Skirmish and wars of attrition

[ray243]

One issue CA did not resolve in the previous TW games is concerning skirmishes and wars of attrition. We are well aware that the large majority of warfare during any era consist of skirmishes as oppose to field battles.

Smaller and less well equipped sides would attempt to avoid open battles and seek to engage in a seek and run warfare. Alexander the Great faced this kind of warfare when he was in Afghanistan, the Roman Republic faced this issue in the war to conquer Spain and the late Roman Empire faced this kind of threat when the barbarians start pouring down the Danube.

I do hope that CA attempts to resolve this issue in R2TW, especially if they are trying to make warfare more 'gritty'. There is no other kind of warfare that is more gritty than a guerrilla/skirmishing war.

[Ichon]

Higher costs the larger the army? So keeping several smaller armies is financially more feasible? In history a large part of the cost was gathering men to central point and supplying them since local land would often not be able to supply such a host and require shipping in lot of supplies. Not sure how it would work in TW games but it might be slightly better than AI having lots more armies but instead is simply able to gather more smaller armies into a larger army which is more difficult to beat. Works even better with each region have its own defense force if culture is same as the ruling culture and contributes a portion to defense of the provincial walled city.

[ray243]

Higher costs the larger the army? So keeping several smaller armies is financially more feasible? In history a large part of the cost was gathering men to central point and supplying them since local land would often not be able to supply such a host and require shipping in lot of supplies. Not sure how it would work in TW games but it might be slightly better than AI having lots more armies but instead is simply able to gather more smaller armies into a larger army which is more difficult to beat. Works even better with each region have its own defense force if culture is same as the ruling culture and contributes a portion to defense of the provincial walled city.

No, I am talking about allowing the player and the AI to engage in Guerrilla warfare. This is what the Iberians did to the Romans for over a century.

The reason why Romans reformed their armies from a maniple system to a cohort system is to deal with such issue.

[Ichon]

No, I am talking about allowing the player and the AI to engage in Guerrilla warfare. This is what the Iberians did to the Romans for over a century.

The reason why Romans reformed their armies from a maniple system to a cohort system is to deal with such issue.

Yes but the mechanics would have to completely change for what you are asking. First retreating from battles now leads to 90% or higher losses so ambush with a small force is pointless. So that needs to change as well as some incentive to keep army sizes smaller if you want smaller battles and guerrilla wars which I don't think CA has in mind with all the talk about fewer battles. More players prefer not to engage in lots of little battles even if that is often historically accurate it slows down the pace of campaign and makes for repetitive play.

[JaM]

ETW came with this first, even though it was not done complete, as damaging the economy buildings was not that big issue to AI anyway as it just got its money from the script. I'd rather see a system where economical war is vital part, and damaging enemy economy is painful. I'd like to see an AI that would ask for peace if it sees that continuing the war would hurt them too much, instead of having AI that doesn't care whats going on and goes after you like a zombie...

[Medina]

ETW came with this first, even though it was not done complete, as damaging the economy buildings was not that big issue to AI anyway as it just got its money from the script. I'd rather see a system where economical war is vital part, and damaging enemy economy is painful. I'd like to see an AI that would ask for peace if it sees that continuing the war would hurt them too much, instead of having AI that doesn't care whats going on and goes after you like a zombie...

+ Rep

[Lacedaemon]

Love the idea of the economy hurting alot more. As for the OP, I do like the idea, I think implementation is just a huge problem with the current system. If the enemy has one cav unit, you basivally have already failed the ambush as cabalry tends to wipe out skirmishers on any territory.

[ray243]

The thing is the current Total war system is unable to simulate or let the players play the battle of Teutoburg Forest. The Germans made use of the woods to ambush the Roman legions, and destroy them bit by bit.

That battle lasted for days, and that isn't your average open battle. If the Germanic factions are unable to have the option of waging a guerilla war with the Romans, then you are taking the main advantages they have.

[Hanny]

The thing is the current Total war system is unable to simulate or let the players play the battle of Teutoburg Forest.

Incorrect. Teutoburg Forest is an example of major combat units being taken by suprise, which is curretly modelded in game.

The Germans made use of the woods to ambush the Roman legions, and destroy them bit by bit.

which can be achived by number of ambushes against the same stack as it moves in sequence.

That battle lasted for days, and that isn't your average open battle.

It contained at least one open battle when the Romans sought to break out, the rest were ambushed which are modeleded in game.

If the Germanic factions are unable to have the option of waging a guerilla war with the Romans, then you are taking the main advantages they have.

Your confused, a guerilla war has no large scale mil engagements but many small scale encounters, untill the balance of forces allow that mil phase of the struggle to re replaced by conventional battles between major combat elements. Teutoburg Forest is not an example of guerilla war, it is an example of major combat agaisnt a tacticaly suprised oponent.

[RGA]

I'm thinking of an idea that two armies in close proximity will both suffer attrition. Attrition rate depends on troops number, quality and even troops type: the side with more light cavalry often dominate the "no-man's land" and is also more effective at hit-and-run raids.

[jimmy425]

i hated how in RTW if i ambushed someone i had to completely destroy them with a large army. i could just have some skirmishers throw some javelins and run away.

[BlackDragon1]

I'm liking the idea OP very interesting how this could play out...

[underworld965]

I personally disagree. I like the idea of using your armies to sack their buildings and damage their economy, but I'm much more in favor of large decisive battles, rather than having to fight a horde of 1 or 1/2 unit armies like in etw. It becomes a real pain in the ass having to chase down 12 horsemen who keep wrecking your farms. I would prefer in a say greece-rome situation there to be a battle or two then peace with the victor making gains. Rather than the current fight to death and send units of 15 guys to terrorize your towns with populations in the millions...

[AndySanorl]

ETW came with this first, even though it was not done complete

[Winterspawn]

I agree that the large battles get a bit boring, I would love to see more small stacks running around, while they would try to avoid big stacks. Currently they kinda ignore your full stack and run only when you attack them which usually ends up with you attacking them again that turn so they can't flee. I love the smaller scale skirmishes in Total War games. It's a bit of a relief from having to fight all those large battles where you continuesly have to command every single unit.

[Okuto]

In NTW and STW2 you could fight guerrilla war.....In shogun 2 as the Jozai clan I conducted a massive guerrilla campaign when my enemies landed massive stacks in my rear areas.....even with the CAI cheating during the winter I thinned them down to the point where they couldn't do anything but waste away in my lands....

In NTW I did it as Russia...but you know....the people seem to not like the idea of "losing" and I had racked up massive war weariness as a result......


I know the first thing I wanted modded is the CAI's blatant cheating.....

Also I'd like to see occupying enemy support buildings be brutally effective and also would like to see "living off the land" put in place......

[Ichon]

In NTW and STW2 you could fight guerrilla war.....In shogun 2 as the Jozai clan I conducted a massive guerrilla campaign when my enemies landed massive stacks in my rear areas.....even with the CAI cheating during the winter I thinned them down to the point where they couldn't do anything but waste away in my lands....

In NTW I did it as Russia...but you know....the people seem to not like the idea of "losing" and I had racked up massive war weariness as a result......


I know the first thing I wanted modded is the CAI's blatant cheating.....

Also I'd like to see occupying enemy support buildings be brutally effective and also would like to see "living off the land" put in place......

I can think of ways to do it in Shogun 2 with agents and buildings etc but what do you consider that for NTW?

[a tw player]

hmm this is something that needs to be represented somehow, here's how it could perhaps work...

Perhaps "barbarian" factions can designate units as "guerilla warfare specialists", whereby you would be able to use these units in territory that was previously yours/borders your territory. How this would work is, if the enemy enters the guerilla units' ZOC, a % amount of attrition would be inflicted on the enemy army, which grows the more guerilla units are in this stack.

To balance this, the units would have a higher upkeep than common units unless actively engaged in guerilla warfare (would prevent a player/AI faction from just making all units guerilla capable so they are multi-purpose at all times), and there would be a maximum stack size of, say, 5 units instead of the regular 20. This would mean that a player's army who is receiving "enemy guerilla tactics are wearing down our forces" messages must move around and attempt search and destroy operations on the frontiers to be successful. Oh, and the guerillas would be invisible to the enemy factions unless the enemy comes inside their very small ZOC, although the size of this would be balanced of course.

Thoughts? (not sure if I've explained this well enough, I'm tired )

[Okuto]

In NTW you could fight little small holding actions or delaying actions....works best as attacker though....unless those troops aren't expected back....

As Russia I turtled a bit and France bulldozed faster than I expected so I did my best to harry the french with anything(preferably mounted missile troops) and when the going got rough I'd just retreat off the map....

problem is...if you do this often the population takes this as a loss and get war weariness.....very annoying

So yeah I slowly chipped away at the French and by the time they reached Moscow there wasn't much left

Did this for a few turns to combat the next few armies and while rewarding and making me sweat it caused a revolution sadly....

[Archimonday]

Major battles were not something than any army of the era was good at, and I will continue to repeat this. Battles were fought when either one, or both of the Armies were placed in a situation where avoiding battle was impossible, or avoiding a battle would result in a strategical disadvantage.

Caesar famously performed one of the most difficult military movements when he performed a turning movement in Spain. Retreating away from Caesars numerically, and tactically stronger Army, the Pompeians set up a defense on the Sicoris. This defense; although only a rear guard outpost whilst the remaining Pompeian army retreated towards the Erbo to form a better defense, and their supplies at Ilerda, bested Caesars superior army by using its similar constitution against itself, by making a full deployment impossible. As a result Caesar chose to wait them out, and once they began to try and escape, he would harass their rear, forcing them to retreat slower than they initially planned. When the moment was right, Caesar's army began a race with the Pompeians some five miles towards the town of Ilerda, Caesar won, and completed a turning movement positioning himself behind the Pompeian army, in-between them and their supplies. Now the Pompeians had no choice but to engage him in an open battle, so they decided to wait Caesar out and see if his supplies would dwindle. However it back fired, and when supply issues struck the Pompeians, men began to desert, until, at last, the entire Pompeian army surrendered to Caesar without a fight.

This is only one example of how major battles were not only avoided and rare, but how warfare worked in the classical era.