A potential rule-change to promote the use of mixed forces...

[bloodysmurf]

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

I've been musing over the dilemma of the super-powerful horse-rush, and it occurred to me that one of the elements lacking from the game is a system that properly encourages the use of a well-rounded mixture of units. I find myself using only a small fraction of the available units in the game, which definitely makes things less interesting. Another layer of strategy could be added to the game if the following system was implemented:

Units should receive attack/defense modifiers based upon what other units are in the stack. For example, infantry supported by horseman could receive a 50% attack bonus, to reflect the strategic importance of horseman as shock-troops. Conversely, horsemen could suffer a 50% defense penalty when attacking without the support of infantry.

The first question raised by this sort of change would be: what is the cost of support? Taking my infantry with horse-support example, one could imagine that you could shuffle one horseman between several infantry stacks in the same turn to give them all the bonus. Some ideas on how support could be implemented (not all mutually exclusive):

• Support could consume the unit's remaining movement points (or 1 point)
• Use of a unit for support could count as the unit's attack for the turn. Therefore, a fast unit could possibly support several stacks, but it wouldn't be able to attack.
• A supporting unit could be required to start the turn in the same square as the unit it is supporting.
• A more complicated implementation would be to allow two units to attack simultaneously, thus allowing both units to complement each other, but also exposing both to the possibility of defeat.

In terms of how this could be implemented into the interface, it would be reasonably simple. When an active unit is in a stack with a unit that can serve as support, a keystroke of S could open a menu of available supporting units.

So, in summary, the possible advantages of this system would be:

• Provide more strategic depth for combat
• Encourage use of a diversified attack force
• Help balance units by adding new strengths and weaknesses
• Confine support relationships to units that share the same era, thereby helping to increase the gap between units. This reminds me, a good way to address the problem with spearman killing tanks would be to simply give units from certain eras penalties against those of later eras (as opposed to just jacking up all the stats of the later units)
• Provides an opportunity to give units more character... distinguishing them by more than A/D/M
• Opens up the possibility for new units... possibly even units that function exclusively as support units (e.g. combat medics, armorers/fletchers, prostitutes )

OK, I know the chances of this actually being implemented are virtually nil, but maybe a simpler option could at least be provided through the editor: allowing units to be assigned specific bonuses/penalties versus specific units (or classes of units).

Comments? Suggestions?

Peace,
Ollie

[Ecthy]

Nice paragraphs you've got there, even in color. Very well done

[bloodysmurf]

hmmm...

Thanks, but I was actually hoping for feedback on the idea

[GePap]

No stacks

Bloodysmurf (love the name):
The game today does not seem to be able to recongnize stacks that well, so I think it would take some serious new programming to get your idea to work. Besides that, Horsemen are always used as shock, with or without infantry support. You notion is more valid in the age of guns (like with Ney's charge at Waterloo) than in the age of knights.
I think there a re simpler solutions to the problem to be implemented with bonuses that always apply. As in SMAC, horses and quick units should get bonuses attacking units in open (grassland, plains, deserts) terrain. As in SMAC, infantry should get a small bonus attacking cities. Add to this a large penalty to fast units that attack cities, since fighting in cities robs them of their adavntage of mobility. No one ever used knights mounted to rush a castle (this was suicide), you surrounded it with men (infantry) and reduced them by siege (catapult or cannon). I think if horsemen got only attack 1 vas cities (50% penalty) while swordsmen still have 3, more people would bring up the inf. to take cities, whhich is historically accurate.