A question about scales.

[mAIOR]

Hello. First of all, apologies if there is a specific thread to ask this question. I looked for it and couldn'the find one so I will ask here.
My question is if you guys have defined a physical scale (how many soldiers does a game soldier represents) and temporal scale (how many real seconds are represented by a game second). From what I have seen in videos, your gorgeous mod does not seem to have a defined scale and is there a reason for that or is it something you didn't consider?

Also, have you considered using the exhaustion mechanics as a formation cohesion indicator (effectively meaning it would change status faster both up and down).

Cheers

[Slytacular]

Actually, we're in the middle of discussing scaled balance. We're probably idealizing something similar to a 30 minute 1v1 PVP land battle. For the entirety of this mod's existence, we never had a truly balanced game play. It was mostly copy/paste similar statistics for units with a little bias. Which is why some factions seem to out perform others like Kingdom of Jerusalem. I don't think we have considered using exhaustion mechanics as a formation cohesion indicator. That is a pretty cool idea. This upcoming Summer may have a balanced gameplay released. No promises though.

[mAIOR]

Actually, we're in the middle of discussing scaled balance. We're probably idealizing something similar to a 30 minute 1v1 PVP land battle.

Good to know. But what time compression do you think that entails? 1:3?

I don't think we have considered using exhaustion mechanics as a formation cohesion indicator. That is a pretty cool idea. This upcoming Summer may have a balanced gameplay released. No promises though.

No promises needed. Just wondering. As for the soldier scale, 1:4 is usually good (each soldier on screen corresponds to 4 irl) that way you can have bigger maps without changing them and bigger scale battles. Mind you the terrain scale should be 1:2 (one game meter corresponds to two meters irl) on X and Y.
If I may ask another question, have you guys considered giving archers the proper role on the battlefield? that is, they should cause very few casualties but reduce cohesion and morale as the army advances under arrow and bolt fire (with some casualties as the arrows find their ways into weak armour spots). This represent formations breaking up under fire. It would be cool.
Oh, and what are your planed morale thresholds (units breaking, reforming, breaking again, routing forever)?

Cheers

[You_Guess_Who]

Those are certainly something doable by kv rules and kv morales table editing.

Currently I'm discussing with Kjertesvein whether the difference on effectiveness between shots at shorter-to-full range should be sharpened (full range shots be less effective, short range shots more effective) alongside hard projectile stat changes for bodkin arrow's arc and range. I also recently moving the morale debuff from the effect phases table to the more universal kv rules.

[mAIOR]

Those are certainly something doable by kv rules and kv morales table editing.

Currently I'm discussing with Kjertesvein whether the difference on effectiveness between shots at shorter-to-full range should be sharpened (full range shots be less effective, short range shots more effective) alongside hard projectile stat changes for bodkin arrow's arc and range. I also recently moving the morale debuff from the effect phases table to the more universal kv rules.

Lets put it this way, most historical arrow wounds happened against the face and other unprotected areas. When arrows pierced armour, it so uncommon that it was written down. You seem to be on the right track with the changes to morale. And if you are interested to have an in depth discussion about these systems, feel free to ask (basically they come from table top wargaming and some old mods I played).


Cheers

[You_Guess_Who]

Total War, under the hood, are pretty much tabletop where the computer calculate and roll the dice for you. Yes, there is actually a dice roll on armour block towards hit damage.

[AnthoniusII]

Hello. First of all, apologies if there is a specific thread to ask this question. I looked for it and couldn'the find one so I will ask here.
My question is if you guys have defined a physical scale (how many soldiers does a game soldier represents) and temporal scale (how many real seconds are represented by a game second). From what I have seen in videos, your gorgeous mod does not seem to have a defined scale and is there a reason for that or is it something you didn't consider?

Also, have you considered using the exhaustion mechanics as a formation cohesion indicator (effectively meaning it would change status faster both up and down).

Cheers

Time and unit plus cities scalling is a matter that differs and its about personal prospective in all Total War games.
Some examples.
In middle ages in the west there were no REAL units with standard soldier number because each feudal lord could have as many soldiers he could pay.
In the east though , thanks to the Roman tradition that still lived in the Roman Empire of Constantinople there were units with standard soldier numbers, officers of all ranks etc.
So while in a TW game you can have a unit of sergeants of 40 men this could be realistic but that number can not portay accuratly a unit of Roman (Byzantine if you do not know who middle ages Romans were) Stratiotae unit that could have 100 men.
While a unit of knights of 40 horsemen could be accuratly , Roman cataphracts had units of 512 men!
But in a game compromisses must be done inorder to have a relative ballance when a player choses one faction instead of an other.
Distance is relative too...If a game has 4 seasons per turn (3 months) a fleet should be able to cover a distance of almost entire Meditaranean in one turn!
Cities are on scale too. While "German/Gualish" villages in RTW2 and Attila seam accurate in the east there were huge cities with poppulations from 40000 to 500000 people! Even Paris in 9th century that was the bigest western city had only 15000 people and had only 1 stone tower and surrounded by wooden wall! Imagine the map that should be created for such eastern cities!
All in TW serve a relative ballance and all are about the prospective you see them.

[mAIOR]

Time and unit plus cities scalling is a matter that differs and its about personal prospective in all Total War games.
Some examples.
In middle ages in the west there were no REAL units with standard soldier number because each feudal lord could have as many soldiers he could pay.
In the east though , thanks to the Roman tradition that still lived in the Roman Empire of Constantinople there were units with standard soldier numbers, officers of all ranks etc.
So while in a TW game you can have a unit of sergeants of 40 men this could be realistic but that number can not portay accuratly a unit of Roman (Byzantine if you do not know who middle ages Romans were) Stratiotae unit that could have 100 men.
While a unit of knights of 40 horsemen could be accuratly , Roman cataphracts had units of 512 men!

No arguments there. When I mention scale is with several abstractions in mind. One of them is banding knights into several groups that represent the "general" force that a king could muster.
Are those Catraphact organisations tactical or administrative btw?

But in a game compromisses must be done inorder to have a relative balance when a player choses one faction instead of an other.
Distance is relative too...If a game has 4 seasons per turn (3 months) a fleet should be able to cover a distance of almost entire Meditaranean in one turn!
Cities are on scale too. While "German/Gualish" villages in RTW2 and Attila seam accurate in the east there were huge cities with poppulations from 40000 to 500000 people! Even Paris in 9th century that was the bigest western city had only 15000 people and had only 1 stone tower and surrounded by wooden wall! Imagine the map that should be created for such eastern cities!
All in TW serve a relative ballance and all are about the prospective you see them.

Again, no arguments there. That is why I still think that more tpy and not less should be the norm since it would make the game more strategic. There are certain compromises that need to be made always and I am fine with that. Biggest one is lack of proper logistics. Moving an army was not cheap in terms of resources and lives.
I had this crazy idea years ago of a scaled economy as well as army (so a 1 to 4 economy for a 1 to 4 army) might present an interesting puzzle. Granted it was for XVIII century not XIII and it would be possible to represent all the armies in Europe at this scale.

For instance, France had a total force of around 200K soldiers split between offensive and garrison (roughly 50% I believe). So in a 1 to 4 economy you would have 25k soldier garrison and 25k offensive which in a 1 to 4 military meant that you basically had to keep around 6k soldiers in France to keep public order and prevent rebellions and you had around 6K soldiers for offensive purposes. When you go to strategic level scale, such things can be abstracted to an interesting level.

But you are quite right in that you still need to abstract them.

[AnthoniusII]

Lets compare east and west.
In the 10th century "Macedonian Dynasty", Roman Empire fielded 125000 soldiers (in this case proffesionals aka 99% horsemen).
In its 7 million citizens provinces could suply another 300000 citizen soldiers.
In 10th century NO OTHER country in Europe could ever imagine such armies.
Logistics.
When an army in the west moved for a campaign it relied on plunder!
In the east logistics were just what the word means to us today.
Huge camps filled with supplies waiting the armies in spesific locations.
For each 2 infantry men a mule for their bagages.
For each 4 infantry men and each two horsemen 1 servant.
Enginearing including siege weapons (that were TOTTALY unknown in to west untill the 1st Crusade)plus camping equipment and road/bridge construction materials.
Even in this point TW games had to do a huge comromise.
About Roman Army in 10th century more infos:
Thematic Armies (provincial)
Tagmatic Armies (Imperial/Capital based).
Compare them with any era Feudal army!
In the time of the 4th Crusade , Constantinople's guarrison was 50000 men while Crusaders 30000.
Why they lost? Because in that period no one wanted to participate in a civil war!

[mAIOR]

I am not questioning your expertise on the issue. I was genuinely interested.
I merely presented suggestions of cool mechanics that I read or played with. Nothing else. This mod intrigued me and that is why I asked.

The numbers I have given refer to the XVIII century not XIII It was merely an example.

Now, thanks for all the numbers
From the numbers you supplied, using a 1:4 economy you would have a permanent force of 31,250 men of which 12,500 were the Constatinople garrison and you could raise 75K more if you needed to.
Using a 1:4 scale in unit terms you would have 7,812 men in the permanent army (around 2 or 3 stacks?) of which 3,125 would be the Constantinople garrison (so 1 stack in the city or represented by garrison and 2 stacks in the open) and you could raise 18,750 more (around 4 to 6 stacks more). Of these further troops, I don't know how many would be needed in rotation to perform garrison duties at any one time and that could tie more resources so if you needed around 2 stacks always in your provinces to ensure public order it would leave you 2 to 4 stacks of troops that you could recruit on a pinch.

This was what I meant of making a scale that you can fit other's into. It is true that no single nation in Europe could match them but by the time of the 4th crusade, your numbers on the Constantinople garrison are 3x as high as the figure I see quoted regularly (15k soldiers vs 20k crusaders). I am no expert nor do I have sources other than the internet on this period of time so I will refrain from commenting further on the numbers.

[Slytacular]

Anthonius, if you have any good sources on the military regarding the Latin Empire, I don't mind recreating the unit roster for that faction. I'm just familiar with the politics of the time where Henry of Flanders would be invading Asia Minor by 1212AD.

maior, I don't think scaling would effectively work for our scenario because the Medieval Ages was the period when a lot of regions enter into history. For example, the Kingdom of Sweden was a fairly new thing in the 13th century which introduces the conquest of Finland's regions and whatever Reindeer herders lived North up top of Scandinavia.

[mAIOR]

Anthonius, if you have any good sources on the military regarding the Latin Empire, I don't mind recreating the unit roster for that faction. I'm just familiar with the politics of the time where Henry of Flanders would be invading Asia Minor by 1212AD.

maior, I don't think scaling would effectively work for our scenario because the Medieval Ages was the period when a lot of regions enter into history. For example, the Kingdom of Sweden was a fairly new thing in the 13th century which introduces the conquest of Finland's regions and whatever Reindeer herders lived North up top of Scandinavia.

I believe you. A scaled economy and military might still work because while it is true that for XIII century some army sizes were small, by the late 1300s they were increasing very rapidly.

Just thought of a cool idea (would kinda work for early game). Make all European Christian nations vassal to the Pope. That way, the Pope can recruit massive armies throughout Europe (for crusades) and European powerzs could battle each other on a smaller scale. Nations leaving Church vassalagem would then play an interesting role and could lead to the different splits in the church. What do you think?

[lion8000]

AnthoniusII "In 10th century NO OTHER country in Europe could ever imagine such armies." Well actually Bulgaria under the reign of Simeon I the Great was able to field armies with similar numbers to the Byzantine ones.

[Linke]

feudal armies were of neccesity small, a single game sized army for Sweden (3000?) is likely larger than what the kingdom could have fielded anytime in the 13th century. In my mod I find armies basicly always are accurate in size, and top often larger than in real life. English army lf ca 6-7000 at Hastings for Example.

[AnthoniusII]

Anthonius, if you have any good sources on the military regarding the Latin Empire, I don't mind recreating the unit roster for that faction. I'm just familiar with the politics of the time where Henry of Flanders would be invading Asia Minor by 1212AD.

I will see what I can dig out. 6 years ago there was a M2TW mod call Latinocratia that included all the "Latin" states that emerged in the Roman Lands after 1204.

AnthoniusII "In 10th century NO OTHER country in Europe could ever imagine such armies." Well actually Bulgaria under the reign of Simeon I the Great was able to field armies with similar numbers to the Byzantine ones.

True. Bulgaria summoned a quite large army. Also the Viking Sviatoslav also came in to Balkans with a large army. That is what we try to portay in the Great Conflicts mod. The contrast between the east and west. 10th cent Bulgaria was a huge state comparing to western kingdoms. But Roman Empire was in the middle of such HUGE states (Bulgaria, Chazar Empire, Abbasids, Tullunids, Achlabids etc. Remember that while Romans faught with Bulgarians for 50 years they faught also in Italy, Crete, Middle East and Cherson!

feudal armies were of neccesity small, a single game sized army for Sweden (3000?) is likely larger than what the kingdom could have fielded anytime in the 13th century. In my mod I find armies basicly always are accurate in size, and top often larger than in real life. English army lf ca 6-7000 at Hastings for Example.

True. In the west, economy was not that strong untill 1200 when the plunders of the 1st crusade and the investments made by those gave results! Remember that English and French armies of 15th centuries were arround 30000 men each!
What you need to know is that despite the fact that Bsill II left the Roman Empire with a huge treasury , 1200 war ships (including military transports) and 130000 professional soldiers (not including the mercenaries and the civilians), the Empire actually suisided because un worthy Emperors chosen to dispand all native troops after 1071 and rely ONLY to mercenaries!