Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Granite26]

i was trying to get around being hands on enough to say what the dwarf would use his items for, but i can't seem to figure out how to do that and still have them use actual formations without prescripted formations being in, i guess is they can do something that gives them different bonuses that can't be switched readily based on situation, then you should define what they should do while using that formation.  which i guess could eventually lead to use of pavise and stakes (if they ever get in the game).

Perhaps assign dwarfs in a positions a specific role and let them figure out how best to accomplish it?  So the speardwarves in the front would be set to defend, and they would choose the +1 AC vs Missle stance based on that?  Then, when enemies get closer, they could go into a more 'ward-off' mode, getting an AOO or -2 to attack for everyone within melee.
The problem is, as it stands, even with formations, you're just trying to maximize your engagement while minimizing your foes.  At best, you can pick damage types per opponent or send in wrestlers first to hold them down.

[Rowanas]

Expendable shields? I think not. You would have to have a load more dwarves just to run repair shops and that would knock on into food production, tantrum spirals, booze, space, rooms, wood cutting, elf irritation etc. This small and unnecessary change would cause the strongest of fortresses to come crashing to its knees, and severely weaken anything except marksdwarves (they don't need shields) if the fight is protracted.

Defenders could go and get new shields mid fight which would leave attacking armies severely screwed, unless they carry three or more shields each (and then they move slowly etc)

[Granite26]

A lot of extra player work for a little bit of realism?  You're right, that's positively undwarvenly

[jamoecw]

i was trying to get around being hands on enough to say what the dwarf would use his items for, but i can't seem to figure out how to do that and still have them use actual formations without prescripted formations being in, i guess is they can do something that gives them different bonuses that can't be switched readily based on situation, then you should define what they should do while using that formation.  which i guess could eventually lead to use of pavise and stakes (if they ever get in the game).

Perhaps assign dwarfs in a positions a specific role and let them figure out how best to accomplish it?  So the speardwarves in the front would be set to defend, and they would choose the +1 AC vs Missle stance based on that?  Then, when enemies get closer, they could go into a more 'ward-off' mode, getting an AOO or -2 to attack for everyone within melee.
The problem is, as it stands, even with formations, you're just trying to maximize your engagement while minimizing your foes.  At best, you can pick damage types per opponent or send in wrestlers first to hold them down.

shifting formation takes time, which is the weakness of formations.  during the colonial period that made the choice of line verse square formation rather important, as well as romans and tortoise formation, and greeks and the phalanx, etc.  which is why they shouldn't be able to shift formation quickly.

and for the phalanx, the back rows angle their spears for defense, the front relied on their wall of shields.

[Granite26]

shifting formation takes time, which is the weakness of formations.  during the colonial period that made the choice of line verse square formation rather important, as well as romans and tortoise formation, and greeks and the phalanx, etc.  which is why they shouldn't be able to shift formation quickly.

and for the phalanx, the back rows angle their spears for defense, the front relied on their wall of shields.

I'm not saying shift formations, just... the characters in the formation decide which activities to take based on their surroundings, and the formation is set up to create situations where those decisions will be optimal for the group.

Kind of like a combo in magic.  One card doesn't rely on another card, but a smart player can set up card interactions that yield positive externalities.  Sure the system should be calibrated that a phalanx or turtle or flying wedge works in the correct historical situations, but from then on, you can optimize the behavior based on the simple rules.

It's intended to solve the 'no innate formation bonuses' issue, and also the 'don't tell dwarves specifically what to do' issue.

[jamoecw]

hmmm, please elaborate.

i'll use tortoise formation as an example of the complications in real life, the first guy in a line steps forward, the second guy puts up his shield (as he now has room to do so) and steps forward, the third guy mimics the second guy, on down the line except for the last guy, who does different things based on the situation.  now the shields are resting on the helmet of the guy in front of them, and on the shield of the guy behind them.  to get out of tortoise formation, the front guy takes a step so that the second guy can put his shield down, the second guy puts his shield down and then takes a step forward, the third guy puts his shield down and takes a step forward, and on down the line until the last guy which then returns to doing what ever the guy in front of him is doing.

again not saying you are wrong, i just don't understand the combo thing in magic, and figured when i ask about it i might give a more detailed example of the delays in changing some of the less flexible formations.

[Granite26]

I see the 'shield wall' as intrinsic to the phalanx and the turtle formation.  If a dwarf with a shield is given orders to defend, he can go into the shield wall formation.  The shield wall formation takes X*AC² bonus turns to get into or out of.  The shield wall bonus is +1 AC to all units within 1 square.  The cost is slower attack and maybe lower accuracy.

In a tight formation, this means: 

Time: The first guy in line will get into formation quickly, but the next guy will take a significantly longer time.  It will take X*8² turns for a guy in the center to get out, or 64 times normal.

Bonus:  The frontline guys will be defended by 5 other guys for a total bonus of +5.  Knockback attacks will be rendered ineffective due to the bracing of the guys behind them (modeled as guys standing behind them)
The guy in the middle of the pack will have a +8 AC bonus (versus arrows, obviously)

Cost:  There is no dodge capability for people in the formation, since they have nowhere to go

Bonus:  The exact same algorithm will model surrounding the king (King gets +8 AC, walls get +4 or +2 AC) or a squire supporting a knight (knight gets +1 AC, but squire doesn't attack so much)

* By +AC, I mean increased block chance or however that gets modeled

If you want to get really complicated, different shields could have different ranges.

Now lets make this a little more complicated.  Guys with spears have a defensive stance 'angled spears'.  It would have a shorter time to get into, but a lower AC bonus (+.5?).  Or the same bonus (+1) but only good for ranged attacks.

and for the phalanx, the back rows angle their spears for defense, the front relied on their wall of shields.

Even better, since the dwarf in the front would be more nervous about melee attacks and thus use the shield defense stance to get the bonus versus all attacks.  The later rows would decide that the time vs. melee bonus wasn't worth it, and use the ranged stance.  The front row would get +5 vs ranged, +2 vs melee.  Second row would get +3 vs melee, +8 vs ranged.  Third and further rows would get +8 vs ranged.  Certain crazies may decide to throw up thier shield in the crowd, but oh well.


Flying wedge is free though... It's bonus is purely offensive and based on formation mechanics.  Just set all members to 'push'

[jamoecw]

thinking about it there could be a menu for each dwarf in the formation when you set it, and in that menu you'd set the shield to either brace or provide overhead cover, and for the spears to be at the ready (strait up, able to drop down to any incoming angle quickly) or not (when not threatened would have his spear pointed either for attack or for defense against projectiles, chosen at his whim), and finally which direction he would face.  i think this would allow any formation, can anyone think of a formation that wouldn't be possible?

[Rowanas]

that's just spears. What about axes, lashes, daggers, swords, maces, hammers, crossbows, two handed swords, mauls and picks?

I see that similar things could be done for them based on whatever weapon they had, but this would require irritating micromanagement during fights to adapt to new battlefield conditions. While formations are better for the specific situations that they were made for, they aren't a good way to deal with the military.

Tactics, however, now that would work. Just being able to tell your soldiers to go somewhere without them auto engaging the gobs would make me happy, and telling my crossbowmen to stay still and fire through the holes in the wrestlers in front. (holes between them, not in them. I hope...)

[Granite26]

1:  That's kind of the point.  Formations are hard to set up (train your guys to use) and full of micromanagement.  That's how formations work.  If you think the bonus to using them is too small, just throw a 'travel formation' together and then dump it when the fight starts.

2:  Part of that is why I like the 'goal' structure.  Weapons could have complex stances available, but all the player would choose is 'offensive', 'defensive', 'push', or 'set'. 


Something that doesn't exist now is the concept of battle lines.  As it stands, it degenerates quickly into a brawl.  Should characters be aware of the bad guy/good guy ratio and not get in too deep?

[jamoecw]

Tactics, however, now that would work. Just being able to tell your soldiers to go somewhere without them auto engaging the gobs would make me happy, and telling my crossbowmen to stay still and fire through the holes in the wrestlers in front. (holes between them, not in them. I hope...)

i figured they would stand in formation and only attacking if the enemy walks in range of their weapons.  and if you wanted them to attack in formation you'd just tell the leader to attack and he'd march the entire formation to engage.  when you wanted to break formation you'd just cancel the current formation, and to get into formation you'd select some that you had already made.

that's just spears. What about axes, lashes, daggers, swords, maces, hammers, crossbows, two handed swords, mauls and picks?

i picked those due to their difficulty in changing to engage from different directions (at least while in a tight formation), is their something i am missing with these weapons in that regard (tight formation or otherwise)?

[Mephansteras]

Something that doesn't exist now is the concept of battle lines.  As it stands, it degenerates quickly into a brawl.  Should characters be aware of the bad guy/good guy ratio and not get in too deep?

I think that should become important. Hmm...maybe some sort of 'Battle Awareness' skill? It's also part of an officers job to keep track of how far the group is and where they need to be. Getting a group to move forward or pull back at the right moment can make the difference between success and failure.

Not a formation aspect in itself, of course, but it's related. Also, what formations you use can vary depending on how many enemies you're facing and where they are in relation to your group.

[Granite26]

Another thing that may need to be used is 'play'.

In a tight formation, you lose your dodge skill, but what's the difference between a tight formation and a loose rigid one?  Almost seems like you'd want the capability to tell them 'stand within X squares of this spot'.

I can't think of a reason not to have one number apply to the whole formation though.  (Maybe a line of skirmishers, a shield wall, and some archers?

[SirHoneyBadger]

I don't see shield expendability being a problem, but rather an opportunity.

Not all shields would be expendable, firstly. Some could be faced with metal, for instance, greatly increasing their durability against thrown weapons. Secondly, the more advanced types of plate armour were designed to render shields obsolete. Thirdly, while it would indeed increase the position of marksdwarfs, it's only an incedental increase.

Once crossbows get properly nerfed, the advantage of marksdwarfs carrying shields (pavises) may become clear.

Making shields a tactical question, rather than a certainty, opens up a wide range of new and interesting strategies. The benefits from making this more realistic could outweigh any detrimental effect on Fortress production, and give a greater impetus towards better equipment, making the Late Game more interesting.

[Pilsu]

Whatever it takes for polearms to stop being useless. Not that dwarves can use them