New Battle Start system

[MathiasOfAthens]

Not sure how to describe it in the title but I propose a new way to begin battles on the battle map.


Two armies on the battlefield face each other. One side attacks and the other accepts. Instead of beginning already lined up on the battlefield both sides begin in their camp. The camp could be a simple camp of tents with a ditch around the place or something more with palisades on a hill.

Anyway, both sides then must leave their camp and array themselves on the battlefield. The clock is going at this time so there is no deployment screen. You just begin right away. But the camp is far away from the other camp so your have time to prepare.

One beenfit of this is the camp can act as a supply depot for archers. When your men run out of ammo, run back to the base to reload. Not sure how you would reload artillery though... that would take a long time to go back.

Anyway, allowing units to reload would make sieges more costly. Too many times my defenders run out of ing arrows.

[Augustus Scipius]

Unneeded pathfinding difficulties navigating your units in a tiny camp with tents all over the place.

Archers reloading could be a good idea, but I think a wagon of sorts pulled by horses would suffice.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Unneeded pathfinding difficulties navigating your units in a tiny camp with tents all over the place.

Archers reloading could be a good idea, but I think a wagon of sorts pulled by horses would suffice.

Not harder than navigating out of a city in original Rome...

[Ichon]

Not harder than navigating out of a city in original Rome...

Why wouldn't the attacked side simply remain in camp? Depending on that it could bring in more sieges which CA is trying to reduce.

[XxAndrewxX2525]

Why wouldn't the attacked side simply remain in camp? Depending on that it could bring in more sieges which CA is trying to reduce.

That, and, it would just add so much unneeded length to battles, so much more pointless walking, that most casual players really just want to avoid.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Doesnt literally need to be a ton of tents. Could be anything. Maybe just a central wagon with a ditch around it but big enough area to enclose your army at the start.


Plus the pathfinding has improved. The new cities are full of paths and will be more difficult than this small camp.

[oppaiO_O]

like the idea of camps in general and it could serve as a medic camp and supply depot like you said if you run out of ammo you can send your unit to camp and get more and maybe see limping soldiers with shields and weapons dropped dragging themselves toward the camp to the medic to get help??? would be awesome animation and you can get bonuses if you capture the enemies one after the battle and loose some if you loose yours

[MathiasOfAthens]

I think you can represent some sort of dehydration or fatique feature and use the camp to restore units to fresh status but to heal soldiers that would be impossible. In terms of realism.

But yeah if you capture the enemies camp you could get a bonus that ruins the enemies morale and could make them rout. Which is realistic. Some armies in real life actually routed after losing their camp. Others stood their ground.

[stradar1]

Archers Go find your arrows!!! Yells the Genaral Lmao!!

The resupply of ammo idea sounds good but please dont make us run our archers back to a surtain position to refill lmao.....

[torongill]

I'm against the idea of resupply, because that would result in camping. I rather like the idea of the possibility of routing and cecrease of morale connected to the sack of the camp. That would add an additional level of strategy, do you leave camp guards and how many, if you defeat an enemy wing do you pursue and attempt to take the camp or do you stay in the fight, that sort of thing. It'd be nice.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Camp all you want. If the attackers brought artillery how long can you possibly hold out?

If they didnt bring artillery then the attackers will have to assault and it wont be that much more difficult than otherwise. Think about it. Your archers dont usually run out of ammo that quick so odds are the enemy will assault and your archers will still have ammo as the attackers make it to the walls or the camp.

Its pretty realistic. Maybe they could even set a finite amount of ammo at the camp.

[Lord-Fisher]

Wouldn't the re-loadable missiles cause people to just camp next to..well...their camp?

[ngr]

I don't like this idea, because it will be too much preparations before real battle. Even now it's too much manipulations with preparing necessary formations.

I think resupply of archers is bad idea, 'coz it will turn battles into endless missile duels.

[Chris Death]

Wouldn't this give the romans another advantage since romans did like to place their camp inside a
wooden fortress?

~S~ CD

[pajomife]

In the ancient battles they use to form in front of their camp,but not always engage in combat,sometimes they do it several days and try to cheat the enemy with different formations. This could be implement anyway in the game.

[♠ Thomas Cochrane ♠]

I like the OP, if only for the inclusion of a camp, or some kind of Baggage Train. This would be great for such battles as the Battle of Watling Street and many more, including one from the greco-persian wars I cannot remember right now. but under the same train of thought, think about Agincourt too

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Well technically it was only the Romans that had fortified camps, so only camp battles against Romans would possibly be sieges...