Game play decision to base victory on rout % vs. objectives

[nyczar]

Being unfamiliar with the term "Turtling" and seeing it referenced so frequently in the debate on draws in the Digital league sub-forum, I took to Wikipedia for a definition. I learned there that game designers, as an option, may choose to base victory on capturing objectives to prevent Turtling play. I was reminded of my first experience with online multiplayer with Sid Meiers Civil War (US Civil War) which was designed in just this way and was awesome. I have no doubt this was considered when designing FOG I or FOG II or the original board game and I am hoping that, if it is not to much to ask, to know some of the debate that decided on the rout system we have.

Thanks in advance.

P.S. I am perfectly happy with what we have.

[76mm]

From what I know of ancient warfare, the point of the battles was to destroy the enemy army, not to capture a hilltop or river crossing, etc. So I'm not sure how well victory conditions based on "objectives" would reflect reality.

Sure, I'm sure sometimes ancient armies had the objective of capturing an enemy city or something, but that does not seem within the scope of this game.

[rbodleyscott]

From what I know of ancient warfare, the point of the battles was to destroy the enemy army, not to capture a hilltop or river crossing, etc. So I'm not sure how well victory conditions based on "objectives" would reflect reality.

That is indeed the reason why objectives are not used in the game. They just weren't "a thing" in this era.

[pantherboy]

I have to disagree with the opinion that objectives don't apply. Currently you have a system that promotes turtling in competition. Especially so with the latest Slitherine run tournament which has stupid terrain for a fair battle. The Romans can occupy a front of hills with one flank anchored on woods for their MF which become unbeatable versus close order warbands and can stretch to the other map edge. Besides being the better list they have LF and cavalry superiority plus foot (which out number the enemy foot) that negate their impact weakness by being on high ground. If one player decides I will opt to lose the tournament rather than forgo the terrain advantage it means their opponent must conduct a suicidal attack or share in losing the tournament. This also applies to the league matches and is the situation I seem to constantly encounter.

If you have objectives it will mitigate this fact. Now you argue armies on the whole didn't fight for objectives during this period (which I agree with) but they didn't hunker down either if engaging in battle. If the two armies are conducting a field battle it was because circumstances were favorable for attack (not defense) or the strategic situation required it (e.g. the enemy could occupy your capital). If an army simply turtled then the enemy would surround them cutting their supply and wait or setup their own defenses and wait like Caesar and Pompey in Greece. You can view the use of objectives as a means to force the battle as by not occupying positions in the center indicates a willingness to give up the battlefield which means an unwillingness to fight which means a loss as they failed to engage the enemy when required thus losing at the strategic level. Obviously I'm only talking about open battle scenarios where both sides have equal points.

[jomni]

Maybe the answer to tournament is a very open terrain. But some factions thrive on certain terrain.

[MVP7]

One solution for multiplayer could be adding points based on the average position of the forces on the map to the victory points so by waiting at or even retreating from the deployment zone would give the advancing side a point advantage. In average game the effect would be negligible especially if there was a dead-zone in the middle of the battlefield.

[shawkhan2]

I think the generated battlefields are the main problem. Opposing generals would generally choose a battlefield where one or the other side would not be overwhelmingly favored by the terrain.

[julianbarker]

Except in the battles where they were.

[76mm]

I have to disagree with the opinion that objectives don't apply. Currently you have a system that promotes turtling in competition...If one player decides I will opt to lose the tournament rather than forgo the terrain advantage it means their opponent must conduct a suicidal attack or share in losing the tournament. This also applies to the league matches and is the situation I seem to constantly encounter.

All true, but these are problems with tournaments and leagues rather than with the game. One of the reasons I don't play in them anymore.

If you have objectives it will mitigate this fact...You can view the use of objectives as a means to force the battle as by not occupying positions in the center indicates a willingness to give up the battlefield which means an unwillingness to fight which means a loss as they failed to engage the enemy when required thus losing at the strategic level. Obviously I'm only talking about open battle scenarios where both sides have equal points.

I think that introducing objectives would just create a whole new series of issues. Where are the objectives and who sets them? Should their location depend on the composition of the defender, or attacker, or both? What if I have a medium foot army sitting up on some nice hills, and the objectives are down in the flat fields in front of my heavy foot enemy--is that "fair"?

I'm not saying that turtling would not be frustrating in a tournament/league context, but not sure how to fix it without creating new issues.

[Ludendorf]

We do have game types centred around specific missions. Like killing a key general or destroying/protecting supplies.

[TheGrayMouser]

We do have game types centred around specific missions. Like killing a key general or destroying/protecting supplies.

Also Advance guard which give victory points for holding ground in a narrow band in the center of the map.

[Nijis]

If you have objectives it will mitigate this fact. Now you argue armies on the whole didn't fight for objectives during this period (which I agree with) but they didn't hunker down either if engaging in battle. If the two armies are conducting a field battle it was because circumstances were favorable for attack (not defense) or the strategic situation required it (e.g. the enemy could occupy your capital). If an army simply turtled then the enemy would surround them cutting their supply and wait or setup their own defenses and wait like Caesar and Pompey in Greece.

I would agree with this. Sure, there are lots of occasions when both sides drew up for battle and nothing happened, but we're not simulating those. The game is about pitched battles, when at least one side felt compelled to bring the campaign to a conclusion, and the other side - either to sustain morale, or for political reasons, or for logistical reasons - didn't feel that it could simply march away.

How this might be handled - if one side has units in the center of the map (say, a reasonably small 4 x 4 or 4 x 8 area) and the other side does not, then the side not contesting the battle takes 1% rout. It would not be decisive, but could tip a close fight, and if no one does anything than the side that took the middle ground would win. This would simulate the slight morale advantage a side gets from being aggressive. It could be waived for scenario battles like Senlac Hill or Crecy where one side really did not feel obliged in any way to act aggressively.

[76mm]

How this might be handled - if one side has units in the center of the map (say, a reasonably small 4 x 4 or 4 x 8 area) and the other side does not, then the side not contesting the battle takes 1% rout. It would not be decisive, but could tip a close fight, and if no one does anything than the side that took the middle ground would win. This would simulate the slight morale advantage a side gets from being aggressive. It could be waived for scenario battles like Senlac Hill or Crecy where one side really did not feel obliged in any way to act aggressively.

Sorry, I think this would lead to all sorts of gamey ramifications and would favor whichever army had the troop types better suited for whatever terrain just happened to be in the center of the map. Open Field? Forest? Swamp? Or it would favor the side with more skirmishers, as that side might be able to inflict more casualties (however minimal they may be) on the other side. Is that really an improvement? Yes, you might achieve a result but it would be neither fair nor interesting.

Moreover, I don't agree that it is "unrealistic" for two armies not to fight--ancient history is full of examples where the armies stood looking at each other for a few days before fighting or one side slipping away.

[Nijis]

Sorry, I think this would lead to all sorts of gamey ramifications

I agree there could be gamey ramifications, but the current system has something worse - forcing players to choose between a very boring game or giving the other side an advantage.

If there's a game in which one side has a big defensive advantage, then the other player has to choose between being sportsmanlike or simulating Uneventful Day #17 of the Pompey-Caesar staring contest. Most FoG games work because most of us are not cut-throat and will try to contest the center, if only for the sake of an interesting fight. But I think a game shouldn't rely on players not being ultra-competitive.

I don't agree that it is "unrealistic" for two armies not to fight--ancient history is full of examples where the armies stood looking at each other for a few days before fighting or one side slipping away.

Right, but the standoffs are not what we simulate in the game. It's a decisive battle simulator, not a one-day-in-the-life-of-a-campaign simulator.

I think this would lead to all sorts of gamey ramifications and would favor whichever army had the troop types better suited for whatever terrain just happened to be in the center of the map.

It would be relatively realistic for a battle map generator to place a bit of relatively open terrain in the middle, as the vast majority of battles will take place along a communications axis. Fights like Cynoscephalae are relatively rare.

[Nijis]

Another option would be for the game to decide, either randomly or based on army characteristics who wins the tie. (Ie, foot armies win the tie against horse armies.) This represents the political/logistical reason why the battle is fought in the first place. Both players would know in advance. It would be the same in matched tournament battles.

It's a bit of luck but since battles are rarely tied, a pretty small one.

If players have questions (why should my faster cavalry army be forced to attack?) you can just have a randomly generated explainer.

Ie, failure to win means you lose because...

1) You run out of water or fodder
2) Your allies lose confidence in you
3) Your troops lose confidence in you
4) A besieged city falls
5) You run out of money or time to keep your troops in the field, making the whole campaign a waste

...or any of the other reasons that cause battles to happen.

[jomni]

Not all players think this is a “decisive battle” simulator though.

[76mm]

Right, but the standoffs are not what we simulate in the game. It's a decisive battle simulator, not a one-day-in-the-life-of-a-campaign simulator.

But battles generally happened because both sides thought that the terrain was generally acceptable (or one side was in desperate straights and had to fight).

That is not always the case with the randomly-generated maps--it is not uncommon for the random maps to heavily favor one side or another--so should one side be expected to fight on such a map in a tourney when they would not do so IRL?

I would say that almost any attempt to resolve this issue for tournament/league play will just create new, and not necessarily less serious, issues; there might be some way to resolve it, but haven't seen anything suggested in this thread yet...

[76mm]

Ie, failure to win means you lose because...

1) You run out of water or fodder
2) Your allies lose confidence in you
3) Your troops lose confidence in you
4) A besieged city falls
5) You run out of money or time to keep your troops in the field, making the whole campaign a waste

...or any of the other reasons that cause battles to happen.

OK, but why not just flip a coin and get it over with?

[pantherboy]

There are a variety of scenarios available to be played already. What is at issue are scenarios for open battle. Now the argument regarding troop type and terrain isn't valid under this context. Having an army that favors a particular terrain type is fine but should be no guarantee of it. Open battle should be where both armies are taking their chance for a decisive result if not then it isn't an open battle scenario but something else. I feel that some incentive is needed to draw both players to the center for battle. Now if the center just happens to contain terrain advantageous to you then so be it but it still provides an opportunity for the opposition to try and counter it by moving faster units forward to delay the enemy in hope of clearing the terrain or at least holding back and flanking them if they completely occupy said terrain and attack them from multiple directions. It is a big problem when a player simply occupies the back left corner of the map on top of a wooded hill cramming troops in. If that is the logical case then that back corner would be the center of the map that both armies are racing to occupy otherwise the scenario should be considered a defensive scenario as open battle is not being offered. Open battle does not mean in the open but simply a willingness to fight.

Now regarding the application of any workable system needs to be considered rather than dismissed out of hand due to perceived complexities. Obviously the ideal would be something with minimal programming requirements. From this view point I lack the needed programming skills to proffer effective solutions but I'm willing to participate in brainstorming. What if you simply selected three disconnected central squares roughly five or six squares apart and set an automatic win condition that if 24 turns have elapsed then the player who has occupied those squares the longest wins with the losing force being set to the 60% break point. Each turn each square that you occupy at the beginning of your turn awards you one point. This would force players to be aggressive for those squares or follow a strategy aiming for decisive victory which may entail ignoring those squares. An example would be a foot army versus mounted. The foot could occupy the center and then try and hold on till turn 24 while being peppered by arrows and charged on its fringes. The mounted force may realize capturing and holding the center for any sustainable time isn't viable so they will need to adopt a strategy to break the enemy by turn 24 rather than simply skirmish for a draw. I also believe a draw should be when both sides break rather than from an inconclusive skirmish. Such a system for open battles only would still produce matchups where a MF army takes on a HF and by virtue of the center being cluttered with trees gives them an edge over their opponent but at least a greater degree of options to counter the tactical advantages of your opponent may be possible.

[76mm]

It is a big problem when a player simply occupies the back left corner of the map on top of a wooded hill cramming troops in. If that is the logical case then that back corner would be the center of the map that both armies are racing to occupy otherwise the scenario should be considered a defensive scenario as open battle is not being offered. Open battle does not mean in the open but simply a willingness to fight.

I don't really understand...the back corner is not the center of the map because the randomly-generated map was just plopped down onto two armies that may (or may not, depending on the map) be ready to fight, and within the randomly generated maps, weaker armies will generally seek to take advantage of the most favorable terrain for their army, so it would be rather unnatural to force the battle into the middle of the map.

What if you simply selected three disconnected central squares roughly five or six squares apart and set an automatic win condition that if 24 turns have elapsed then the player who has occupied those squares the longest wins with the losing force being set to the 60% break point. Each turn each square that you occupy at the beginning of your turn awards you one point. This would force players to be aggressive for those squares or follow a strategy aiming for decisive victory which may entail ignoring those squares.

I'm all for brainstorming, but I don't think that this proposal works either. What if my horse army faces off against your heavy foot army, and the magical three squares are on a rough hill in the middle of the otherwise open map? If you manage to occupy the magical three squares before I do, should the battle now revolve around that terrain (suitable for neither army), or your attempts to occupy whatever other terrain you can find where my horse would be ineffective? I think this mechanism would result in a lot of bizarre and not especially interesting battles.

I also believe a draw should be when both sides break rather than from an inconclusive skirmish. Such a system for open battles only would still produce matchups where a MF army takes on a HF and by virtue of the center being cluttered with trees gives them an edge over their opponent but at least a greater degree of options to counter the tactical advantages of your opponent may be possible.

Sorry, don't understand this either.

But ultimately I suspect that any solution would need to involve tournament/league scoring rules rather than changes within the battles themselves--for instance, don't award any points for a draw, or recognize that everyone may want to avoid one battle or another and so only count the top 8 (out of ten) of each player's results in a league, etc. Dunno, there are probably problems with these approaches as well, but they might result in fewer weird battles than might result from changing battle victory conditions.