Orders issued during battle?

[miki]

Hi gents,

Some questions:

1) Will orders be issued to individual units or you will be able to form Groups, Wings or Something-along-those-lines or the best of both worlds?

2)Which type of order will we able to issue? Something like 'stop', 'charge', 'advance', 'fire', 'stop firing', 'overwatch', 'delaying action', etc?

3)Will units be able to change formation during the battle? That is, change from line to column, from column to wedge, etc?

4)Will Skirmishers be able to give ground while firing, in order to avoid enemy contact? Thats perhaps the weekest point I see in Spartan/GoT battle system, when Skirmishers stand where they are, and happily receive enemy charges. They were trained to avoid contact iirc... it would be great if you can set an "avoid contact" or "stand fast" stance?

5)Also, Skirmishers were trained to fight and hopefully defeat the enemy skirmish line, harrass the enemy main battle line and later retreat to safety behind their main battleline without disrupting it. Then support the line with missiles or reinforce the cavalry wings. Any hope of making them behave that way?

[qrwin10]

I hope so, that some of your 'ideas' coming in the game. That can make the a lot better.

But I think that it see as Spartan (but than a lot better)

[IainMcNeil]

You can only issue orders to individual units. The intention is that the pre-battle plan should be as important as the in battle controls. If we give you group commands you'd be able to react to the enemy too easily and out flanking manoeuvre's would become ineffetive.

Orders before battle can be hold, advance, charge, outflank, similar to Spartan. In battle you can directly control a squad and order it to hold, breakoff, move or engage.

Units can change formation in battle. The formations available depend on the skills you have chosen to give them. Formations have strengths and weaknesses. Columns are good at punching through the enemy so inflict more damage but result in more damage being received. Lines take less damage and inflict less, while the block is a balanced formation.

We've tried having skirmishers pull off, but it doesn't end up working very well. We may have another try but this is something that is a definite maybe at this stage.

We wont be trying to give units complex autonomous behaviour. If the player wants to make their skirmishers pull back behind the infantry block that's fine, but we dont want to make the skirmishers do it on their own.

[miki]

Hi Iaian,

Those are great news. Thanks for the detailed response. The dark side effect is that I eagerly need to play this game now!

Will the battle engine of Legion II have exactly those same features -- battle orders, changing formations, etc -- as the Legion Arena battle system? If so, that will be ancients wargamers valhalla!!!

Skirmishers will not be an issue already, if players can tactically retreat/move them in the battlefield. I recall missile troops automatically retreating all the map along in Shogun TW, and that never-ending retreat looked ugly also, just the opposite side of the problem... great news also.

Gracias
Miki

[IainMcNeil]

Yes, these features will all be in Legion II, though for those who are into the campaign game more than the battles, it will be possible to resolve battles automatically, or just set up the men and let them fight it out like in Spartan.

[bodidley]

If we give you group commands you'd be able to react to the enemy too easily and out flanking manoeuvre's would become ineffetive.

As it is flanking attacks in Spartan are far too easy, and battles become repetitive.Besides, any school boy can come up with a flanking attack; why not make the battle system condusive to tactics like masse de rupture, or triplex acies?

If you force the player to designate groups before the battle, then issueing group orders wouldn't be too easy.

[IainMcNeil]

Group commands are just not part of the plan right now. There are significant UI issues that would need to be overcome and the time can probably be better spent in other areas.

I have to confess ignorance at the tactics you are talking about - I've never heard of them.

[bodidley]

Triplex acies is a term refering to the Roman republican battle order. The basic idea is very simple and has been independantly innovated across the world. If defending, the first line of battle receives the attack and then either withdraws behind another line or is reinforced by the other line to push the enemy back. If attacking, the first line can either give way to the secend line, or the second line can push forward and use the momentum of movement and numbers to break the enemy. As I'm sure you know, the Romans liked to use three battle lines. The basic idea is to use fresh troops against tired troops, ordered formations against disorded formations. Another example of this tactic took place at the 5th battle of Kawanakajima, when the warlord Uesugi Kenshin used a formation called "waterwheel" to similar effect against Takeda Shingen (who happened to be in a line-breaking formation called "Crane").

Masse de rupture is a phrase Napoleon used to describe a certain type of attack he noticed throughout history. The idea is to weaken the enemy center by luring him into extending his flanks, usually by launching flanking attacks. After the enemy has engaged in the flanking battle, a concentrated force is sent towards his center to break through and cause all kinds of chaos. Napoleon famously used this tactic to defeat the much larger Austro-Russian armies at Austerlitz.

As for no group orders- too bad

[efthimios]

Hmm. the first tactic you mentioned sounds like what the soviets did defending Moscow.

As for the Napoleon tactic, sounds awful a lot like one of the tactics used by Alexander.

But anyway I think Iain said no group orders so..I guess you could do something like that since you can give individual orders...

[bodidley]

Hmm. the first tactic you mentioned sounds like what the soviets did defending Moscow.

As for the Napoleon tactic, sounds awful a lot like one of the tactics used by Alexander.

A. Defense in depth B. History has an awful tendancy to repeat itself

[duncan]

Triplex acies is a term refering to the Roman republican battle order

I heard something about it, even if I'm not a History freak myself. I read somewhere that Hastatii (younger republican soldiers) went first, then Principes and Triarii (more experienced warrior). Am I right?

[IainMcNeil]

OK, I know the 3 line tactic you mean, I just never heard the name for it before. It is possible to tell a squad to break off and fall back behind your lines, and then replace it with another squad, but we don't plan to make this happen without the players direct instruction.

[zharrgonn]

We've tried having skirmishers pull off, but it doesn't end up working very well. We may have another try but this is something that is a definite maybe at this stage.

We wont be trying to give units complex autonomous behaviour. If the player wants to make their skirmishers pull back behind the infantry block that's fine, but we dont want to make the skirmishers do it on their own.

Letting the player execute fallbacks is workable, and an improvment I look forward to. From the tone of your post it sounds like getting a solution that you see as satisfactory would be a resource sink and you feel that your resources could be better used elsewhere. I am sure those kinds of calls have to made all the time in game design/development. Thanks for the post. the more I read about your upcoming products the more I am looking forward to them!

P.S. I found an interesting web site yesterday that reminded me of some aspects of your games that deals with AI and land warefare, cna.org\isaac.

[honvedseg]

There's some debate about whether the Romans actually fought in multiple lines, or whether the more experienced troops were only formed up in groups behind the greener soldiers during the approach march. The Romans moved in small tactical units, which were easier to keep in good order than an extended battle line, but it may have taken the better-drilled and veteran troops to fill any gaps between those blocks before contact. The second line may have moved up into those spaces, forming a single well-ordered line from the first two groups just beyond charging distance from the enemy. Hans Delbruck, in his military history 3 volume set, was very adamant about the Romans not actually fighting in multiple lines, and described the effect of using the more experienced second line to fill in any gaps between the small blocks as "giving hinges to the phalanx".

The rotation of tired troops from the front rank to the back was probably part of the drill and training of the individual century or cohort, not executed on a grand scale. This does not require a second line, and the normal formation depth of 8 to 12 men would be more than enough protection for the resting troops, as only 2 or 3 ranks could contribute to the actual combat.

The Triarii, often characterized as a small but elite group of veteran fighting men held in reserve, were probably nothing of the sort. Each Legion had its share of men who were exempted from serving in the fighting line, usually due to valuable skills, such as smiths, carpenters, paymasters, physicians, and other trades and professions. These men, often older, were formed up in a third rank behind the main lines. If all else failed, and the battle line was broken, the Triarii may have had the solemn duty to hold up the enemy long enough for the younger and faster men to make a withdrawl. This unit may also have been used in some cases for a charge by a fresh unit to attempt to close any breaches in the main line. As such, the phrase, "it has come to the Triarii" signified a desperate situation, where everything was either on the verge of total collapse or hanging by a thread, and not to say "look out, we've called in the big boys".

[IainMcNeil]

Deciding what to do and what not to do is one of the hardest parts of game design. Sometimes you get gamers saying things like "why didn't you add feature X, I can't believe you didn't think of it". Occaisonally it will be about a feature we never considered, but almost always its about something we decided against due to time constriants or a comflict with another feature.

[SMK-at-work]

There are numerous references in literature to entire legions and lines replacing others in combat - it seems that combat was not continuous!!

The main thing I want to see is skirmishing!!!!

[demonrob]

Pity about lack of groups - makes it more of a clickfest without, or 'pause - lots of individual clicks - unpause'. Groups mean you can keep the flow going in real time. Hopefully your pre match orders can set up alot of it - sounds interesting.
Understand about the prioritising. Maybe you need another programmer? I know of a good one available in Australia! (me).

[duncan]

Pity about lack of groups - makes it more of a clickfest without, or 'pause - lots of individual clicks - unpause'

Don't know about Legion Arena, but I would not describe Slitherine's any previous efforts as "click-fest" when you have no control over your units in combat, there's no RTS part like in RTW. It's more like Football Manager (championship manager), choose your units and formation and orders and click start! and watch the battle unfold while you're praying to any god or R & R star you believe in. And I think Legion Arena will be more or less the same type of battle system, with a little bit of more control during the fight.

[IainMcNeil]

Issuing orders uses up order points, so it will definitely not be a click fest! The pre-battle orders allow you to do a lot and in game controls are for tweaking your battle plan rather than completely redploying your army.

[miki]

Issuing orders uses up order points, so it will definitely not be a click fest! The pre-battle orders allow you to do a lot and in game controls are for tweaking your battle plan rather than completely redploying your army.

Hi Iain,

The moree I read about game mechanics, the most I need to buy and play this game. No release date yet?