the Choosing Betas: Battles and Military Matters

[Ry Vor]

Please use this thread instead of the broader #502 and #503 threads to discuss battles and military issues.  Those threads are intended to cover all aspects of The Choosing now, except for battles and military matters.

[Ry Vor]

Rest assured, battles and recruiting, brigade elevation, leader promotion and death, use of weapon artifacts and Rods and Wands will be working as intended before the first commercial game begins. 

I have refined some of the algorithms and will return to work on that later today, and get back with Uncle Mike by sometime tomorrow.  I will likely post more info on the details of that than I would choose to do to preserve mystery and avoid submissions to support asking for explanations of why battles didn't resolve as a player expected or understood, which we really can't afford to do, either human capacity wise or financially.

Alamaze battle resolutions are far more complex than most would believe.  When other PBEM designers have taken a look, as far back as Origins 1987, they were dumbfounded, as they believed all the factors included and variable interactions were just words to fluff the game.  They couldn't believe they were really part of the code.  So for example, what a player sees as, say, a group value vs. PC is not ever even referenced in the code resolving a PC battle.  It is a general estimation of the strength in attack, considering the group's long range, short range, and storm phase x3 values, modified for morale, attrition, leadership.  But does not consider the group's defense (most importantly), or tactics, artifacts, magic, PC being capital or the random changes on whether the PC was fully prepared or taken off-guard, and many other factors. 

I will be reviewing battles and making adjustments to how damage is assigned to brigades, how elevations of brigades occur, the requirements for recruiting Companion brigades.   This of course, was always the intention and one of a 100 reasons to have beta tests.  I may publish a table or two on those matters after I get my work to Mike.

Players are still invited to post here on those battle and military matters, but I would really like to see attention to all the other 100 aspects new in The Choosing from our beta testers.  We might have a kingdom with 10 cultural traits, 6 special abilities, and may not have heard a word from them to this point.  Let's get that feedback on the main threads for the current two beta games.

[Ry Vor]

I'd like opinions on the Companions and the Recruitable brigade types, as well as the Summoned troops.   would you always take one over another given the costs, abilities, terrain and other requirements, upkeep, etc?  I am fairly certain to add upkeep costs to Minotaur brigades, but haven't considered too many other changes.  Something stick out?

[Ry Vor]

This seeking early impressions from testers on how the kingdoms are doing in the betas, specifically on military matters.

We had a no-show for the Red Dragon in the first beta, and a standby takeover the Gnomes in the second beta.  So we won't get a good account for those kingdoms.

But in the first beta, after turn 12 status points, the top two were the Cimmerians, and then the Sacred Order.  So two of the top three militaries (along with the absent Red Dragon) were the top two spots.  The Sacred Order after T12 had control of two regions, had 23 brigades, 3 Warlords.  The Cimmerian seems to have been above that.  But we've had lots of comments that the military kingdoms are slighted in 3rd Cycle.  Someone want to take a go at what seem incompatible facts and opinions?

When we have had posts that Companions are too difficult to get and not available before turn 4, and only in the wild, those conditions are of course applied to all kingdoms.  Meanwhile we have military kingdoms that typically provide a Trait advantages in this area, such as Military Tradition to give an edge in meeting the requirements earlier to obtain Companions.

[HeadHoncho]

Because status points are an exceedingly mediocre way of gauging Kingdom power. The only reason I'm on top for status points is because I've successfully artifact hunted. Any Kingdom could do the same, and the Wizard Kingdoms that have Eagle Eye and Guarded Attack at P2 will (after accounting for random variance) be the best at it.

Right now, I'm invading R3 for kicks, and I have a strong feeling the Warlock will smoke me. He has a larger military, and WAY better wizards, which will make the difference as usual in any group-to-group battle.

[Ry Vor]

Because status points are an exceedingly mediocre way of gauging Kingdom power. The only reason I'm on top for status points is because I've successfully artifact hunted. Any Kingdom could do the same, and the Wizard Kingdoms that have Eagle Eye and Guarded Attack at P2 will (after accounting for random variance) be the best at it.

Right now, I'm invading R3 for kicks, and I have a strong feeling the Warlock will smoke me.  He has a larger military, and WAY better wizards, which will make the difference as usual in any group-to-group battle.

I agree that turn 12 status points are not a great indicator, and The Gray Mouser tells me his high showing on T6 in the second beta for status points is also due to artifact recovery.  So, yes, I see that.  But I don't think that undoes the Sacred Order controlling two regions, 23 brigades, 3 Warlords on turn 12 as meaningless or exceedingly mediocre.  Given that most of the posts have been on how hard it is for the militaries, I was looking at how to reconcile those results with the impression that the military kingdoms won't do well.

As I presume all know, I want all styles of kingdoms to have a great chance to do well, not favoring from design either military, magic, political, balanced, or special over one another.  Just that the shots seemed to come about the military kingdoms being set back, despite the new tactics, companions, brigade experience, etc.

[Jumpingfist]

so this turn I had my groups split apart so I could try and get blooded and maybe actually get a veteran unit. My 1SA took 0% damage gained 3% attrition and lost a brigade but the flanking attack on the RD really kicked his ass causing while he tried to retreat destroying his group.
My 2SA fought the RD division and took 3% damage and then took control of a town taking another 6% damage ( yeah finally some damage), but no looks like the enemy was to much a push over and would not let me fight long enough to get promotions. But I did squeak away loosing 4 of my 11 brigades and 3% attrition 25% loss in group vs PC value. All in a good day work. Good thing we only care about %loss and not brigades.

Bringing up my number of brigades you will see I currently only have 2 565 type units. I had 5 at one point but those 0-2% losses really take there toll on your brigades.

it was mentioned is it right that just shooting arrows you should gain experience and a chance to be promoted to veteran. I say yes, besides the crazy true looses my group has been suffering my unit is in battle and taking damage. The men are learning how to fight better and likely how to defend against enemy missle fire. Also a unit as a whole becomes a veteran unit not every soldier. at this point this unit has 10 victories and 0 losses that should play a factory in gaining veteran status, but it means nothing because gaining veteran status is a series of go no go events and then a lucky die roll.

So my unit has not spent basically 77% of this games turns in battles yet has no veteran troops.

[HeadHoncho]

So my unit has not spent basically 77% of this games turns in battles yet has no veteran troops.

I know this is still a work in progress, but this is just a crazy result. The formulae on this should be overhauled.

[Jumpingfist]

I know it is getting reworked and looked at as well. I want to be clear at least for me about expectations. I do not mind my group getting pounded but I really feel robbed when I am loosing 25+% of my fighting force and only being reported as 9%. If I am going to take 25% damage that is fine but please report the correct number especially if that is a factor in my unit getting promoted.

I do not want to have to resort to what is stupid tactics to get my units promoted. This seems backwards to me. may as well make an order than lets we send only a set % of my unit into a fight.

[twhitewolf10]

     Well as I have read these great horror stories on brigade advancement had to try for myself,  10 brigade army 6 kingdom brigades 4 others.  Take 18% loses and that some how comes out to 2 kingdom brigades. Now I knew I was not going to advance because my troops are better quality in the first 2 phases of archer that the battle would not last but come on.  The way I look at it should have one of those brigades really damage maybe.  And of course the other 4 non-kingdom brigades were not touched.  Those town defenders must have had targeting arrows to only hit 2 brigades of troops and kingdom troops at that.  

  So in the rules supplement it states that " Morale / ATTRITION ...... is rolled separately for each brigade type ...... Attrition is assigned to brigades inversely to its toughness.  Nope did not see that happening.

    OK so you train a bunch of troops from green ( nose picking, hat on backwards) to regular ( follow orders and march) now if you can't train them anymore ( because your kingdom has not learn any thing about battle tactics in the last few hundred years) why not let them advance from battles say ever 3 battles they are promoted.

    Now on the veteran thing.  Even without fighting for 3 months ( A turn is 3 months ) and taking large loses even a orc  would not want to join you. ( Come Mr. Orc and join us we fight all day long and most of are friends and fellow warriors died. but were Veterans now)  Or would you have a better chance of recruiting if ( come Mr. Orc join us the fighting was over in a hour hardly any got killed and you still get paid ) 

     How can a brigade be a veteran when the troops that will replace the attrition might never have been in battle?

     So 2 tours in Iraq and 1 in Afghanistan and I am regular hmmm.  The shrapnel in my back and bullet fragment in my arm tells me different.

      Troops talk and there is this thing called exp.  I don't have to stand in line and fire muskets at enemy to know that is a bad idea you learn from others mistakes as much as your own. (have you stuck your finger in a light socked lately?  No, well I guess you got exp. from someone else mistakes. ) When I was on tour I knew to watch out when kids came running up to you that might be handing you alive grenade. Did not have to "live threw it" Medics learn after the first couple were killed that a women might have a IED not a baby wrap up in her arms. And the list goes on now I did not have to go threw all these but I was aware of them. I "learned".         

       Ok what about our SEALS one of the toughest SOB groups around and they did not get that way by having a fight drag out all day and taking huge loses. ( training, training and yes more training )

       One of the best things I saw that the choosing would bring would be the way battles are fought and recruiting other type troops. I do not see that happening.  Well you get what you pay for I guess.