Tweet
Re: Unit grouping/formations
Formations are very interesting to me. I play a lot of turn-based war games, and this will be my first time thinking about group efficiency in an RTS context. Here it goes:
- individual UNITS stay in combat as long as they have both HEALTH and MORALE. If a unit runs out of morale, it will attempt to flee the battle field (to a marshalling area near a commander, for example, or even back into the civilian population). A unit that runs out of health dies.
- HEALTH deteriorates as a unit comes under attack. This rate is modified by strength of attacker weapon, defender armor, etc. (In the real world, few soldiers remain combat effective through multiple wounds. What health represents here should be a combination of tactical position and physical exhaustion that makes the soldier vulernable to receiving the fatal blow. This way it is reasonable that the health meter can be recovered after battle for the men that have survived. Medical services do not affect this health, which is regained naturally; rather they allow the player to recover some of the “bodies” left on a battlefield back into the army or the civilian population.)
- MORALE deteriorates as a function of the rate at which health is falling, AND it depends on the cohesion of the FORMATION the unit belongs to.
- UNITS gain morale in part from being inside a well organized FORMATION (one where units counted on for support are in their approximate place, such as to your side or to the back). A perfect formation standing still gives its units full morale. As the formation is disrupted during movement and combat, unit morale deteriorate over time.
- maximum disruption occurs when a formation is forced to engage an enemy from an unexpected direction, as its units respond to the threat with out-of-formation maneuvering.
Some examples of what health, morale, and formation can mean for gameplay.
- when marching into combat, it makes sense to keep units in formation, since morale drops quickly as units fall out of formation.
- A group of units ordered to maintain formation in combat may hold its back rows in reserve while the front is engaged in battle. This is how DEEP FORMATIONS can stiffen morale.
- against a weak or fleeing enemy not expected to withstand the early shock of battle, units can be ordered to melee to maximize damage inflicted.
- flanking attacks are devastating to formation morale.
- As low morale units flee from battle, they become less able to defend themselves, less threatening to the enemy, and thus their health becomes more vulnerable to attack. A fleeing unit further hurts the cohesion of his whole formation, thus causing morale failure to more units, and so on. This way, depending on their training, an entire formation can be routed from battle while much of its health remains in tact.
- formation MAXIMUM MORALE (as gained from standing still in formation) can depend on factors such as how long a formation has been assembled, how many times it has engaged in battle as a formation, etc.
- While health reflects on the combat power of his individual units, morale reflects on how the player is managing the battle. By having both indicators, the player can tell the difference, for example, from a battle lost due to bad equipment versus another one lost to bad leadership.
- World War I infantry do look silly attacking in line formation. For modern units, formation cohesion should represent the state of command and control, rather than whether units are physically lined up. State of command and control can depend on casualty rate, suppression fire, direction of attack, etc.
- Formation efficiency can represent a technology area in itself. The Greek Phalanx, for example, in addition to heavy individual armor, represents a formation technology that maintains tight discipline toward the front. Its flank vulnerability can be modeled by having unit morale depend heavily on flank support being in place.
Now I *have played* some RTS games such as Starcraft and AOE. This level of control seems doable to me if done right. Interface wise, pretty much you highlight a group of units, say form formation, you can then order them around as a formation. Formation morale discourages micromanaging individual units, because isolated units are not very effective by themselves. This way we get more realistic battle management, while we can still see what's going on with individual soldiers and their contribution to the battle.
This is different from the Shogun: Total War system in that formations are dynamic entities designed and managed by the player. Its power, rather than being prescripted inside a table, comes from how individual units interact in battle. Formation cohesion will depend realistically on terrain and maneuver, and will depend also on the vagaries of individual unit behavior.
***
Something else I’ve wanted to see in RTS games is supply. Supply is a real world limit to sprawling empires. Units should lose health as they move, representing loss to fatigue and wear and tear on equipment. Health is recovered through consuming supply – thus it requires supply both to move and to fight. Supply duty can be given to “smart peasants”, who can ferry supplies from source directly to a formation, or to a depot for later distribution. Units can also forage automaticly from the local land. Essentially, supply puts the limit on the tempo of operations. The player needs to care for his armies to keep them combat effective deep inside enemy territory, but does not otherwise need to worry about providing food to keep his troops alive.
Modeling supply seems more in keeping with the multi-hour long epic game than the lunch hour clickfest. MAYBE make it an option for the epic game style of play, which I truly hope will be there since I’m not the lunch hour player. In addition to resources and technology happening at a slower rate for the epic game, it would be interesting to see large scale military campaigns that require logistical preparation. Supply becomes a vulnerability that can be targeted and attacked. It adds a realistic dimension to maneuver strategy.
Originally posted by Dale
One thing I'd love to see is REAL unit grouping/formations.
- Anchient eras: not much grouping or formations. Mostly people acted as individuals.
- Medieval eras: catapults/trebs way out back, bowmen middle, infantry centre, cavalry flanks. And their formation is in lines.
- Renais eras: similar to Med where artillery is at the back, and riflemen at the front in ranks with cavalry on the flanks.
- Modern eras: corps running around where it's possible to have artillery miles back, infantry skirmaging and tanks blitzkreiging around the flanks.
This type of formations would be awesome! Also, if possible have some standard tactics that your battlefield generals can automatically order. IE: click a button and suddnely the riflemen retreat under an arty barrage, the enemy advances seeking the ground, and the cavalry out-flank to cut up the reserves. All this as one order.
Also, when armies are marching around the map, make them march in some semblance of formations!
Oh, and you must be able to group and store armies on quick-keys (like command & conquor)
Is this too much?
One thing I'd love to see is REAL unit grouping/formations.
- Anchient eras: not much grouping or formations. Mostly people acted as individuals.
- Medieval eras: catapults/trebs way out back, bowmen middle, infantry centre, cavalry flanks. And their formation is in lines.
- Renais eras: similar to Med where artillery is at the back, and riflemen at the front in ranks with cavalry on the flanks.
- Modern eras: corps running around where it's possible to have artillery miles back, infantry skirmaging and tanks blitzkreiging around the flanks.
This type of formations would be awesome! Also, if possible have some standard tactics that your battlefield generals can automatically order. IE: click a button and suddnely the riflemen retreat under an arty barrage, the enemy advances seeking the ground, and the cavalry out-flank to cut up the reserves. All this as one order.
Also, when armies are marching around the map, make them march in some semblance of formations!
Oh, and you must be able to group and store armies on quick-keys (like command & conquor)
Is this too much?
- individual UNITS stay in combat as long as they have both HEALTH and MORALE. If a unit runs out of morale, it will attempt to flee the battle field (to a marshalling area near a commander, for example, or even back into the civilian population). A unit that runs out of health dies.
- HEALTH deteriorates as a unit comes under attack. This rate is modified by strength of attacker weapon, defender armor, etc. (In the real world, few soldiers remain combat effective through multiple wounds. What health represents here should be a combination of tactical position and physical exhaustion that makes the soldier vulernable to receiving the fatal blow. This way it is reasonable that the health meter can be recovered after battle for the men that have survived. Medical services do not affect this health, which is regained naturally; rather they allow the player to recover some of the “bodies” left on a battlefield back into the army or the civilian population.)
- MORALE deteriorates as a function of the rate at which health is falling, AND it depends on the cohesion of the FORMATION the unit belongs to.
- UNITS gain morale in part from being inside a well organized FORMATION (one where units counted on for support are in their approximate place, such as to your side or to the back). A perfect formation standing still gives its units full morale. As the formation is disrupted during movement and combat, unit morale deteriorate over time.
- maximum disruption occurs when a formation is forced to engage an enemy from an unexpected direction, as its units respond to the threat with out-of-formation maneuvering.
Some examples of what health, morale, and formation can mean for gameplay.
- when marching into combat, it makes sense to keep units in formation, since morale drops quickly as units fall out of formation.
- A group of units ordered to maintain formation in combat may hold its back rows in reserve while the front is engaged in battle. This is how DEEP FORMATIONS can stiffen morale.
- against a weak or fleeing enemy not expected to withstand the early shock of battle, units can be ordered to melee to maximize damage inflicted.
- flanking attacks are devastating to formation morale.
- As low morale units flee from battle, they become less able to defend themselves, less threatening to the enemy, and thus their health becomes more vulnerable to attack. A fleeing unit further hurts the cohesion of his whole formation, thus causing morale failure to more units, and so on. This way, depending on their training, an entire formation can be routed from battle while much of its health remains in tact.
- formation MAXIMUM MORALE (as gained from standing still in formation) can depend on factors such as how long a formation has been assembled, how many times it has engaged in battle as a formation, etc.
- While health reflects on the combat power of his individual units, morale reflects on how the player is managing the battle. By having both indicators, the player can tell the difference, for example, from a battle lost due to bad equipment versus another one lost to bad leadership.
- World War I infantry do look silly attacking in line formation. For modern units, formation cohesion should represent the state of command and control, rather than whether units are physically lined up. State of command and control can depend on casualty rate, suppression fire, direction of attack, etc.
- Formation efficiency can represent a technology area in itself. The Greek Phalanx, for example, in addition to heavy individual armor, represents a formation technology that maintains tight discipline toward the front. Its flank vulnerability can be modeled by having unit morale depend heavily on flank support being in place.
Now I *have played* some RTS games such as Starcraft and AOE. This level of control seems doable to me if done right. Interface wise, pretty much you highlight a group of units, say form formation, you can then order them around as a formation. Formation morale discourages micromanaging individual units, because isolated units are not very effective by themselves. This way we get more realistic battle management, while we can still see what's going on with individual soldiers and their contribution to the battle.
This is different from the Shogun: Total War system in that formations are dynamic entities designed and managed by the player. Its power, rather than being prescripted inside a table, comes from how individual units interact in battle. Formation cohesion will depend realistically on terrain and maneuver, and will depend also on the vagaries of individual unit behavior.
***
Something else I’ve wanted to see in RTS games is supply. Supply is a real world limit to sprawling empires. Units should lose health as they move, representing loss to fatigue and wear and tear on equipment. Health is recovered through consuming supply – thus it requires supply both to move and to fight. Supply duty can be given to “smart peasants”, who can ferry supplies from source directly to a formation, or to a depot for later distribution. Units can also forage automaticly from the local land. Essentially, supply puts the limit on the tempo of operations. The player needs to care for his armies to keep them combat effective deep inside enemy territory, but does not otherwise need to worry about providing food to keep his troops alive.
Modeling supply seems more in keeping with the multi-hour long epic game than the lunch hour clickfest. MAYBE make it an option for the epic game style of play, which I truly hope will be there since I’m not the lunch hour player. In addition to resources and technology happening at a slower rate for the epic game, it would be interesting to see large scale military campaigns that require logistical preparation. Supply becomes a vulnerability that can be targeted and attacked. It adds a realistic dimension to maneuver strategy.
Comment