Moral system like Cossacks 2

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by Pales, May 21, 2015.

  1. Daddio

    Daddio Moderator Staff Member

    Not at all, that is why I brought it up here instead of Skype. Hopefully also to get some more input as well.

    And I see your point. But no Cossacks game has ever had a friendly fire option. And I am not sure it would work very well anyway since the micro managing of formations to avoid hitting friendlies would be over whelming.

    Now you could simulate moral, by reducing the formation bonus if attacked from the rear or flank.

    Using your example of a Calvary wedge hitting a line of infantry, but turn it around and hit them from the rear. The outcome would have the opposite result. Or rather it should.

    But in a C1 environment the bonus would remain the same.

    That is what I am having a hard time getting my mind around. You can't take the strengths of formations without considering the faults as well. Every situation required a different formation. It was not a one fits all.
     
  2. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member


    I will partly concede to some of your points but not concede completely.

    1. "No Cossacks game has ever had a friendly fire option."

    Well maybe no official game has had a friendly fire option but one Mod I know of did, the Imperia Mod. Imperia had a button to toggle friendly fire (FF). I think the default was off but you could toggle FF on for a formation if you felt you needed to. That formation would then fire through and kill friendlies to hit enemies. So a friendly fire model is certainly possible.

    2. "Using your example of a Calvary wedge hitting a line of infantry, but turn it around and hit them from the rear."

    Granted, this will not turn out nearly as realistically without morale. However, if the game physics model modeled the time needed to react, to turn around, to re-set the line and re-aim before firing then this delay would give some new advantage to the cavalry even without morale being modelled.

    Summing Up.

    All I am arguing is that physical effects, in a game model with true physics, will introduce some factors that actually give formations some advantages and some disadvantages. This modelling effect is imperfect on its own and without morale it has to be augmented artificially with formation bonuses. With morale added as well, we could rely on realistic game physics plus realistic morale modeling and do away with most artificial formation bonuses. However, as I have argued elsewhere, some formation bonuses are probably not artificial. Swordsmen who seem to carry a shield like Austrian Roundshiers could benefit defensively from being in a formation depending on how they use their shields.

    To go into this in more detail, imagine a game that models Roman Infantry. Absolutely full physical modelling would model every soldier, every sword and every shield in a formation. Thus when they were ordered testudinem formate, the legionaries would assume the testudo (tortoise) formation. This was a slow moving formation but almost impenetrable to enemy missile fire because the shields made an interlocking shell in front of and over the soldiers. With absolutely full physics modelling (every soldier, every shield, every missile) then this formation in a game would be almost impervious to casualties from missile fire without the need to add in any artificial formation bonus. However, it can be prohibitive to make physics modelling that detailed. Therefore the next way of doing it is to give the formation a defence bonus when it assumes testudo formation to mimic the actual physical effect which would be too complex to model into the game (too many calculation overheads). So formation bonuses can do two jobs, cover up the lack of really fine physics modelling and cover up the lack of a morale model. But better physics modelling and an explicit morale system would be best of all provided the calculation overheads can be met by the game engine.

    Final Quick Point

    If and when I model C3 (with a team or not), morale will not be the first thing on my list mainly because I would want to make the easy changes first. But yes, ideally things like morale would eventually be on my list. But who knows, C3 might yet come with morale options anyway. I hope it does.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2015
  3. Hansol333

    Hansol333 Active Member

    I simple believe that formations should be more powerful. If I have 120 fully upgraded 18c musketeers and get attacked by some melee units it won't make any difference if my units are in formation or not. Without a formation the units should shoot wild while under the direction of one officier they would shoot much more accurate. Or to reduce RNG simple +damage.

    More expensive? 240 gold for a musket is just unrealistic dump. Musketeers should be cheap and fast to train. With so much gold it was a disaster to lose them. I changed that in a mod. Prussia/Denmark Musketeers were still pretty good but had more life and lower gun dmg. The price was slightly reduced but they had gold maintenance costs. So a lose of these units wasn't as terrible as before.

    Some nations had super units. But their super power was in super high damage output (denmark, saxony, ukraine). For example fully upgraded 18c Prussia musketeers could only be killed by a few units (prussia/denmark/bavaria musketeers or cannons), unlike bavaria and denmark musketeers there were also totally OP in melee combat. So rather than giving a unit +200% damage they should give them only small bonus and not only better damage output also increased life.

    your second post (attack range).
    -the idea of a few snipers is a good one, but only if the enemy can not send single sniper by himself and cause any damage.
    -walking should give an disadvantage. If a enemy soldiers walks into shooting range of another unit (or formation) both can fire. However the enemy (who has just moved before) need some time to aim the enemy and fire. So he dies before he can fire (if he is outmached).

    reduced range would also be a good idea. Musket shoots were pretty useless against armor AT LONG RANGE. Therefore Shield and Gun protection should reduce gun attack range by lets say 10-20. For exampe a 17c pikinier has 5 pistol armor, +3 if in formation and two + 2 shield upgrades. So a musketeer with 900 range has 900 range against unprotected units, 870 against other musketeers in formation, 850-780 against pikemen.

    You could place some pikeman before your musket units and the enemy could not snipe the pikeman because they had to move somewhat closer to shoot them and the musket behind the pikeman could fire.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2015
  4. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    Reply to Hansol333,

    Yes, in OC Mod, formations were more powerful (especially in cold steel attack and defence). At the same time muskets were made more powerful too. Cold steel attacks on large musket formations (like a formation of 428 musket of the 19th C fully upgraded) were just suicide, The cold steel units died like flies, even the 18th C Cuirassiers: their extra cold steel power meant nothing because they could not get close enough to a large 18th C musket formation before being shot to pieces.

    Prussian muskets were made considerably cheaper in my experimental OC Mod Balanced. Their shot power advantage still existed but was not as great as in C1.

    You have lots of other interesting and useful suggestions. The issue of snipers and skirmishers is an interesting one and a tricky one. Adding skirmishers to the game allows one to deal with lone snipers. But then skirmisher fights become an issue in their own right. We would see people keeping main musket formations back and trying to win the skirmisher fights first. Then the winning skirmishers would start harassing musket formations. There is not anything wrong with this game model except if the need to micro and fight skirmisher battles becomes too all-consuming of the player's time. Also in turn, players might start using small detachments of hussars to chase away skirmishers. It would be interesting and challenging but I for one don't want a game model where these small squad tactics take over too much from the meat and potatoes of the late game which should be big formation clashes and artillery bombardments.
     
  5. Nowy

    Nowy Well-Known Member

    I missed this quote earlier. This looks that Ogon was refered to my statemetent however he cut that quote.
    He suggested that I made silly and frivolous or pure non-sense statment. He also suggest that bigger formations are better in C1 gameplay and prove this with remark that he got his own experience of playing with complete idiots. :D

    I could say that my earlier statements were not pure non-sense which contradict the actual facts.
    However it would be fine make more clear what mean better and more effective squad combats.

    You could notice that problem was that bigger formations can suffer with many troubles while smaller squads are more flexible, manoeuvrable, allow execute more actions on few fronts in the same time. These somehow give some advantages for smaller formations.

    For instance, let's try test combats for equal amount forces which use different formations sizes.

    One 196 men 18th C musketeer squad against two 72 men, one 36 men and one 15 men musketeer squads.
    Opponents are supported with cannons, howitzers, mortars and equal cavalry squads which play supportive roles.
    Cavalry we can leave out of account here, but artillery is very important for that case.

    Bigger formation, 196 men squad can suffer with bigger losses from artillery fire.
    Bigger formation, especially deep column or hollow square do not help exploit all fire weapons properly.
    Big 196 men in line formation attacked on flank by two 72 men formations, can not exploit all muskets at once.

    Meanwhile 36 men and 15 men formations can march on enemy base or can inflict some demage on enemy economy.
    Even two 72 men squads could lost against 196 men formation, other 36 and 15 men squads can burn to the ground enemy economy.

    Smaller formations can manoeuvre, deploy and open fire faster. They can can swiftly pass or avoid choke points, can outmanoeuvre bigger formation.

    Too big formation needs more free place and have some movement and deployment troubles in chocke points.
    When they are moving they are not ready to fire combat until they form ordered formation shape. Smaller formations e.g. 72 men can do it faster and start faster shoot at bigger 196 men formation which do not change their postition yet.

    Bigger formation has advantage on stand ground, melee combats only when enemy can not fire with artillery guns.
    So, bigger formations can win when there are not artillery or towers.However against artillery, bigger formations suffer more losses than few squads formed in smaller formations.

    In "normal conditions" smaller, more flexible formations can win agaisnt bigger formation.
    This way they are better and more effective in C1 gameplay.

    Nevertheless this game prefer masses of individual units, which are even more manoeuvrable than smaller squads.
    That's why formations in this game in many cases are not so necessary. Then large masses of blobbing mobs can rule the game. However organized squads combats with adequate tactics were main principles of historical warfare.

    Therefore organized warfare and morale system like C2 would be very fine in C3 game.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2015
  6. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    First, let me say that your final statement is reasonable and good. Organized warfare and morale would be very fine in C3.

    I don't agree with all your reasoning on the way through because it contains many unstated assumptions. For example, you simply assume their base is open but in C1 and probably C3 the base can have fences or walls. This is just one example. Nevertheless, your reasoning as stated can be correct and valid in some cases.

    You essentially make a case for squads and companies against larger formation(s). And it is very true, there are tactical and strategic situations where smaller squads and companies do better. But as armies get larger there are also cases where larger formations can do better. And yes, the presence or absence of artillery locally will affect this.

    A game like C3 should have the capability for formations up to battalion size (about 480 to 720 men). Now, you or any player would not have to make up formations of this size if you did not want to. If you preferred working with smaller formations all the time then that would be your choice. I am simply arguing for the flexibility. Give players the traditional formation sizes up to and including battalions. Let the players decide what to use.

    In any case, with the option to make "armies" out of formations you or any player could create any size army-formation you wished. This flexibility will allow all players to play their preferred styles or to adopt different styles for different situations (attack, defence etc.).

    Also, I have had a long-ish and technical discussion with Daddio about formations. I don't know if Daddio accepts all of my reasoning yet but I am quite sure my position is correct. In summary, there are reasons why big formations can be better in some situations even in a game without morale. I know this to be true for a fact from playing the OC Mod of C1.

    There are also reasons why big formations can be better in many situations against blobs even without significant formation bonuses. I would suggest Ogon knows this for a fact from C1. On the bigger maps, blobs simply don't behave very well. Okay, they do move faster but in attack they also string out badly and arrive at the battle front in dribs and drabs whereas a formation arrives with a solid, concentrated front. The physical shapes of formations give real advantages before morale is even added into the model. Yes, the physical shapes of formations also give disadvantages such as slower movement and pauses while the formation re-aligns. These hold-ups can actually be a good thing if they ensure the formation arrives in good order for an engagement.

    Formations give physical concentration and spatial advantages (and disadvantages) quite apart from morale effects. Morale is not the only phenomenon which determines what happens on the battle field. Morale is important but it simply does not explain every effect on the battle field. Morale does not explain everything about formation effects.

    Finally, formations are about control. Yes, there are cases where many micro-ed small squads would be better but a player just cannot micro too many small squads. Big formations can simplify the command equation so the player is not over-loaded.
     
  7. use of artillery goes to another dimension with morale system
    what would Napoleon say for underused artillery?
     
    Nowy likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice