Unrealistic battles outcome: loosing impossible-to-loose battles

[lostangelonline]

I've just lost an impossible-to-loose battle because of awful battlefield-deployment bugs, and basically loosing the ultimate war against the last player in my 6-months MP game.

Many (including me) have complained in the forums here about the battlefield-deployment bugs for a long time, but devs refuse to fix it, blaming it to be too various and complicated to fix. So let's just focus on the most important one, the one responsible for loosing this battle: the best support-units (with highest ranged-attack) are not always deployed in the second row (very easy to fix). And since the devs lately started addressing complaints with "is a feature, not a bug" (quote regarding the unrealistic peace restriction I complained lately), and this issue might also be declared to be intentional (for "balance" reasons) and be left unfixed, I will complain now from a different perspective: realism.

So let's look now at this specific battle, and compare it to a similar famous battle in history around that time: Battle of Issus (even locations are nearby). In the real battle, Alexander wins a decisive victory, even though he was heavily outnumbered, because of maybe two factors:
1. better soldiers/general (simulated in the game by unit stats, totaling to an overall Combat Power number);
2. "location[..] where Darius could not take advantage of his superiority in numbers" (simulated in the game by terrain frontage);

In the battle I lost, I also was outnumbered by 112 unit to 73 units, and I also had:
1. more experienced soldiers (same 1-1 general, my general defect was not active in Plain) as in total I had 644 CP against enemy's 532 CP (but the difference in XP is even higher if you consider only the troops participating in battle; for instance only my 45 elephants+archers+HCav had 507 CP, as my second army only had week LCav);
2. Terrain was Plain with 14 Frontage (10+4Cav/0 Defence) which should have only helped me against the bigger enemy army.



Instead, the battlefield-deployment does not use archers (+3 support bonus) as my support unit, but much weaker support-units (with +1 support bonus), therefore lowering my damage a lot during ranged phase (enemy will not be exhausted so much by my much weaker ranged attack) and by 2*14=24 less damage done to the enemy in melee phase. This is HUGE difference compared with having my archers as support-units as it should have been (they never participated in the battle), loosing an otherwise impossible-to-loose battle.





If you still do not understand the problem, let me simplify it for you: two full-frontage identical armies with units+cav in first row and archers in second (nothing more) will have 50%-50% win chance, as it should be. If you try to make your army more powerful (to increase your chances to win) by adding non-archers to your army, because of this bug you actually make it MUCH WORSE and your chances to win fall towards 0! This is completely unrealistic!

The devs punish players who make large armies. If not fixed, this will result in only one outcome: countries will never have huge armies, as these will always be defeated by smaller (still full-frontage) armies (of same units, same XP, same general), on ANY terrain (only difference: is smaller).

This is completely unrealistic, as in history (up to modern times) wars were usually decided in large battle between all enemy forces, not many small battles between many small forces.

Just look at how this is already the case in battles between experienced players:



Look how all forces are split by both players into small armies, not held together in a huge army, like in history. This is 20th century battle front, with armies stretched across huge front-lines, like in Word War 1 and later. This looks nothing like the Persian wars or any war of that era.

Again, all this is very easy to fix: just always put the best support-units (with highest ranged-attack) in the second row.

What do you guys think?

[AlexDetrojan]

This will never be fixed. It's one of the major flaws of this game. Devs, pay attention.

[Gray Fox]

From what I can see, you lost the battle because 3 elephant units fell in combat. Two were lost by a combat difference of 5 (16 vs. 11) and 4 (19 vs. 15). Even with your +3 support archers instead of the +1 you got, the two duels would still have been lost (16 to 13 and 19 to 17). If you give an algorithm a choice between 0 and 1, then sometimes you don't get what you want. That's why smaller stacks, with no choices, have an advantage. Also, you have no heavy infantry. A wall of elephants is not the best choice and you alone made that one. Elephant units have only 2 Hit Points. They are a sledge hammer in glass armor. The Seleucid player correctly had a line of heavy infantry that absorbed your attack and stood firm. That is most certainly not a bug.

The idea that the reality of war is only big armies in big battles is myopic. If that were the case, then partisans using guerrilla tactics would have no place in military history. If you don't want to spread your forces out in a WW1 line, then don't. Concentrate your armies in central locations, wait for the enemy to advance dispersed and destroy them in detail.

[desertedfox]

In one sense I agree with Gray Fox, your elephants are not good in defence and the numbers he gave are correct I believe. Yes, you were disadvantaged by not having the extra support but it would have been by no means an impossible-to-loose battle as you stated even if your archers would have participated. One thing I forgot, of course, was the damage your archers would have been able to deliver, so you may have had a slight advantage in that case.

However, I am not and have never been in favour of the different attack/defence values for units.

Had the elephants had the same attack/defence value it would have been a different story.

I would like to see in open and hilly terrain, pikes/spears, heavy infantry and elephants have the same attack and defence values. In more difficult terrain I am quite happy to see them differ as it is now.

[lostangelonline]

From what I can see, you lost the battle because 3 elephant units fell in combat.

This is incorrect as far as I know (also only 2 died in battle, the 3rd in pursuit). I remember a post from Pocus where he said that total damage determines who is the winner (or if it is a draw). That's why I've said this bug is "lowering my damage a lot during ranged phase [..] and by 2*14=24 less damage done to the enemy in melee phase. This is HUGE difference". With 24+ more damage, I would have won (even if only draw at first). Sorry I will not engage in pros and cons of elephants/heavy infantry, but I want to keep focus on the current topic: missing archers from 2nd row (we can discuss it in another topic).

Yes, you were disadvantaged by not having the extra support but it would have been by no means an impossible-to-loose battle as you stated even if your archers would have participated. One thing I forgot, of course, was the damage your archers would have been able to deliver, so you may have had a slight advantage in that case.

I agree that "impossible" might be a bit exaggerated, but I used it so that everyone would understand I am talking of very low chances of loosing; which is not the case because of this bug, as I lost in similar conditions many times (math above also confirms it).
EDIT (for clarification): What I meant here was: If this exact battle is repeated with same armies/terrain/general, but with archers in 2nd row, there are "very low chances of loosing", but not "impossible", since you can be very unlucky with the dice (but very unlucky 7+ times of 14 is very rare). BUT if we get this exact dice results (if we had this battle with archers in 2nd row), the extra 28+ damage always results in victory, therefore "impossible-to-loose".

If that were the case, then partisans using guerrilla tactics would have no place in military history

That's why I complain about loosing in Plain, not in Forested/Mountain/etc. Let me remind that Guerrilla warfare "The guerrilla prizes mobility, secrecy, and surprise, organizing in small units and taking advantage of terrain that is difficult for larger units to use". So guerrilla is least used in plains, which is best for large armies.

If you don't want to spread your forces out in a WW1 line, then don't. Concentrate your armies in central locations, wait for the enemy to advance

Maybe you have not paid close attention, but this is exactly what happened (my 2 armies, concentrated in the same province, were attacked by the enemy army).

However, I am not and have never been in favour of the different attack/defence values for units.

Had the elephants had the same attack/defence value it would have been a different story.

I would like to see in open and hilly terrain, pikes/spears, heavy infantry and elephants have the same attack and defence values. In more difficult terrain I am quite happy to see them differ as it is now.

Completely agree, and would support these changes you suggested. I would also suggest different attack/defense values, but not if you are the attacker/defender considering if you approached the other army, but rather if you are in homeland/enemy territory.

[Gray Fox]

From what I can see, you lost the battle because 3 elephant units fell in combat.

This is incorrect as far as I know (also only 2 died in battle, the 3rd in pursuit). I remember a post from Pocus where he said that total damage determines who is the winner (or if it is a draw). That's why I've said this bug is "lowering my damage a lot during ranged phase [..] and by 2*14=24 less damage done to the enemy in melee phase. This is HUGE difference". With 24+ more damage, I would have won (even if only draw at first). Sorry I will not engage in pros and cons of elephants/heavy infantry, but I want to keep focus on the current topic: missing archers from 2nd row (we can discuss it in another topic).

Yes, you were disadvantaged by not having the extra support but it would have been by no means an impossible-to-loose battle as you stated even if your archers would have participated. One thing I forgot, of course, was the damage your archers would have been able to deliver, so you may have had a slight advantage in that case.

I agree that "impossible" might be a bit exaggerated, but I used it so that everyone would understand I am talking of very low chances of loosing; which is not the case because of this bug, as I lost in similar conditions many times (math above also confirms it).

If that were the case, then partisans using guerrilla tactics would have no place in military history

That's why I complain about loosing in Plain, not in Forested/Mountain/etc. Let me remind that Guerrilla warfare "The guerrilla prizes mobility, secrecy, and surprise, organizing in small units and taking advantage of terrain that is difficult for larger units to use". So guerrilla is least used in plains, which is best for large armies.

If you don't want to spread your forces out in a WW1 line, then don't. Concentrate your armies in central locations, wait for the enemy to advance

Maybe you have not paid close attention, but this is exactly what happened (my 2 armies, concentrated in the same province, were attacked by the enemy army).

However, I am not and have never been in favour of the different attack/defence values for units.

Had the elephants had the same attack/defence value it would have been a different story.

I would like to see in open and hilly terrain, pikes/spears, heavy infantry and elephants have the same attack and defence values. In more difficult terrain I am quite happy to see them differ as it is now.

Completely agree, and would support these changes you suggested. I would also suggest different attack/defense values, but not if you are the attacker/defender considering if you approached the other army, but rather if you are in homeland/enemy territory.

"From what I can see" means exactly that. Also, 2x14 is 28 not 24. You still might have lost because the RNG can still get you. If you don't want elephants and chariots showing up in the support line, then don't use too many of them.

[Nijis]

This battle could be a bit like Crecy (a vastly superior force, because of command and control, engages piecemeal and is defeated piecemeal, each routing echelon impeding the echelon behind it) or one of the many battles where a smaller force marches quickly and attacks the enemy camp at night, or on the march, and routs it. Both of these types of battles could and did occur on open terrain.

I see the attacker advantage as the general being able to pull off some sort of operational coup - a surprise attack, getting between the enemy force and its water supply, or just getting more troops into the fray quicker. Yeah, it doesn't work perfectly, but it does give each side an incentive to gather intelligence and maneuver.

Historically, I'd argue, there really wasn't any such thing as an "impossible to lose" battle. Battles could be lost for all kinds of bizarre reasons.

I agree that the WW1 tactics issue, creating an incentive to split your forces, is a problem. I'd argue that the game encourages more Napoleonic splitting than WW1 - multiple advancing corps, not a front - but yes, that's a bit ahistorical.

However, you also don't want to create an incentive to make huge stacks. There were practical limits on the size of a force, mostly logistical but also the time it took them to break and make camp, that capped most armies at 30,000 to 50,000, maybe 80k to 100k in perfect circumstances. Even if it's not making the most efficient use of the troops, I generally like to concentrate my forces - you take advantage of the best commander you have, and they can weather losses.

[lostangelonline]

Also, 2x14 is 28 not 24.

Ups, I stand corrected. It's even worse than I thought.

You still might have lost because the RNG can still get you.

I agree. If this exact battle is repeated with same armies/terrain/general, but with archers in 2nd row, there are "very low chances of loosing", but not "impossible", since you can be very unlucky with the dice (but very unlucky 7+ times of 14 is very rare). BUT if we get this exact dice results (if we had this battle with archers in 2nd row), the extra 28+ damage always results in victory, therefore "impossible-to-loose".

If you don't want elephants and chariots showing up in the support line, then don't use too many of them.

I am glad you agree with me: "this will result in only one outcome: countries will never have huge armies, as these will always be defeated by smaller (still full-frontage) armies". BUT this did not exist in history, so is unrealistic. And I want to have large armies like in history, it's one of the reasons I play this game. You do not want to lead, in this simulation, large armies like Alexander or Darius did in history?

This battle could be a bit like Crecy (a vastly superior force, because of command and control, engages piecemeal and is defeated piecemeal, each routing echelon impeding the echelon behind it) or one of the many battles where a smaller force marches quickly and attacks the enemy camp at night, or on the march, and routs it. Both of these types of battles could and did occur on open terrain.

I see the attacker advantage as the general being able to pull off some sort of operational coup - a surprise attack, getting between the enemy force and its water supply, or just getting more troops into the fray quicker. Yeah, it doesn't work perfectly, but it does give each side an incentive to gather intelligence and maneuver.

As I've said, I agree surprise/guerrilla attacks did occur (least in plains compared to other terrains), but this is not simulated in the game. You can argue that the extra attack damage of the attacker is because it was a surprise attack, but would be unrealistic that all battles are surprise/guerrilla attacks (they were not even common, because were not usually that effective, otherwise would have become the norm). And even if ALL attacks are guerrilla attacks, how does that explain that my archers will not support front-line if, on ONLY if, it is a big army? But they will support, in all surprise/guerrilla attacks, if army is smaller. Please help me understand.

Historically, I'd argue, there really wasn't any such thing as an "impossible to lose" battle. Battles could be lost for all kinds of bizarre reasons.

I agree. Not everything is simulated in the game, that's why there are RNG/dices to simulate everything else (I also always advocated for more realistic "universal" mechanics to be added/improved in the game, not more of the same or "unrealistic" nation-specific mechanics, like the devs started to focus recently). But still doesn't explain why my archers will not support front-line if, on ONLY if, it is a big army? Please help me understand.

I agree that the WW1 tactics issue, creating an incentive to split your forces, is a problem. I'd argue that the game encourages more Napoleonic splitting than WW1 - multiple advancing corps, not a front - but yes, that's a bit ahistorical.

I completely agree.

However, you also don't want to create an incentive to make huge stacks. There were practical limits on the size of a force, mostly logistical but also the time it took them to break and make camp, that capped most armies at 30,000 to 50,000, maybe 80k to 100k in perfect circumstances. Even if it's not making the most efficient use of the troops, I generally like to concentrate my forces - you take advantage of the best commander you have, and they can weather losses.

I agree, more things that contribute to army maintenance should be added and simulated in the game. But realistic/historic ones, not inventions like "archers will never support front-line if army is bigger" which never happened in reality.

[storeylf]

I can't help but feel you are looking at this somewhat wrong.

You fought in the plains, only a desert has a wider frontage. In effect plains are the guide to what your largest armies should be aiming to fight in. Bringing an army so much larger than even the wide open plains can handle, and of such a composition is bound to cause issues with actually fighting efficiently.

If you wish to have battles of that size as normal then just modding the terrain frontage would likely help out a lot, more stuff in the frontline means more room for archers in the 2nd etc. Make the terrain frontages suit the battle sizes as you see them.

Otherwise, if you are sure the deployment code is bugged, then given you have already analysed the script and found it an easy fix then surely you could just fix the script yourself (and make it available for others).

[storeylf]

I am glad you agree with me: "this will result in only one outcome: countries will never have huge armies, as these will always be defeated by smaller (still full-frontage) armies". BUT this did not exist in history, so is unrealistic. And I want to have large armies like in history, it's one of the reasons I play this game. You do not want to lead, in this simulation, large armies like Alexander or Darius did in history?

I have to disagree with you here. An army that is full frontage in the plains is a large army almost by definition. Armies that are so big you cannot even deploy them in the open plains were unheard of. No leader would go the issue of mobilising an army he couldn't actually deploy and command anywhere, and have to feed it etc on top of that.

We can lead the armies of Alexander etc, the question is what do they look like in game. It is not remotely a given that Alexanders army would be 100 units big. Even his largest battles were fought with relatively modest sized armies. You mention Issus, where he had ~30-40K men. What is that in game terms? We can get a feel for that from the Pyrrhrus scenario which starts with the Hero himself having just arrived in Tarentum. He has 22 units, which given the date etc probably represents ~25K men of a not hugely dissimilar composition to the Alexandrian armies. So the 'huge' armies of Alexander would be maybe 30-40 units? This would also fit a lot nicer on that frontage 14 plains, so that does not feel too accidental. Way off the 70-100 unit armies you are deploying and the having issues with.

There were supposedly huge armies, sometimes fancifully huge (Darius at Guagamela), how big is open to a lot of debate, and those numbers may be represented in game by a similar number of units anyway (large low quality units).


Of course this is a game, where as player we do supper well and build empires and armies that would not have existed. If you feel you should have these large armies fight well, then as I noted before I think you should first look at modding the frontages of the terrain types.

[kvnrthr]

On the main topic of troop positioning I agree that the game makes so many terrible decisions. Just put the guys with the highest combat support in the second line, always!

I really think this game needs some sort of system to prevent the excessive spreading of forces. You guys are right that wars tend to devolve into many small stacks in this game.

Some potential ideas to discourage small stacks:

1. Stacks without leaders move much slower and/or have chance to ignore orders: could be interesting, makes those smaller units easier to catch and defeat in detail. Less chance to cause havoc behind lines, no more ahistorical perfect Napoleonic corps maneuvers. Gives those 0-0 generals an extra use also. If you really want to get a large number of troops going, you must put the leaders there.

Would need rebalancing number of leaders I guess (maybe add some extra 0-0 leaders for nations with large land/naval power.)

2. Somehow strengthen region garrisons, perhaps relating it to provincial manpower. Right now it's relatively easy to get a "big enough" stack to annoy your enemy. It might change depending on size, but I've had luck just taking 4 light horse and causing enormous trouble in their regions. Perhaps a weaker provincial version of the emergency levy, so you get an on map unit you can use to defend? Then again I don't know if that's more likely for feudal than ancient times, and that would throw off balance more.

3. Some chance for an army or a portion of it to engage in battle with those in adjacent provinces, based on relative strengths (to decide if you're going to intercept or not) and general quality (to see if you succeed intercepting). Most nations would not know exactly where the other army was, so you may represent it as stumbling into an unwanted fight.

But this idea would probably be the most annoying to implement with so much chance, so may not be a good idea after all.

[lostangelonline]

If you wish to have battles of that size as normal then just modding the terrain frontage would likely help out a lot, more stuff in the frontline means more room for archers in the 2nd etc. Make the terrain frontages suit the battle sizes as you see them.

Otherwise, if you are sure the deployment code is bugged, then given you have already analysed the script and found it an easy fix then surely you could just fix the script yourself (and make it available for others).

If you feel you should have these large armies fight well, then as I noted before I think you should first look at modding the frontages of the terrain types.

While I'm familiar with making mods (in the Steam Workshop at least), I'm not sure I can play MP with mods (the RSA mod I've made for DOM is single-player only, actually the game itself is). Since I want to achieve glory in MP, I have no time to play SP (even if modded to be better, since it will have different gameplay that will not work in MP and resulting in confusion in my head). Can FOGE be played with mods in MP (mod active in MP, if all players have the mod installed)?

[lostangelonline]

I can't help but feel you are looking at this somewhat wrong.

You fought in the plains, only a desert has a wider frontage. In effect plains are the guide to what your largest armies should be aiming to fight in. Bringing an army so much larger than even the wide open plains can handle, and of such a composition is bound to cause issues with actually fighting efficiently.

[..]this did not exist in history, so is unrealistic[..]

I have to disagree with you here. An army that is full frontage in the plains is a large army almost by definition. Armies that are so big you cannot even deploy them in the open plains were unheard of. No leader would go the issue of mobilising an army he couldn't actually deploy and command anywhere, and have to feed it etc on top of that.

We can lead the armies of Alexander etc, the question is what do they look like in game. It is not remotely a given that Alexanders army would be 100 units big. Even his largest battles were fought with relatively modest sized armies. You mention Issus, where he had ~30-40K men. What is that in game terms? We can get a feel for that from the Pyrrhrus scenario which starts with the Hero himself having just arrived in Tarentum. He has 22 units, which given the date etc probably represents ~25K men of a not hugely dissimilar composition to the Alexandrian armies. So the 'huge' armies of Alexander would be maybe 30-40 units? This would also fit a lot nicer on that frontage 14 plains, so that does not feel too accidental. Way off the 70-100 unit armies you are deploying and the having issues with.

There were supposedly huge armies, sometimes fancifully huge (Darius at Guagamela), how big is open to a lot of debate, and those numbers may be represented in game by a similar number of units anyway (large low quality units).

Of course this is a game, where as player we do supper well and build empires and armies that would not have existed.

Actually you make a very good point. So from your point of view, Alexander's 40,850 army should be simulated in the game with a max of 28(14x2) units army. Therefore Darius III's 60,000 army had maybe 42 units army. And if we consider having a 28(14x2) unit army is the max any general can correctly deploy (even a 2-2 general like Alexander the Great) in a plain (less for other terrains), anything bigger will cause the front-line units to squeeze into more rows, therefore the 2nd row, where the archers were, becoming the 3rd row or more. Which will happen to Darius's 42 units, but not to Alexander's 28 units, causing Darius to loose, just as in history where because of "location[..] Darius could not take advantage of his superiority in numbers". Excellent, seems realistic and makes perfect sense.

But why I can build much more units than Darius? As you said: "this is a game, where as player we do supper well and build empires and armies that would not have existed". I very much agree with this (is one of the things that I want from this game). Rulers did not get to have full control of their nations and focus on maxing their economies; and the armies I build are maybe close to the max economy in this game can support.

And why results in Napoleonic/WW1 huge front-lines that were not the norm in antiquity? Because there were no such huge armies; when population increased a lot in Napolean/WW1 times, so did armies and had to break into smaller armies and enlarging the fronts. Again, seems realistic and makes perfect sense.

Thank you storeylf for this amazing realistic explanation! I can enjoy the game again.

EDIT: this is realistic if 1 unit=1500 soldiers; for 1 unit=1000 soldiers as in your Tarentum example, frontage (for all terrains) must be increased to 150% (like Plain frontage=21).

Of course this is a game, where as player we do supper well and build empires and armies that would not have existed.

I'll repeat this quote because it captures the essence that the devs miss when they try to "balance" the game. Me, and I hope others as well, do not want balanced nations that are equal in strength (we can make a specific MP scenario/map for that, like the Pyrrhus scenario, with 2-16 equally-difficult real nations in a region of the globe at a specific date); from the game I want and expect only "realistic mechanics", I by that I mean (ideally):
1. everything that could have happened in reality to be able to happen in this simulation as well;
2. nothing that could never have happened in reality to be able to happen in this simulation;

[lostangelonline]

On the main topic of troop positioning I agree that the game makes so many terrible decisions. Just put the guys with the highest combat support in the second line, always!

I really think this game needs some sort of system to prevent the excessive spreading of forces. You guys are right that wars tend to devolve into many small stacks in this game.

I'm glad we both agree.

1. Stacks without leaders move much slower and/or have chance to ignore orders: could be interesting, makes those smaller units easier to catch and defeat in detail. Less chance to cause havoc behind lines, no more ahistorical perfect Napoleonic corps maneuvers. Gives those 0-0 generals an extra use also. If you really want to get a large number of troops going, you must put the leaders there.

Would need rebalancing number of leaders I guess (maybe add some extra 0-0 leaders for nations with large land/naval power.)

Good idea, could work. Maybe an easy-to-do version of what you propose is just make the armies without generals refuse to attack (move in an enemy region or where there is considerable enemy presence).

2. Somehow strengthen region garrisons, perhaps relating it to provincial manpower. Right now it's relatively easy to get a "big enough" stack to annoy your enemy. It might change depending on size, but I've had luck just taking 4 light horse and causing enormous trouble in their regions. Perhaps a weaker provincial version of the emergency levy, so you get an on map unit you can use to defend? Then again I don't know if that's more likely for feudal than ancient times, and that would throw off balance more.

Not sure it will help. Also sieges seem more realistic than open battles right now (apart from the "cinematic" depicting an open battle in an area without walls).

3. Some chance for an army or a portion of it to engage in battle with those in adjacent provinces, based on relative strengths (to decide if you're going to intercept or not) and general quality (to see if you succeed intercepting). Most nations would not know exactly where the other army was, so you may represent it as stumbling into an unwanted fight.

But this idea would probably be the most annoying to implement with so much chance, so may not be a good idea after all.

Innovative idea, wouldn't have though about that. But as you said, seems to just complicate things and not sure will make things more realistic. Your first idea seems best to me.

[Pocus]

I like to keep some surprises aside to the last moment, but given how heated the discussion is, I feel I need to say that battle deployment has been improved for the upcoming patch. To be sure I'm not missing details, please see the thread about 'unsatisfying battles'

[storeylf]

Actually you make a very good point. So from your point of view, Alexander's 40,850 army should be simulated in the game with a max of 28(14x2) units army. Therefore Darius III's 60,000 army had maybe 42 units army.

Sort of. I think the plains should be bigger. Extrapolating from the campaign setup (and FOG2 conversions) I think a large army should be seen as 40+ units, and that should be deployable in full on the plains. So I think the plains should be 20(ish) wide maybe a little bigger.

But yes, if you bring more than that then you should suffer and accept that either you are beyond an ancient generals ability to control well in a battle and face the consequences or going somewhat ahistorical.

However, I will modify that a bit. I think the game needs to rethink how the frontage and army size we actually see scale to each other. If the game allows for those massive armies as a common sight (rather than an exceptional wow moment) then the frontage should scale to accept them as well, and keep an eye on this being a game first and foremost. In particular if more casual difficulty levels allow for larger armies due to economics etc (I'm not sure that is how this game works but many games work like that) then adjusting in game for army size in some way will stop casual players feeling like the game is broken, whilst higher settings which may restrict the army sizes indirectly do not feel bizarrely unconstrained by frontage.

In short the plains at least should allow us to deploy what we can 'normally' group as an army and that 'normal' represents the unit scale for the games idea of a 40-60K army for example. Other terrains would still be tighter, and ideally other factors would prevent mega armies beyond realistic.

[lostangelonline]

I like to keep some surprises aside to the last moment, but given how heated the discussion is, I feel I need to say that battle deployment has been improved for the upcoming patch. To be sure I'm not missing details, please see the thread about 'unsatisfying battles'

Thank you again Pocus! I'll also post a link to your (Unsatisfying) Battles of the Ancient World topic, and urge every one to read it and help you with feedback.

[lostangelonline]

Sort of. I think the plains should be bigger. Extrapolating from the campaign setup (and FOG2 conversions) I think a large army should be seen as 40+ units, and that should be deployable in full on the plains. So I think the plains should be 20(ish) wide maybe a little bigger.

But yes, if you bring more than that then you should suffer and accept that either you are beyond an ancient generals ability to control well in a battle and face the consequences or going somewhat ahistorical.

However, I will modify that a bit. I think the game needs to rethink how the frontage and army size we actually see scale to each other. If the game allows for those massive armies as a common sight (rather than an exceptional wow moment) then the frontage should scale to accept them as well, and keep an eye on this being a game first and foremost. In particular if more casual difficulty levels allow for larger armies due to economics etc (I'm not sure that is how this game works but many games work like that) then adjusting in game for army size in some way will stop casual players feeling like the game is broken, whilst higher settings which may restrict the army sizes indirectly do not feel bizarrely unconstrained by frontage.

In short the plains at least should allow us to deploy what we can 'normally' group as an army and that 'normal' represents the unit scale for the games idea of a 40-60K army for example. Other terrains would still be tighter, and ideally other factors would prevent mega armies beyond realistic.

I completely agree. I also agree with frontages being enlarged (maybe to all terrains, maybe to 150% or less).

Also devs should clarify if 1 unit=1000 soldiers or something else (on it depends "realistic" frontage size). Does anyone know?

[storeylf]

Also devs should clarify if 1 unit=1000 soldiers or something else (on it depends "realistic" frontage size). Does anyone know?

I don't think it is quite that simple. I am only extrapolating, but the campaign setups have a couple of initial forces which indicate that as an average that is possibly somewhere about the correct ballpark. There is a roman army in the base campaign with 2 legions represented by 2 legion units, 2 alae, some velites and other lights, which comes out as 9(?) units, and the pyrrhus scenario sees Pyrrhus with 22 units representing what I think would be 20-25K men. Whilst it is not exact a 1000 men per unit is not a bad benchmark. The main point is that is an average for an army and not an actual unit scale, I think heavy units are a fair bit bigger and lights are a fair bit smaller, but an army with a balance is probably somewhere at an average of 1K/unit.

Th FOG2 conversions also seem to come in at something not very different to that. There is some fair variation, this obviously doesn't hold so well for some armies, eastern armies with a lot of light troops are less clear cut.

[Pocus]

If you try to think Empires as a precise military simulation, with strict equivalence between historical number of men and how many units are represented in-game, then you are bound to be disappointed.