Military & Siege

I want to look into further refining the Battle System.

Read the post I made in game rules/policies about the game pace.

Agreed, then - having 5 Battle Rounds each season is a bit unnecessary. How will you handle reinforcements, though? Just give an arbitrary number of BRs based on how far away they are?

That's a good question. It probably won't be random, and I'll assign there to be a realistic number of battle turns.

Ah, one thing I want to do is assign troops actual offense (read: damage) and defense (read: hp) values I can use in my battle resolving. A simple unit will probably have an offense of 1 and defense of 3 or something. That is, it deals 1 hp of damage in a battleturn, and can take 3 hp worth of damage before dying. Damage will be affected by type modifiers where the rock-paper-scissors will take effect. Type modifier will probably be 1.5. I might also throw in some rng as well. Thoughts?

Sounds good.

Alright, I think I have the damage calculation formula finalised. Note that this only applies to groups of damage-dealers that are all of the same type (like all swordsmen, not a mix of pikemen and swordsmen):

n·(dmg)·Σ(tmtp)/(nf)·(1+(m1-m2)/2)·π(pmtp)·π(smtp)·rnd[0.8,1.2]

In which:
n=number of damage-dealing troops
dmg=the damage an individual troop assigns
tmtp=type-based damage multiplier of a foe
nf=the number of foes
m1=damage-dealer morale
m2=foe morale
pmtp=paragon multiplier
smtp=situational multiplier
rnd[0.8,1.2]=a random number between 0.8 and 1.2

I hope this covers at least the majority of situations.

I think you're over thinking it.

I want to minimize all possibility of bias. Is that too wrong?

No, but I think you can do that without the use of Pi and Sigma.

What's wrong with them? I'm using them because the number of different type multipliers, situational multipliers and paragon multipliers are unknown, and I wanted to signify how they are applied to each other.

I thought you meant Pi as in 3.141592653... and Sigma as in Summation (summation of something of which I am unsure of)

Σ(tmtp) is the sum of individual type damage multipliers for enemies. That is, if I had swordsmen under my command and they were attacking 150 enemy archers and 50 enemy mages, then Σ(tmtp) would be 150·1.5+50·1, which is the same as 1.5+1.5+1.5+1.5+1.5...(150 times)+1+1+1+1...(50 times).

Where sigma is the "short-hand" for sum, π is the same for product. π(pmtp) is the product of individual paragon multipliers, which can be either positive or negative. On the same note, π(smtp) is the product of individual situational multipliers, all of which will be decided by me. This is basically the only thing I will have any influence in in the actual battle after the type- and paragon multipliers are set.

Very impressed. As far as I can tell, that formula does indeed cover most situations, and it's fair.

What's Pi for?

Π is the product symbol.

Don't confuse it with π, which is 3.1415926535898...

William has proposed something quite neat for armies: Commanders. This idea has sort of been touched on in God Wars before, but we now have the mechanics to implement it properly.

Basically, Commanders can be trained in Academies (new building) to lead armies. Nothing too complicated here: If an army is led by a Commander, it'll have bonuses (primarily steadier Morale) that give it an advantage over non-Commander armies. The Commander will also come with his own Heavy Cavalry bodyguard unit that is fairly formidable in combat, so if things get rough, the Commander can be used as a shock troop. They're sort of like Paragons, except they won't have individual abilities.

Since they'll be more like Diplomats and Scientists (Professors!?), I'll count them as Agents.

Actually, what I truly had in mind was a bit different. A simple morale-booster doesn't need an agent to get - just but a damn bannercarrier on the battlefield. I want each and every unit in the game to serve a purpose, and as such, commanders need to serve a real function, which would be the following:

An army not led by a commander or a combat-class paragon, cannot be directed by their owner in battle. Afterall, if the commander is dead or not present at all, who directs your army? One would have no control over a group of units not controlled. If the commander is slain during a battle, the control of your forces will, by default, transfer to an allied commander. If no allied commanders are present, I the units become dumb and no new tactics can be given to them. However, if someone were to teach their troops how to deal in a scenario where their commander is dead, those teachings would pay off.

Thoughts?

I'm okay with that idea, but if so, then we should allow multiple Commanders to march with a single army.

Would there be a limit to the amount of Commanders you can have?

Additionally, 500 g/t for each ship is much too low. Should be at least 2k/turn, depending on ship-type.

William doesn't like limits, but I'd say 3 maximum - we can say that if there's more, the authority of leadership will be lessened by "too many cooks in the kitchen", nevermind the potential bickering that might occur. The reason to place a limit is because of their bodyguards, who would actually be a pretty strong Cavalry unit. If we decide Commanders don't need those bodyguards, we may not need to have a limit.

As for upkeep, I want to playtest before I set it in stone. Remember, regional income is lower in GW5.

Inb4

Spoiler:

Jk. So only three commanders, eh?

What if you wanted to do multi-part platoons? Would we need a commander for each section of army? Or just one in proximity to other platoons?

And here's another thing to digest:

A drawn map for each battlefield? (Lol) That way there can be NO disputes on the layout of the area, as well as knowing the proximity from one platoon to the other?

I mean, like, that map I made of the ritual stone I whipped up in like, a few minutes. I feel we can make them ahead of time and just send them to our battlemaster for potnetial use?

I don't think army sections will need their own commanders. One commander should be enough for the entire army, doesn't even need to be in the vicinity.

Now, for that map idea... I'm horrible at drawing maps. Besides, with the number of territories we're going to have in the game (we want to make more territories), we'll need an absolutely huge number of maps. In someone wants to undertake such a massive task, they're free to do so, I'd certainly appreciate it, but I don't think it's something that is absolutely necessary.