Death Ground

[Sun Jetzu]

“Throw them into perilous ground, and they will survive; plunge them into Death Ground, and they will live.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War (The Nine Kinds of Ground)

The basis of this is that a warrior who's backed up against a wall, and know he must fight to the death. Will fight like a crazed animal, without fear of dieing. And may come out victorious.

Obviously the comming out victorious might happen very few times but the purpose of this is to add a sense of realism to Rome 2.
I was thinking, maybe when a unit knows their going to lose or fight to the death (like in rome and medieval 2) they will get a small bump in stats. But it should be consitent to the type of unit they are. A levy type of unit would get a small bump, while a Spartan Hero will get larger one. It basically removes the fear of dieing from the units, so they wont route. Again, it would have to be measured to each individual unit, but it could add that extra bump in the battle gameplay to make it more realistic. Almost even giving these units a simulated soul. They fight with all they have, until they cant anymore.
This could be good for defending towns, defending passes or fighting on enclosed terrain or on beaches. But this shouldnt just be for stats, the units should have a wild and exausted expression on their face, with sweat and all. Showing that theyre at their limit, but they dont care. I know this seems like alot, but with all the realism this game is getting, i think it could be do-able. Probably not even that hard to add.
Just think how cool it would be to have your units fighting to the death with everything they have and taking out more of the enemy units as each last man dies. It would add a sense of epicness to a defeat or even a victory.
What do you honestly think? Can there be a better way to work this idea?


UPDATE:
Lets say that only experienced units over a stats threshhold can initiate Deathground, as well as hero units, or units that are superior. They've been tested and can fight on and on, especially when they know they will die. Units that are levy, or even just "Green" units wont have this ability unless they've seen combat a few times. Their Experience needs to be over a certain threshold in order for them to fight, instead of route.
Also their attack stats increase slightley. Maybe even one little notch in their melee stats, but they gain unbreakable morale and fight to the death. The higher a warriors experience, the more likley he is to defend himself when being attack by horse while routing. But they should have experience, before they can even perform any of these "Last Stand" abilities.
I still think they should give them the fight to the death skull on their flag, like Rome Total War

UPDATE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erZ2YidTZp4
This is a documentary that made me pick up the Art of War and study its teachings a few years ago.
Death ground is in here, There's a whole section about it in the middle of the documentary talking about the Normandy Landings.


FOR SOME REASON THE FORUM WONT LET ME JUST POST IT ON HERE.

IT BE LIKE CORNERING A LION

[Raikou]

“Throw them into perilous ground, and they will survive; plunge them into Death Ground, and they will live.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War (The Nine Kinds of Ground)

The basis of this is that a warrior who's backed up against a wall, and know he must fight to the death. Will fight like a crazed animal, without fear of dieing. And may come out victorious.

Obviously the comming out victorious might happen very few times but the purpose of this is to add a sense of realism to Rome 2.
I was thinking, maybe when a unit knows their going to lose or fight to the death (like in rome and medieval 2) they will get a small bump in stats. But it should be consitent to the type of unit they are. A levy type of unit would get a small bump, while a Spartan Hero will get larger one. It basically removes the fear of dieing from the units, so they wont route. Again, it would have to be measured to each individual unit, but it could add that extra bump in the battle gameplay to make it more realistic. Almost even giving these units a simulated soul. They fight with all they have, until they cant anymore.
This could be good for defending towns, defending passes or fighting on enclosed terrain or on beaches. But this shouldnt just be for stats, the units should have a wild and exausted expression on their face, with sweat and all. Showing that theyre at their limit, but they dont care. I know this seems like alot, but with all the realism this game is getting, i think it could be do-able. Probably not even that hard to add.
Just think how cool it would be to have your units fighting to the death with everything they have and taking out more of the enemy units as each last man dies. It would add a sense of epicness to a defeat or even a victory.
What do you honestly think? Can there be a better way to work this idea?

IT BE LIKE CORNERING A LION

Sounds different but promising

[Sun Jetzu]

Sounds different but promising

[ptoss1]

I made a thread about this a few days earlier, and everybody hated me.

[Sun Jetzu]

really?! why?!!!

[Sun Jetzu]

i thought it was a good idea, been reading my Art of War latley.

[CnConrad]

I made a thread about this a few days earlier, and everybody hated me.

really?! why?!!!

i thought it was a good idea, been reading my Art of War latley.

Because, I'll tell you the same thing that that I told him. You, like so many others read an excerpt from Sun Tzu and took it out of context then want the flawed concept incorporated into the game.

Under no circumstances does someone become more effective when they are being stabbed at from 4 directions rather than one.


Sun Tzu was refering to surrounding entire armies and preventing them from escaping rather than forcing them to route. You ALWAYS want to surround a smaller force. Under no circumstances do people become more powerful when they are outnumbered and going to die. They may be resolute in the face of death but they do not turn into super soldiers.

Deathground simply means to kill without the fear of dieing. So say a beach landing taken by veterans of island hopping campaigns would have a higher chance of success to take the beach, than new units. So if an Elite unit is surrounded, it should have a higher kill ratio because of its fighting with all its got. An ability reserved for Elite And Max vetted units.

So you are telling me that elite units are not going to fight with all they have unless they are going to die? My Spartans are only going to give around 75% in battle if they think they are evenly matched but will give 110% if they they are going to die.

[Sun Jetzu]

Because, I'll tell you the same thing that that I told him. You, like so many others read an excerpt from Sun Tzu and took it out of context then want the flawed concept incorporated into the game.

Under no circumstances does someone become more effective when they are being stabbed at from 4 directions rather than one.


Sun Tzu was refering to surrounding entire armies and preventing them from escaping rather than forcing them to route. You ALWAYS want to surround a smaller force. Under no circumstances do people become more powerful when they are outnumbered and going to die. They may be resolute in the face of death but they do not turn into super soldiers.



So you are telling me that elite units are not going to fight with all they have unless they are going to die? My Spartans are only going to give around 75% in battle if they think they are evenly matched but will give 110% if they they are going to die.

Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve.

Chang Yu quotes his favorite Wei Liao Tzu "If one man were to run amok with a sword in the market-place, and everybody else tried to get our of his way, I should not allow that this man alone had courage and that all the rest were contemptible cowards. The truth is, that a desperado and a man who sets some value on his life do not meet on even terms."

Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard.


On desperate ground, fight.

For, as Chia Lin remarks: "if you fight with all your might, there is a chance of life; where as death is certain if you cling to your corner."

This is what I'm talking about. Men who rise up when put on Desperate ground, and soon find themselves on Death ground.

"To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape" and "Show him there is a road to safety, and so create in his mind the idea that there is an alternative to death. Then strike."
This is what YOUR talking about.
A person with no alternative and nothing more to lose will fight a lot harder than a person with a route to escape. They are not as likely to fight to the death if they know that they can possibly escape.
This also is good decision to give your enemy a psychological wound. They will always see that their is a route to escape from.
Saying that this doesn't happen is doing a immense disservice to anybody that's seen actually combat in humanities history.

So you are telling me that elite units are not going to fight with all they have unless they are going to die? My Spartans are only going to give around 75% in battle if they think they are evenly matched but will give 110% if they they are going to die.

Yes, a man that still values his life even a little bit wont give as much to a man that has nothing to lose. There is no comparison.

[CnConrad]

Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve.

Chang Yu quotes his favorite Wei Liao Tzu "If one man were to run amok with a sword in the market-place, and everybody else tried to get our of his way, I should not allow that this man alone had courage and that all the rest were contemptible cowards. The truth is, that a desperado and a man who sets some value on his life do not meet on even terms."

Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard.


On desperate ground, fight.

For, as Chia Lin remarks: "if you fight with all your might, there is a chance of life; where as death is certain if you cling to your corner."

This is what I'm talking about. Men who rise up when put on Desperate ground, and soon find themselves on Death ground.

"To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape" and "Show him there is a road to safety, and so create in his mind the idea that there is an alternative to death. Then strike."
This is what YOUR talking about.
A person with no alternative and nothing more to lose will fight a lot harder than a person with a route to escape. They are not as likely to fight to the death if they know that they can possibly escape.
This also is good decision to give your enemy a psychological wound. They will always see that their is a route to escape from.
Saying that this doesn't happen is doing a immense disservice to anybody that's seen actually combat in humanities history.



Yes, a man that still values his life even a little bit wont give as much to a man that has nothing to lose. There is no comparison.

Yes I see you are putting multiple quotes in here, but I am willing to bet you have never been in a life or death situation.

Furthermore, you are discounting both logic and historical facts. Logic dictates that when someone or a group is attacked on multiple sides they are at a severe disadvantage. You can not defend behind you while attacking in front of you. No amount of quotes from dead Chinese authors will change this fact.
Second, is the pesky little issue with it being historically inaccurate. For every one story of heroic units that fought heroically while surrounded and died to a single man there are hundreds of them where the units were surrounded and died cowering and begging for their lives.

I'll go one step further and say that the shear mind F#$k that the surrounded units goes through is much more likely to cripple the soldiers into inaction or suicide than it is to turn them into fierce warriors. Take a little time away from reading Sun Tzu and do a little bit of research into siege warfare. You will find that in many cases cities were massacred by attacking forces much smaller. While these were mostly civilians, they still died by the thousands huddled in corners waiting to die rather than picking up arms and trying to defend themselves.

Try posting 10-20 documented battles throughout the entirety of human history that an army was not in a city under siege yet was surrounded as you described and attacked on all sides yet dealt a crippling blow to the attackers rather than posting excerpts from sun Tzu.

[Sun Jetzu]

Yes I see you are putting multiple quotes in here, but I am willing to bet you have never been in a life or death situation.

Furthermore, you are discounting both logic and historical facts. Logic dictates that when someone or a group is attacked on multiple sides they are at a severe disadvantage. You can not defend behind you while attacking in front of you. No amount of quotes from dead Chinese authors will change this fact.
Second, is the pesky little issue with it being historically inaccurate. For every one story of heroic units that fought heroically while surrounded and died to a single man there are hundreds of them where the units were surrounded and died cowering and begging for their lives.

I'll go one step further and say that the shear mind F#$k that the surrounded units goes through is much more likely to cripple the soldiers into inaction or suicide than it is to turn them into fierce warriors. Take a little time away from reading Sun Tzu and do a little bit of research into siege warfare. You will find that in many cases cities were massacred by attacking forces much smaller. While these were mostly civilians, they still died by the thousands huddled in corners waiting to die rather than picking up arms and trying to defend themselves.

Try posting 10-20 documented battles throughout the entirety of human history that an army was not in a city under siege yet was surrounded as you described and attacked on all sides yet dealt a crippling blow to the attackers rather than posting excerpts from sun Tzu.

The whole point of my original post is all about Sun Tzu. You were arguing that I misunderstood one of Sun Tzu's quotes to mean something entirely different (in a very rude way).
So I corrected you, by telling you you were thinking of an entirely different quote.
Now your telling me that I should stop posting excerpts of sun tzu because I proved you wrong. And then came back at me with the argument that it doesnt happen all the time. I've already tirelessly stated that this would be a special thing, is a special thing. That happens to certain warriors under certain variables.
Just because it doesn't happen all the time doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And if added into the game it should be a rare circumstantial event.
You try to (rudely) put down my point of view, with an unstable argument.
Maybe you should read up on how to structure a coherent argument, instead of trying to start one without a solid bases.

Yes I see you are putting multiple quotes in here, but I am willing to bet you have never been in a life or death situation.

No I haven't, I'm lucky I haven't been. But I never stated that I was an expert with some experience. Everything I know is from my studies in the matter.

[vietanh797]

No I haven't, I'm lucky I haven't been. But I never stated that I was an expert with some experience. Everything I know is from my studies in the matter.

good but not enough to make us accept a theory that so often disapproved by history.

[rrgg]

I've always sort of wanted soldiers to go into Fight to the Death more often. Even if there isn't a physical barrier, say some cavalry chasing down a bunch of routing infantry who know they can't outrun horses, there should still be a small chance that they start fighting to the death just to make chasing down fleeing enemies more risky.

Not so sure about a stat increase though. Maybe if it was something balanced like a boost to attack but they have less defense.

[jamreal18]

I think its hard to implement.....

I thought when units banner turns red, they will fight to death.....

[SturmChurro]

Fight to the death could definitely be used more often. It could matter on the type of unit (discipline), how vetted up they are, etc. when fight to the death would actually activate.

I think I saw this feature most in Medieval 2? I hate it when I see large units of Samurai just get up and rout.

[ptoss1]

Fight to the death could definitely be used more often. It could matter on the type of unit (discipline), how vetted up they are, etc. when fight to the death would actually activate.

I think I saw this feature most in Medieval 2? I hate it when I see large units of Samurai just get up and rout.

That always bothered me.

Shouldn't they be committing seppuku after getting back to camp?

[rrgg]

Fight to the death could definitely be used more often. It could matter on the type of unit (discipline), how vetted up they are, etc. when fight to the death would actually activate.

I think I saw this feature most in Medieval 2? I hate it when I see large units of Samurai just get up and rout.

It definitely happened most in RTW when routing units apparently didn't know how to get off walls.

[RagingCroppy]

Fight to the death could definitely be used more often. It could matter on the type of unit (discipline), how vetted up they are, etc. when fight to the death would actually activate.

I think I saw this feature most in Medieval 2? I hate it when I see large units of Samurai just get up and rout.

Samurai would run (or change sides) in a heartbeat if it looked like they were going to die. Seriously how do you think battles were fought in sengoku Japan? We already have elite units with higher morale, we don't need them to enter berserk mode every time they are loosing.

The entire point of a morale system is that we can destroy the enemy with morale rather than having all the units fight to the death like in Age of Empires. Small armies can defeat large ones and poor units can defeat professional ones with the right tactics. The last thing i want to see is Spartans all fighting to the death "because Sparta."

[ptoss1]

Samurai would run (or change sides) in a heartbeat if it looked like they were going to die. Seriously how do you think battles were fought in sengoku Japan? We already have elite units with higher morale, we don't need them to enter berserk mode every time they are loosing.

The entire point of a morale system is that we can destroy the enemy with morale rather than having all the units fight to the death like in Age of Empires. Small armies can defeat large ones and poor units can defeat professional ones with the right tactics. The last thing i want to see is Spartans all fighting to the death "because Sparta."

You've never seen 300 have you?

[RagingCroppy]

You've never seen 300 have you?

There were more Thespians than Spartans in the last stand, are they never going to rout either?

[ptoss1]

There were more Thespians than Spartans in the last stand, are they never going to rout either?

Doesn't matter. They aren't Spartans.