Re: Olympia misc.

Scott Hauck (
Fri, 17 Apr 92 18:59:27 GMT

In article <> sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin) writes:
>I am considering ways to make archery more effective. As it stands,
>archery is always a weak sister to combat. There is a bonus in for
>being mounted on war horses.
>My first idea for adding archery was to divide the combat round into
>phases, and allow ranged attacks first, then do hand-to-hand. I don't
>especially like this, though; I don't want to give each unit 2 attacks
>per round every round. I might stick in a "free archery attack" every
>couple of rounds or something. Gak. Too artificial...

Suggestion for Archery and Cavalry in combat:
The first round of combat is ranged-weapon only.

For subsequent turns, do the following:

All units are grouped according to what they are best at: ARCHERY into
"Archers", COMBAT into "Front-line troops", EQUESTRIAN + COMBAT
into "Cavalry". Units within a group are ranked according to how
imbalanced they are - someone who is greatly better at archery than combat
is more "strongly" an "Archer" than a "front line".

Like now squares off against like. Front-line vs. Front-line, Cavalry vs.
Cavalry, Archers vs. Archers. If there is a 2-1 imbalance in the opposing
front-line troops, Cavalry and Archer troops are put onto the front line
until the ratio is brought to better than 2 to 1, in the order of their
"imbalance". Any unit put onto the front line must use COMBAT, and does not
get the EQUESTRIAN bonus.

If either side has a group the other doesn't (ie. one side has archers, the
other doesn't), the MILITARY LEADERSHIP of that side is increased by one.
Also, if one side's archers or cavalry are unopposed, they attack the front-
line troops, and are allowed to use EQUESTRIAN and ARCHERY.

As I said before, like attacks like, with damage from Archers spread only
across enemy archers, Cavalry against Cavalry, front-line vs. front-line.
Any excess damage from Cavalry or Archers goes against opposing front-line
troops, any excess front-line damage goes against both archers and Cavalry.

This repeats until one side flees or is destroyed.

If a side flees, the other side gets one last round of missle attacks.

BTW, this system is set up such that ARCHERY and EQUESTRIAN should be more
powerful than equivalent COMBAT levels, but they are only allowed to be used
if there's front-line troops to support.

I think this system is reasonable to implement, and has much the feel of
mideval combat. Combined arms is made very important, but you still need the
footmen to support, and if things go bad elite troops will be pushed into
normal service.

Modifications for seige:
Units in a castle or tower cannot ATTACK, they may only be ATTACKED. If
they ATTACK, they are considered to UNSTACK, ATTACK, and then RESTACK
(they sortied out to attack, and then return)

All turns are range-weapon only, until the attacker maintains a 2-1
advantage in numbers for two turns (Thus, the first two turns are always
range-weapon only, and if the attacker doesn't have a 2-1 advantage, missle
combat continues until he reaches and holds it). This is the period in which
the men are trying to scale the walls. During this time period, everyone in
the castle is at +2 armor from the castle's inherent protections.

After the 2-1 advantage has been held for two turns, the attacker is
considered to be inside the walls. This means that the castle only provides
+1 armor protection (the defender still has position, and castles are built
to favor someone making a defended retreat). The units use the normal combat
system for now on (breaking into Archer, Front-line, and Cavalry troops).
EQUESTRIAN is allowed to be used. Castles are built to allow mounted troops
to fight.

If one side flees, the other side gets one normal round of attacks, and
one round of missle fire (it's a lot harder to run away from a castle!)
Also, the +1 or +2 armor bonus for being in a castle is revoked for these
turns (whoever now controls the castle isn't being attacks, so doesn't need
it, and if the castle defenders flee, they no longer deserve the bonus).

Modifications for ships:
Ships can attack other ships, but may not attack shore targets. For shore
targets, they are assumed to UNSTACK, ATTACK, and then return to the ship
(ie. use normal combat or siege combat). Ships obviously can be attacked,
but if attacked from a castle/tower, the attacker is still forced to
unstack from the fortification.

Combat is carried out identically to normal combat, except EQUESTRIAN skill
cannot be used (Cavalry become normal front-line troops), and all ship-based
units get a +1 armor bonus (the ship itself provides protection to the units
on it). This means in ship-ship combat, everyone is at +1 armor, and in
ship to shore, the sailors are at +1 armor.

For ship-ship combat, the first missle-only round is extended to two rounds,
and if neither ship flees within these first two rounds, neither can flee
until both flee (they're lashed together and men are on both ships fighting),
and neither get a closing missle round (they're too busy controlling the
wounded ships).

For ship-shore combat, if the sailors flee, they lose the +1 armor advantage.

Modifications for STEALTH and OBSERVATION:
If all of the attacker's units have great enough STEALTH to avoid detection
from all of the defenders, they get the following benefits for ambush:

1.) For non-siege, the missle-only round(s) are skipped (1 for normal and
ship-shore, 2 for ship-ship), and the first normal
round (groups of Archers, Cavalry, etc.) is performed with ONLY the
attackers getting to attack.

2.) For siege, the attacker is assumed to have gotten in the walls, and
combat begins as if the attacker had already held a 2-1 advantage for
two turns (ie. normal combat, defender at +1 armor). The attacker
again gets one round of only him attacking (Castle owners beware!
Train your watchmen! The ninja are coming.)

3.) STEALTH has no effect on the combat rounds that follow a flee. If
you're running for your lives, you're not going to be quiet about it!

What do people think? It's complicated, but so is real combat. The reasons I
think this is an improvement over the current system:
1.) Combined arms is very important, but can only be maintained if you've got
enough cannon fodder
2.) Castles require somewhat different tactics to attack and defend than normal
situations, but a persistent attacker can overcome much of the defenses.
3.) Fleeing doesn't guarantee survival, it does make an arrow in that back very
4.) Ambushes and sneaking into the castle walls is very effective when it
works, but is hard to do right.
5.) There are no new combat orders, it all just happens from the unit skill

Scott Hauck