Random thoughts; Clausewitz: Total War

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Hello all,

I was up last night reading On War, when I got this idea on how they should/could have made a simple yet effective game engine for E:TW which would have rocked our proverbial socks off.

Now, as we all know, armies, far from being the tiny affairs of E:TW, were massive behemoths of up to 40,000 men or much, much more in the later period (Napoleonic wars, &c...).

These armies, of course, would be impossible to render, but let's remember what Clausewitz tells us:

Battles are fought as with an eye dropper, that is, through a continuous, gradual trickle of forces which are replaced or retired when weakened, whilst continuously drawing from a vast reserve; armies were seldom entirely commited to the action, and that's where the Clausewitz: Total War system would kick in.

You'd train nominally large armies (up to 40,000 men) but, before the battle, would get to choose which forces you would commit to the battle from different sliders: you'd have, out of that army, a certain number of line regiments, grenadier regiments, &c. to draw from.

Once in battle, you could always retire your spent forces and summon new battallions from your reserve, always taking into account that if you deplenish your army, you will be shortening its lifespan.

Once one side has no more troops on the map (or has decided not to draw from his reinforcement pool) the army would retreat, possibly suffering losses and a morale hit from the ensuing harassing and pursuit.

What this would lead to: longer, fewer, and more decisive battles. Your armies, though large, would have to be nurtured; a 40,000 man army may seem big, but you'll think twice once it's brought down to 20,000!

This would also allow smaller armies to be competitive: as there are only so many men on the battlefield, a smaller army may still hold out against a larger force, at least for some time.

What this would require: Less armies; less easily reinforced; and used for longer stretches of time.

Would've been great, eh? God knows, with the wonders that people like the EB team have done, we might even get it someday...

Cheers

[Norpheus]

Attention! --- Do not start new threads in the ETW General Discussion Forum!
Please before making new threads in this forum, take a look around

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Sorry, I'm new here. I didn't mean to be rude.

[eatme]

You aren't rude I believe, welcome to the forums too =)

Your idea is engaging I think. but to my liking I see a big drawback - the time it would take to play trhough the battle with such Clausewitz dynamycs (whihc is realistic I grant it) would be indefinitely long.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Thanks!

Yes, I guess the length of the battles would be offset by the lesser frequency of battles -- more moving around, offering battle, refusing it, &c.&c... With one decisive clash at the end.

'Twould be better if they had battle savegames though, would allow for pauses between the fighting.

[Vudak44]

You're not being rude... Norpheus is. He hasn't seemed to grasp the meaning or intent of the rule he loves to quote.

----

I like your idea, but, yes, battles would take a long time, and if you're in a particularly vast war, it could take a day to get through an AI turn

[Norpheus]

You're not being rude... Norpheus is. He hasn't seemed to grasp the meaning or intent of the rule he loves to quote.

----

I like your idea, but, yes, battles would take a long time, and if you're in a particularly vast war, it could take a day to get through an AI turn

Oh what havent I grasped with it?

[Vudak44]

Oh what havent I grasped with it?

I think most people would infer that the rule was made to help keep the forums relatively organized, especially in the first few day's of the game's release -- NOT to prevent new topics from ever being started again until the end of time.

[Gothic Revenge]

Great idea.... however this could make a human vs human battle last for days (as it did)
but maybe one could work a way aroud it

[Kazang]

No, those kind of numbers would be not make for good gameplay.

Its nice idea to have it realistic but its unnecessary and wiuld make battles a chore due to the length. There is also the problem of getting AI to know when to retreat and when to keep fighting, which would be hard to do that kind of decision is very human one and would be very difficult to emulate. Unless you simplify to something like: "If X amount of troops are lost, then retreat", which would be in effect same as it is now, with a fixed number of soldiers per battle and would break the pseudo-realism somewhat.


One battle per campaign against a nation that lasted hours would be quite boring.
It would not be good gameplay.

As for getting it implemented in a mod it would be very simple.
Just reduce the recruitment costs for units by 20 times so you can afford 20 stacks for the price of one and march a train of stacks around the map. Tweak the AI priorities to have vast amount of troops and the AI will do the same.
There you have you epic battles, one unit falls it will be reinforced instantly, for a long long long time till you have killed all 20 stacks.
Getting the AI to know when to retreat, thats the hard part.
Although the engine would most likely when have a tantrum when you try to move that many troops around and use them in the fight, thats why CA use the present scaled down battle system.

[helmersen]

I like the idea

[Ondaderthad]

I usually march into ennemy territory with 2 stacks.
At the front I have the General with artillery and basic line infantry and maybe one or two calvalry. Quite capable to fight on it's own but I had surprises before with unseen units on the main map (in the RTI campaign in particular with the natives)

So when the battle starts I can organise the main forces around the cannons (fixed battery in early period) then reinforcement are ready to move in.

I just wish that the battle map was reflecting the situation on the campaign map with reinforcements coming in from the same direction.

If a unit breaks morale or is becoming too small due to casualties then I let it retreat to be replaced by fresh troops from the second stack.

[Darth_Revan]

hmm interesting plan being used there Ondaderthad never though of that

[Irishmafia2020]

There is another option - the lack of limits on the size of units (the number of soldiers in a unit) means that modders could create 1000 man units. A full stack would therefore be 20,000 men. Two full stacks would equal 40,000 men. Of course this would be hard or even impossible for most computers to handle, but in a couple of years? Maybe we will see giant battles in ETW in 4 or 5 years when we all have quad core 5 gig GPU's installed...

[Davincee]

great idea though

[War&Politics]

Brilliant idea! Don't know if anybody will implement it, but +rep all the same. This idea would require the ability to save during battles (imagine a CTD midway through a 2 hour battle) and also much, much smarter AI. Secondly, there should be an arcade vs. advanced mode. Arcade mode would be standard battles like we have now, where advanced would have your kind of battles, that way everybody can be happy. If we had this, along with a smart AI, it would have rocked my literal socks off!

[Inhuman One]

He can be glad it was just moved and not thrown on to a big pile like the rant or praise thread, where no one will ever notice it.

[Homeros]

Its basically the same thing as in MTW, when your or the AI forces were routed or killed new ones appeared on the map as long as they had reinforcements. Those battles lasted for hours and I didn't liked them.

'The best strategy is always to be very strong, first generally then at the decisive point' (Book III).

Clausewitz explains that superiority in numbers is the most important factor in deciding the result of a battle; it will usually - but not always - be decisive. In consequence, the first rule of strategy is 'to enter the field with an army as strong as possible' (Book III). When absolute superiority in numbers is impossible, then the task of the commander will be to ensure that a 'relative one at the decisive point' is achieved.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Homeros -- Ah, but! Here's from Book IV, Chapter 2

"What is commonly done nowadays in battle? Great masses take up orderly positions in parallel and behind each other, and a small amount of the total is moved forward to participate in hour-long shooting matches, interrupted by some movements at charging step, bayonet and cavalry charges and a few movements to one side or another. Once this part has gradually lost its fighting potential, and it is left with only empty cartridges, it is retired and replaced by another.

Thus, a battle burns slowly and moderately, like wet powder..."

[Homeros]

I understand what you're trying to say, but the troops held in reserve were already present on the field of battle. They were only kept out of range - ready to replace or support the front line when needed.

The key to victory was how and when to use your reserves - this proved to be so difficult (to see what was going on amidst the smoke and confusion, and reacting quickly and appropriately) that it came to be described in near mystical terms. Coup d’oeil was the phrase used to connote this rear gift of insight, which enabled a commander to take in at a glance everything that was going on, and know exactly the right moment to apply overwhelming pressure. Any commander had, besides front-line infantry, three ways to dismantle the enemy - extra infantry, cavalry and artillery. How and when a commander used them was critical. The injection of fresh troops was frequently enough to collapse an opponent's wavering line. Thus the decisive use of reserves was a key element in separating the merely mediocre from true captains.