.

-some nations get a higher percent routed troops needed to lose, but fewer and more expensive units, or vice versa

Well, this is, in a sense, already implemented. What you described here is basically playing any elite cavalry oriented nation. Poland in Pike&Shot is a prime example. You are always outnumbered and outgunned. It is a bit different in Fields of Glory where cavalry nation still can deploy quite a lot of units, although they still usually remain outnumbered by more infantry focused nations.

-some units that don't count towards % routed at all, like maybe skirmishers or rabble or something, would be faction dependent.

This also sounds interesting, the only problem is that factions focused more on light troops and winning skirmish like Slavs would become less viable and harder to play as, since winning the skirmish against opponent skirmishers would mean nothing, while the ammunition and men lost to achieve so would prevent those skirmishers to make bigger impact further in battle.

Maybe making rabble not count to routed at all would make them appear more often because right now I'm never taking them even if I have points left to do so.

[TheGrayMouser]

I am not a fan of anything that just extends the game because the differential between players is too close ( ie the 59- 59 example mentioned). A single shot from an out of ammo skirmisher can auto rout the steadiest unit. Changing the victory condition to need a 5% etc difference doesn’t extinguish luck, but seems like it might encourage all kinds of endgame goofy behavior.

[MikeC_81]

I am not a fan of anything that just extends the game because the differential between players is too close ( ie the 59- 59 example mentioned). A single shot from an out of ammo skirmisher can auto rout the steadiest unit. Changing the victory condition to need a 5% etc difference doesn’t extinguish luck, but seems like it might encourage all kinds of endgame goofy behavior.

You are not wrong but endgame right now feels goofy as it is. Most of these 59-59 games (or whatever reasonably close to that mark) already have hail mary moves made by players solely to kick their opponent up to 60% hard cap and then pass the turn to pray that no rallies happen. A similar number of "win now" moves happen if a player is approaching the 25% threshold on their opponent though that is more justified because they are clearly winning and are just looking to close out the game.

The 5 point spread might not stop "playing for next turn" so to speak but it might move it to a place where at least when it is taking place, it is being done by a 'clear' winner. There is no real way of stopping this behaviour without outright removal of the score screen.

[bodkin]

I’m not sure about lowering % to win if the C-in-C is lost. Human players will target the cpu General while making sure theirs is well protected behind the front lines. Could become a bit of an exploit of the game mechanics.

[rbodleyscott]

I’m not sure about lowering % to win if the C-in-C is lost. Human players will target the cpu General while making sure theirs is well protected behind the front lines. Could become a bit of an exploit of the game mechanics.

Yes, that is one of the reasons that we have somewhat underplayed the effect of losing generals. Also the reason why we don't have generals killed by distant shooting.

[deve]

I really like to see
-rout gap above 60% must be at least 5%

I do not like changes that make effect from loss of general more significant.

[MVP7]

I’m not sure about lowering % to win if the C-in-C is lost. Human players will target the cpu General while making sure theirs is well protected behind the front lines. Could become a bit of an exploit of the game mechanics.

Yes, that is one of the reasons that we have somewhat underplayed the effect of losing generals. Also the reason why we don't have generals killed by distant shooting.

The AI would probably benefit from keeping the C-in-C out of combat for a bit longer for the free rotations alone. I guess it would require an all new AI-group for the general unit though.

[Strategiusz]

There is already a negative effect for loosing C-in-C - cohesion tests for units in range of 2 squares. Maybe it should be harder to test? I am not a fan of the additional effect calculated directly to victory percents, it is a boring rule.

But I think it could be good if victory values (I am not sure I'm calling it correctly here) of units would be calculated with some other factors in mind not only size of the unit. Some units should be more expendable then other units with the same size.

I like 60% hard limit. If the game last that long it is already a total chaos on the battlefield that probably is even not a historical situation. And players want to end this mess, and not to play even longer because of this 5% advantage would be required.

[Nijis]

These are interesting ideas, but I think the final rout levels are fine as they are. Right now rout levels and victory are easy to understand, and most games end in a victory. They also lend themselves to relatively simple scoring in tournaments and campaigns.

As a simulation? Well, you don't need a "realistic" army breaking model. Historically, once an army was sufficiently stressed, the final factor that put it over the edge could be extremely random and arbitrary. Dara Shikoh got down off of his elephant to join the cavalry, and his troops thought he was dead, and they routed. Vespasian's eastern legions at Bedriacum shouted to greet the rising sun, and the enemy thought that they were greeting reinforcements, and the enemy routed. In the absence of a secret, randomly determined rout threshold for each side, which I don't think would be much fun, I think the current system does pretty well in modeling how an army that's sustained heavy casualties can be sent over the edge by a rumor or a misperception or pretty much anything.

[NikiforosFokas]

Vespasian's eastern legions at Bedriacum shouted to greet the rising sun, and the enemy thought that they were greeting reinforcements, and the enemy routed. I

Thanks for this info

[sIg3b]

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.)