Unit abstraction?
 

Hey all,

I've just recently begun looking at the demo for this game again after reading some great reviews on it (CGW, others). I'd heard about it awhile ago, but at the time was turned off by the inability to mod the nations in the game (as I was looking for an engine that would let me create a Conan/Hyborian War scenario). However, I saw that it was certainly deep and rich in content, and the new patch that adds the ability to mod the nations may very well entice me to buy it (since I've been unable to find a good game to create said scenario, although Civ3 Conquests looks promising due to how much can be customized).

However, I am having a real problem with one facet of this game, which is impacting my "suspension of disbelief" to the point where I'm not sure I could really enjoy the game.

It has to do with unit scale and the size of armies. From the reading I have done, and from the demo, it appears that each unit is meant to represent one man, monster, etc. It is probably just me, but I feel that there is something wrong with the size of the forces that are then being represented. How awesome is it to imagine my mighty "army" of 200 heavy spearmen having a "climactic" battle with 10 enemy giants and 50 archers (just a random example)? Even if an army were to reach 1,000 units and fight a similarly sized force, it'd still be small when compared to the epic battles that I want to see in my mind's eye, or that are frequently depicted in fantasy literature.

So, that being said and without making this too long, is there an abstraction built in to the unit sizes mentioned anywhere? Does a single infantry unit really represent 50 or 100 men, for example, or did they really design this game with the idea that it's just a bunch of platoons and companies running around fighting each other? One thing I loved about MOM was that units didn't represent just one guy, but were actually an abstraction for larger military formations. As such, attack/defense factors decreased as a unit took damage to represent combat losses. I lost interest in Age of Wonders for similar suspension of disbelief issues, as well...it just didn't feel "real"...4 Elven Archers and an Elven Swordsman conquer the city of X while battling 3 spiders...whoa!!!

I don't want this to sound like I'm bashing Dominions 2, because I can see the intense love of this game by a lot of people. For me to enjoy a game, though, I need to "believe" in the mythos that is being represented, and small bands of troops supposedly conquering a world just doesn't do it for me... "Yes, my lord, we conquered that province with 5 knights...all 50,000 subjects bent their knee to us 5 mighty men because of our big lances..."

Can anyone shed some light on either what the designers are representing per unit, or on how you specifically mentally abstract armies to make them feel more realistic (yeah, yeah, I know it's a GAME and not real, but games are meant to provide a degree of suspension of disbelief, no?)

Oh, yeah, the mercenary screen gets me every time...so and so is available, and he leads 10 men... Remind me not to piss THAT guy off... Does anyone else feel this does something negative for the epic scale of the game? If the text would at least say ten units or formations or something, it wouldn't pull me back to the fact that I'm playing a game, as opposed to experiencing a tale...

Am I alone on this subject?

Thanks and good gaming,
Carl G.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Pros and Cons.
True the civilian populations arent represented in the battles if thats what you mean. But Ive seen armies of 1500 hitting a field vs 1500 of the enemy so they seem to have handled that part OK. They had to pick SOME scale to work with and I think this wasnt a bad choice. Since so many of the units are unique ones which should not be represented as 1=10 I dont forsee a change.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Thanks for the reply, Gandalf Parker!

To clarify, I'm not really looking for the civilian populations to be directly represented, but for a sense that we're really talking about armies...and not, for the most part, small warrior bands.

1,500 vs 1,500 is still just a skirmish when compared with historical "ancients" battles (and, if my research is correct, it sounds like a 1,500 unit army in Dominions 2 is about as big as they get). It doesn't seem to me that without an abstraction, Dominions 2 could ever recreate a "Battle of the Pelennor Fields" where 200,000 orcs and men descended upon the few defenders of Minas Tirith.

When using an abstraction ratio for units, I think that uniques can be accomodated by figuring in their greater power, implicit bodyguards, etc. In traditional boardgame-type abstraction, a human infantry unit may represent 50 men, a cavalry unit say 30, a wizard w/ apprentices and bodyguards 5, and a dragon/greater demon/etc. just 1 (as a quick example).

Anyway, as you say, I don't see any change coming if it was designed as a 1 for 1 representation. I'm disappointed, and perhaps it's an indication that I'll have to keep looking for "my" ultimate fantasy wargame/strategy game. I know I'm picky...but a system needs to "work" for me to believe in it. Unfortunately, too many systems in Dominions 2 don't "work" for me to really get into it, if it is meant to be a 1 unit represents 1 man system.

Just one example is that I cannot get past the fact that a turn represents 6 months, and in that time I can typically only train a handful of warriors...it just doesn't feel "right". I guess it's just me.

I'm most disappointed because I feel like Dominions 2 gets it "right" for me in so many ways, but scale is probably my biggest "pet peave" in strategy/wargames...if the game scale doesn't sync with what is being represented...well, then "I" can't sync with the game.

I appreciate the support and answers provided on this forum, and please understand that I am here not to criticize, but to find out if this is a game I would enjoy or one where the small details and design decisions would just annoy me (and, in this case, the biggest and perhaps only issue I have found so far is one of scale...IMHO)

Thanks again for your response, and good gaming,
Carl G.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

A turn is one month not six.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Just a quick answer to your post and I'm in no way trying to counter what you want but,

The demo is availiable for free and download (hopefully you have a decent connection).

There is a map, made by Gandalf (Yay) that gives you a bunch of provinces and 2 castles enough that you can field different types of army (small, medium, large, based on what you are looking to see if fits you) way before the end of the demo and then you can send your armies to battle an opponent, or drive towards a castle.

You *should* run into an army of comparable size some time along the way that will give you the feel of the combat.

I personally don't like 3 Elves and a Swordsman conquored a town mentality, but I don't feel that Dom2 fits that bill. I've had massive battles and heroic encounters where a few units have bested a horde of enemies. It may not be on scale with what you are looking for (20,000 + battles) but it is on par, if not larger than the MoM battles (where there was a stack limit that made even the largest battles, a fight of stacks)

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Strange, because in our group of players, it is accepted that a unit in dominions is not one being, but a group of 10 or 100. Leaders are supposed to be accompanied by a retinue too.

Thats why in the 3 french AAR that we have, we speak of armies of thousands men. I recall my account of my first battle as Marignon, where the Royal Crossbowmen were 5500 (55 units) led by 600 paladins (6 figures).

Frankly, suspension of disbelief should allow you to see whatever you want, if you try http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

I guess it depends on which map you use. If you play on the world map you will probably imagine that paladin unit to consist of more people than if you play on a map that only consists of Sweden.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Hi all,

Thanks for the quick replies! I do appreciate this community, as it is both active and helpful.

I had played the demo some before starting this thread up, and I do agree that with some effort it is possible to imagine that different units consist of different numbers of men. There are various dialogs (mercenary recruitment screen, for one) and other references which conflict with this ability, but I agree that it is possible.

I guess one of my primary goals in posting this thread was to see how other people playing this game abstract unit sizes, and see if I could find something that could push me over the "mental hill" that I'm feeling when I play the game concerning the represented scale. I do want to like this game, since it does have so many things going for it. As the graphics are definitely utilitarian, I think this is a game that largely is played out in one's imagination.

Thus far I do not see a concensus emerging on what the scales should be, but I do like the 100 men per normal unit, 10 per fantastic unit (summoned non-uniques, for example), and 1 plus retinue for uniques, heroes, etc. (I am assuming that is what was being described by Pocus).

Zen, I was looking to recreate epic battles involving tens of thousands of combatants, and am pretty sure that the only way to do that would be through unit size abstraction. I appreciate your follow-up, though! MoM was limited by stacks, but abstracting what those stacks represented allowed one to believe that epic-sized battles were being waged, no?

Johan Osterman, I must abmit that I thought I read in the CGW review that turns represented 6 months (and hadn't verified this in the demo...note to self...always verify first before posting "facts"!) Thanks for the correction! I still have trouble with the number of recruits that can be gained on a 1 unit 1 man scale for a month of recruiting, though (when one considers that these are entire nations recruiting warriors during a wartime economy). If abstracted, however, it makes logical sense on the number of "units" that can be recruited during that period.

Johan K: Very nice to see illwinter responding so frequently to Posts on this board. I appreciate your insight into abstraction depending upon the size of the map/conflict being represented, and agree that it is something to consider. Based on your statement, I can see that most of the values in the game could be abstractions based on the size of the world map. Food for thought. Thanks!

Again, I appreciate all of the responses, and look forward to any further discussion on this topic.

Good gaming,
Carl G.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

The CGW review doesn't mention the length of time represented by a turn at all.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

He might mean the example of a played game which is farther into the magazine. Its written in kindof a compressed mode I think

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Hey ceremony,

Gandalf Parker is correct...I deduced from the way the challenge between Tom C. and his opponent was written that the turns were at the very least seasonal, and potentially bi-annual.

Add that on top of the fact that I swear I have recently read about a game where the turns represented 6 month chunks of time, and I think I made an (incorrect) unconcious correlation.

Add that on top of the fact that I was watching the Packers/Eagle game as I was reading the mag...my mistake.

Good gaming,
Carl G.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Well I believe it simple enough to do (as you said) and mentally apply a x10 or x100 base for each troop and leave out the commanders.

Even at 100 per figure, it would take 200 units for 20,000 by that estimation. 200 units is quite a large army http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And 200 units on the battlefield is quite busy.

As some have stated before, I don't find imagining these types of mental applications very hard as compared to a game like AoW:SM, WC3 or any other RTS, or TBS game that is currently floating around. Especially with how the units look and are equipped I lean towards more epic, than less. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Hey Zen,

Thanks for the follow-up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I think that reasonably sized forces can be put together via the abstraction that you use.

I believe that an army of 20,000 troops represents a good-sized mustering, and I wouldn't expect that most hosts would get a lot bigger than that (especially when one considers that you could have multiple armies of that size running around). From my reading on the game (and limited playing of the demo) it seems like an epic host in the hundreds of thousands (say 1,500 to 2,000 or more units) could be put together at great cost, as well...but doing so would really focus your power in one location, which would greatly reduce your forces across a larger front.

Again, I appreciate the feedback.

Good gaming,
Carl G.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Yep. Keir has been planning a War of the Ring mod, and it was suggested he base Moria on Ermor. Ermor could definitely field an army in the thousands, if left alone to build up for long enough. A major limit on army size tends to be available (and magic-provided) supplies, and undead (and demons) don't eat.

One could also make maps to support larger armies, by increasing the populations/gold/resources/supply available. Ten times might work a lot better than a hundred times, though - I don't know of a way to mod the available size on a battlefield, for example. You'd probably also want to mod the leadership values of the commanders to match, or else it would start to be cumbersome to order maneuvers (since each commander needs their own orders).

PvK

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

This is part of the strangeness of this problem. Multiplying everything by 10 essentially changes nothing in a beneficial way. It may 'feel' more right to some people, but the impact on game play is zero. Except that if you actually wanted to represent all 10x more troops in the battle replays, or even on the recruiting screen/army set up screens. All it does is add complexity and drive up system requirements (graphically at least) to satisfy the whim of a few.

Granted, this isn't going to happen from the devs so I'm not worried about it. Anyway, Dom is much better with size of forces than AoW (any of them), however, the personal nature of the afflictions makes it seem as though each unit is indeed an individual rather than a group of 10 or 50 or 100. In the end though its all dependant on the gamers ability to accept things as they are, or imagine that things are more abstracted.

What would seemingly be more troubleing to me is the reletive sizes of provinces on a map to their popualtions or army sizes. The World map while very cool is harder to handle in this respect as the province sizes are too large (actually it doesn't bother me, but seemingly it would bother some people). Playing on "smaller" maps, where smaller doesn't mean fewer provinces, but rather smaller province dimentions, would make more sense in this respect.

Anyway, no one size (for armies or provinces) is going to satisfy everyone, and I don't think it really should matter that much anyway. But I'm a real proponent of looking at game mechanics first and reality second, which isn't always a popular view http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

This might sound a bit dorky but at times I feel like Dominions started out as a RPG project that spiraled out of control. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif There's a lot going on in the game that makes it feel like you're the master of a small band rather than leading armies.

Would be neat if someone actually made an RPG style map, like say a really big dungeon, were every tile represented a room or similar feature. And the pretender as the leader of a party of adventurers.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Well, dom2 battles remind me a bit of braveheart. If I remember correctly, they dont field such huge armies as you like in the movie.
Dominions 2 is no pure fantasy game. There are no orcs and no elves, most nations (except maybe ermor and R'yleh, but that one does not count as fantasy anyway...) are somehow related to historical nations/religions. This is a background where such epic scale battles would not fit in, as battles in those ages usualy not involved so many soldiers.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There may not be elves or orcs (well there are elves just not as a pure nation), but there are Lizard men, Flying Ice Angles, Giants, Centaurs, Minotaurs, DemonBread, ...

I don't quite remember what rubric I used when I did the count but I came up with 8human nations and 9nonhuman nations (or primarilly human/nonhuman). As such I'd say you can play it in either a 'pure fantasy' mode, or a more 'fantastical history' mode. Of course magic and indies will still be there either way.

I don't think many people will argue that the scales of armie sizes to populations to province sizes to time are 'realistic', but as far as how everything comes together to provide an entertaining game the devs should be applauded. Of course everyone will have a pet-peeve about this or that and how it isn't realistic, but you simply can't make it all realistic and still keep the same game mechanics as there are. I'd even argue that if you went for more 'realism' game play would suffer greatly.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

DeamonBread, Ice Angles.

Oh man, that killed me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And I believe Dom2 combines the best aspects of a RPG, historically generated fantasy. Some of them are based on history, or at least societies, and others are completely out or based on novels.

It gives a more 'real' feel for me at least.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">On the spot I think. You will trigger soon a response from IW which will lengthily describe to you, with much details, what is Conquest of Elysium. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Imagine 700.000 undeads moving thru the land, as a kind of sea of rotting flesh? Because if you are ok with the scale 1 unit = 100 beings, then you can sight on big AI games Ermorian armies of 7000 units...

I dont know at which point dominions crash, but I think some of us witnessed Ermorian armies of more than 10.000 units!

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Err, ummm, yes, well in my defense, English is my 1st language... Uhh no wait that's not a good defense... I know!! 'W' is my president... Yes that's better...

Now for the truth. I spelled them correctly, then said, "that doesn't look right" went back and changed them, said "that doesn't look right either" so I just hit Add Reply since I was too tired to bother figureing out the correct spelling...

Anyway, now we'll have some more fodder (oh the pun http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) for how those Abysian armies ignore supply.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Maybe it can be determined that a % of the troops in that regiment (100) have had wounds that would impede movement (for a Limp Affliction). Because the law of averages and if you believe in soldiers caring for their brothers in arms (not just leaving them to die on the ground) and the nature of crude weapons on the human body. It's not inconceivable. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I personally think of it as a 1 ratio, but that doesn't mean anyone else can't rationalize 100 per http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Maybe it can be determined that a % of the troops in that regiment (100) have had wounds that would impede movement (for a Limp Affliction). Because the law of averages and if you believe in soldiers caring for their brothers in arms (not just leaving them to die on the ground) and the nature of crude weapons on the human body. It's not inconceivable. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I personally think of it as a 1 ratio, but that doesn't mean anyone else can't rationalize 100 per http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Certainly they can rationalize it however they want, but the rationalization begins to fail with undead or other mindless units, and between battles seemingly the units would 'regroup' to become healthy again while 'retireing' the wounded.

Anyway, its an issue that I don't think Illwinter cares to tackle (nor need tackle), but its an issue that will creep up from time to time.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually it started out as tactical combat fantasy engine, that spiralled out of control. So the province map, pretenders, dominion etc. came along later.

[ January 14, 2004, 21:32: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hi PrinzMegaherz,

Thanks for the feedback!

While I am certainly no expert on the subject, the reading and research I have done over the years has given me the impression that the military forces of the ancient world were often larger than would be expected.

It often depended largely on the nation in question and the age (Bronze, Iron, etc.), but there are examples of immense forces (and also relatively small forces). The ancient Romans and Persians fielded military forces numbering in the hundreds of thousands, while the Greeks only fielded armies of around 10,000 men.

Interestingly, the Europeans typically fielded relatively small militaries following the fall of Rome (in comparison to those of the Middle East and Far East at the same time). I believe the armies clashing at the time of Braveheart numbered close to 5,000 men, and I think this was fairly typical of the armies of Europe at the time.

I recall that Alexander the Great led a host that grew as large as 60,000 men, the Egyptians at one time fielded over 100,000, and the Assyrians could muster close to 200,000.

Getting back to the ratio of men to unit size in Dominions 2, I don't see any way that reasonably impressive forces could be achieved in the game without assuming an abstraction ratio of some type.

In fact, I think that the game would be unplayable if armies of any size were to be represented in the game with a 1 to 1 ratio...it'd get too unwieldly, and the battles would take ages to watch...

I do have to agree with some other posters that this is, at its heart, a fantasy universe based roughly on historical themes for the various nations (as is true of almost all fantasy worlds).

Thanks for a lively discussion, and good gaming!
Carl G.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Now that's what I'm talking about! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Imagine in your mind's eye the land blackened from horizon to horizon by the shuffling dead... Then, imagine a struggle of titanic proportions as a host of knights carves a wedge of silver through the rotting corpses of the damned.

Good gaming,
Carl G.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">and

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hi licker,

Thanks for the comments. I think that where you and I would differ here is that I like to find a closer relationship between realism and game mechanics. I really don't like it when game mechanics trump too many gestures to realistic relationships, as it really ruins my suspension of disbelief.

For example, take Age of Wonders 2: Shadow Magic. All of the AOW games have a scale where 1 turn = 1 day. This completely breaks every system in that game (population growth, training, spell progression, etc.) At that rate, every wizard in the world would be an archmage in 120 days... Also, in the first scenario you start as Julia, a "powerful" elven wizard queen who happens to be a level 1 apprentice...as a great South Park lawyer stated during the Chewbacca defense, "It does not make sense!"

Chess is a good example of my next point. It is basically a wargame, but abstracted to the ultimate level for the sake of gameplay. It is a great game, but completely uselss in its ability to recreate a historical conflict at a "simulation" level.

Which gets me to my other desire in a game system. My wargaming roots go back to the desire to simulate a conflict. In the case of historical wargaming, a game should simulate a conflict in such a way that it has the ability to exactly replicate history...but also with the ability to explore alternate results based on different strategies.

So, I guess that makes me a simulation gamer.

In fantasy games, I like to "simulate" a good fantasy novel in my mind, for each game played to create a new history...and, as such, I need to be able to find some level of reality in the "system" that a game uses (of course, we're talking about a subject that defies reality, as I don't recall the Last time I saw a dragon...but even in a fantasy world, I like to see the "systems" have a realistic relationship). When I look at a game design, I immediately evaluate things like, "Does the magic system have a 'believable' origin or reason for working?", "Does the back story hold up under scrutiny?", "Are the races interesting, or just weird/silly?", etc. If too many of the answers are no, then I am turned off to the game. If the answers are yes (as they are in so many cases for Dominions 2), I look at the game further to see if I'd like to play it (which is why I'm here!). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I do agree with you that taking realism to the ultimate end results in a bad game. Master of Orion III had a grand design plan with an intense amount of realism...but the implementation failed to make a good game (or, at the least, the publisher forced the developers to change the game design and then release it while it was a hybrid between the original design and modified plan...) I realize I'm looking for some kind of happy medium that might fit me, but also might be despised by others. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I'm not advocating that illwinter go and change their game design, because it is THEIR game design. I am, however, trying to see if I can reasonably abstract certain facets of their game (i.e. unit size, etc.) and still be able to "believe" in the "simulation" that I am playing.

Does that even remotely make sense? If you read this far...thanks and I hope it was at least interesting!

Good gaming,
Carl G.

[ January 15, 2004, 04:06: Message edited by: CarlG2 ]

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey johan osterman,

So you are saying that there was a bit of scope creep on the project?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Anyway, kudos to you and illwinter for building this game. It's a testament to how much can be done by a small team, and how many resources are wasted by the big game-development shops. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Good gaming,
Carl G.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Did you ever try out HarpoonIII ?
Harpoon Headquarters .com

Why I mention it?

It's the most "simming" conflict simulation I know off. A "professional" Version is even used by the Australian Military. I was beta tester for the civil Version as long as my time allowed.

A.

[ January 15, 2004, 04:23: Message edited by: Arralen ]

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Carl,

Just a little footnote here, since I hope you decide to purchase the game for all of it's great qualities and not this single one that is divergent from your desires.

Dom2 has a modding tool. In this tool it is possible to adjust upkeep, statistics, gold/resource cost and even .tga (the icon representing a unit).

You could if you desired Mod the game, keeping all of it's current balances and nation/theme ideas (the whole of Dom2) but change aspects to create a more epic feel. Say, lower the cost of every unit by 1/4 and upkeep by 1/4 and stats by 1/4, increase the leadership of all commanders by 3/4ths and suddenly those armies of 200 that we were talking about are 800 without directly changing anything in the game. This might be hard to represent those big battles (The battlefield is unfortunately only so big) but even small skirmishes (75-100) all take on a grander feel for you and it would more than likely fill up your battlefields from edge to edge.

The limitation on that would be the size of maximum units (32000) in the game, but its worth a shot. Or alternatively you could modify the .tga so that it's like MoM and add multiple figures (if you can squeeze it in) per unit.

Some ideas at least to fit your style of play.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey Arralen,

I played the heck out of Harpoon years ago, and tried to get into Harpoon II, but my computer at the time wasn't powerful enough to play it...

Since then I've been dreaming of Harpoon 4 and its ever changing release date...which now seems to be hanging out in the abyss somewhere. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Did you ever play the Simulations Canada games Northern Fleet or Red Sky at Morning? Both of those, while SERIOUSLY lacking in the graphics department, were quite a bit of fun...

Back to Harpoon 3...from your link it sounds like they took Harpoon 2 and updated it for Windows, fixed bugs, updated units, etc. Is that a good assessment? How does the interface hold up to modern standards, and is it pretty stable?

Harpoon used to have me sitting on the edge of my seat as Soviet SSM's came streaking in towards my carriers while my integrated air defenses based on Standard SM's and CIWS engaged them... Primitive graphics but good stuff!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Those games sure gave me an appreciation for the differences in philosphy between NATO/United States and Warsaw Pact/Soviet Union naval strategy and ship design!

To pull this into Dominions 2, I think that the Harpoon series was a great balance between game design and realism...things worked like they should in real life (or, in fantasy terms, as the mythos of the game world says they should), but a lot of the minutiae was either fully abstracted or handled by the computer.

Good gaming,
Carl G.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am heavily leaning towards picking it up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I really like so much of what I have read/experienced of the overall design and scope of the game (i.e. scope as in all that it encompasses, not scope as in unit scale, etc.), and developers like illwinter are too rare (i.e. game design before graphics). I'd love it if the game looked like a big-budget Total War game, but companies producing eye candy with nothing behind the mask are a dime-a-dozen... (not to say that the Total War series has nothing behind the mask, as I think Shogun and Medieval are quite excellent...just using Total War as an example of very good graphics on the strategic and tactical levels).

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Funny enough, I saw on Blues News a few days ago that the new patch was out which expands the modding capabilities. That, combined with the CGW review got me interested and I started doing some research on the game, and ended up here with this thread. I think I mentioned way back in my first post that I have been searching for a tool/game engine that might let me build a scenario based on Robert E. Howards Hyboria...awesome backstory, well developed nations and history, etc. Would make a great wargame!

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Very interesting proposition. I noticed that there was a group doing multi-figure graphics for Civilization 3, most likely for the same reason (although, the Civ games have always had a huge abstraction inherent when considering what each "unit" represented).

Out of curiosity, and because I'm too tired to look, how many .tga's are there for the 1,000+ units in the game?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Okay...I looked...I don't see the individual .tga's for the units, and am assuming they are packed in another file. I'm sure that is all covered somewhere else in a modding thread.

Anyway, thanks for the suggestions!

Good gaming,
Carl G.

[ January 15, 2004, 05:24: Message edited by: CarlG2 ]

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Two more mod ideas.

1) Looks like you might be able to do a two-line mod which would get larger armies. There are mod commands for changing the gold and resources generated per population.
As has been said, it would get somewhat clumsier dealing with really large numbers of units.
On the other hand, I don't agree that it would increase the time required for battles too much. Most of the unit movements, fighting, and arrow flights are simultaneous, so while it might increase it a bit, and make it harder to see everything that was happening, I don't think it'd increase the time all that much.

2) If you wanted to do a mod with abstractly large units where more casualties came into effect, you might be able to use some of the "stage loss" ability from some rider units. For example, some Machakan spider riders and Jotun wolf riders (and other units) turn into a riderless unit after they take damage - you might be able to use this to make full units and remnant units, to abstractly represent Groups. This might make a reasonable abstraction for companies as units. Maybe make the decimated forms be smaller unit sizes, so a front of them would have the same front strength as a front of full units.

However, speaking as a gamer with similar tastes to what it sounds yours are, I think you'd find Dominions II well worth the investment, if not exactly your dream game. I think the number of units involved works quite well, and the large battles do have a suitably impressive feel to them, even if they aren't literally tens of thousands of men.

PvK

[ January 15, 2004, 05:55: Message edited by: PvK ]

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Related to the earlier mention of modding TGAs to make it seem like there are more units.

Dominions has the ability for wounded units to change shape, or lose riders... things like that. I imagine you could mod it so that a 6-figure (MoM-size) platoon, on taking lethal damage, became a 3-figure platoon, with half the stats...

Just an idea.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

To much of interest to reply to so I'll just doodle along.

I'm like you Carl in seeing game mechanics as attempts to as accurately capture "reality" as possible. I came to gaming through history, and history through gaming, and I have never left.

I found dom1 looking for an historical PBEM and stuck with it. Sure there are many compromises but I would argue much less than Medievil Total War which, for all its flash, is deeply flawed as a representation of feudal society - a topic all to itself. I found Shogun far more convincing on this level.

On the scale question I use a figure scale in my imagining. Most discussion uses the term unit to describe a single warior you recruit. Like you I find the numbers way to small otherwise and I think Pocus has it about right suggesting 100 for a standard unit. Sure there are problems with this but I find concerns over all 100 men having lost their legs far and away secondary to fundamental questions like how many dudes are at the battle. Is this a skirmish or a battle? Damn Games Workshop! Ooops - got off topic.

I do not believe it to be a good idea to try and mod Dom to enable players to get 1000's of units at a battle. To much micormanagement involved. Others, younger and/or more fanatical, may think different but the thought scares me. You need to recruit by regiment to do this.

Could the units thing be done better - hell yes! Try out Chariots for a game that does battles and armies fundamentally well. Far more realistic than the Total War series though not enough units involved - Slitherines next product based in ancient Greece will double the number of units on a table. Slitherine is headed up by one of the worlds top ranked ancients gamers and reflects a deep understanding of warfare (if not the period which is not his speciality). However the games scope is very narrow when compared to Dom.

The key advantage of both TW and Chariots apporoach against Dominons is that you recruit a unit with multiple warriors (at whatever the scale is) rather than one warrior at whatever scale. It just looks better and its alot less fiddly than the dom system of making larger units. I would like a unit in Dom to be a regiment. Sure regiments are not perfect but they are better.

Other than that, and lots of minor gripes, Dominons slaughters the competition - including Chariots, the TW series, etc. It is the best strategy game yet made for those with a love of deep involving and highly challenging games. The added ability to produce your own scenarios and nations (I'm working on Middle Earth) is wunderbar! This game rocks and no I don't work for Illwinter. Hell they just shafted a major chunk of my favourite race designs in the patch and I'm still saying this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Cheers

Keir

[ January 15, 2004, 08:24: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

A few comments :

- When we think of epic battles, we think of tens of thousands of units, if not more... because a battle with more people always seems more important. Yet there are many times and places in History when the scales where much lower, and the battles were no less contested : the Middle Ages in Europe, some periods of Japan history, The Greek cities...

- Saying an army fielded 60,000 men doesn't mean they all made it on the battlefield. Many would be guarding the rear, or the flanks, or an important bridge 10 kilometers upstream, or even the baggage. For that matter, the "battlefield" is an approximation, fighting often occured only a a few, scattered spots.

- Even in fantasy, not all authors need tens of thousands of men everytime.

All that being said, I find a battlefield with 400 people on it, counting both side, is OK. This is a struggle in a smaller land, with less people, but it does not make it less epic. In fact, I am sure that I killed more people in my Mictlan AAR so far than died in the entire Illiad, and I am not yet in turn 10.

And the current scale has one very, very big advantage : you can survey the whole battlefield at a glance, and both see the individual soldiers and the whole army. You are not sending big square of moving pixels against each others, and you are not getting lost in the details and missing the big picture.

That being said, if you want to say each man represents 10, or 100, or 1000000, be my guest.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

I highly doubt that anyone really cares that much what ever anyone else wants to 'rationalize' as far as unit size, time scale, land dimentions...

It only matters (and even then not to everyone) when people want to effect changes in the game to accomodate some other rationalized view. For many aspects it's entirely inconsequential, for some it's detrimental to the game in some way (added complexity, added system requirements, ...) for others its such a matter of personal taste that its impossible to arrive at a consensus.

I don't get the feeling that anyone here is actually asking Illwinter to change the scope that they have built the game around, its more about resolving the incongruities in their own minds rather than trying to foist a new dynamic on everyone else. As to what 'epic' means... well that's going to differ for everyone, and everyone is going to have a different limit to which they can rationalize the inherent abstractions in the game. Its all good though, as others have said, if you like a game with good strategic depth you'll soon stop worring about the trees and start concentrating on the forest. If you can't (see the forest for the trees that is) then you'll gradually become frustrated and lose interest. Nothing wrong with that, just means Dominions isn't quite your cup of tea.

I dunno, I just find it funny (as in strange) that people need to validate their rationalizations, as if some consensus of forum dwellers saying 'yes it's 100per' or whatever should have any impact on an individuals ability to make the rationalization in the first place. Don't take that the wrong way, its not ment to be critical, just an observation that I see frequently in game forums, and it makes me wonder http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I'd be curious though to see a mod where someone tried to change the scale as others have suggested. I don't think I'd use it as I think the added micro wouldn't be worth the bother, but I'd still be interested to see how it shook out.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

A Thought or two on this topic...

First off let me say that my overall view of games very nicely syncs with the originator of this topic hehe I also really look for the "realism" underlying the fantasy of a game.

That said I think the major reason that the ancients fielded such immense armies and the more modern such smaller ones (before industrialization) is simply that as time passed better and better armaments were developed requiring geater resources and time to manufacture leading to fewer full time soldiers. (note that in medieval armies quite often more than 60% of the force are milities (peasants with farm implements mostly) with a large but almost completely ineffective force of archers (no training worth mentioning and garbage for equipment) so all total maybe 30% of the whole force were effective fighting forces hehe. but that 30% were probably more effective than 100x thier number of the ancient types.

I think DOM 2 represents that fairly well in some ways... for example a nice ulm plate wearing infantry is 28 gold 24 resources but a peasant with a bow and some rags on is 7 gold 3 resources hehe... now you can recruit 4x as many of those archers as the infantry but I'd put my money on the infantry in a fight every time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif **EDIT** that, of course, is barring magic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ January 15, 2004, 17:05: Message edited by: DimmurWyrd ]

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It makes me wonder sometimes too, though often, as in this case, I think the answer is that the person wants to avoid investing a lot of time in a game, only to find out that it's not interesting to them, generally due to logic/realism/history issues. So, the player explains the elements they would like to see included in the game, to see if there are other players with similar interests who have come to the game before them and can explain how the game fits their interests or not.

PvK

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I doubt it very much. The Trojan War written of by Homer seems to have covered large parts of western anatolia which had recently formed itself into a powerful coalition with the decline of the Hittites to the East. This was a heavily populated area.

The Mycanaens (Greeks) where essentially taking on a major rival to their trade supremacy which bought them vast wealth.

To give you an idea of the scale of the conflict shortly after the Trojan Wars the defeated peoples of Anatolia rose up and destroyed Near Eastern Civilisation as far as Egypt where the "Peoples of the Sea" were turned back and went on to settle in Palestine, Sardinia, Italy, France, Corsica . . .

It is not suprising the tale has been passed down considering the incredible human epic the Trojan Wars unleashed and the fact that the dispossed peoples of Anatolia went on to found Rome, the Etruscan league etc and then went on to mold the future of the Mediterrainian.

If I ever write a book it will be this story which has emerged recently with the ongoing translation of Hittite archives and the reports back from the dig at Thera which have provided what seem to be the missing links. Starting in 1628BC with the Volcanic eruption that destroyed of Thera (which had flush toilets and running water!) and the fleeing of the Minoans to surrounding environs including Mycanae and West Anatolia.

Regarding battle sizes I would note that Meso American Cultures (Mictlan) regularily fielded armies of over 50 000 and even battles in that backwater England were generally of 1000's not 100's.

Cheers

Keir

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's dead. At least until the source code is released to the folks which did H3/H2002 ...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Don't think they where ever available in Europe.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes.
Yes.
The interface didn't change at all - check out the screenshots.
It's really stable, and the code actually got faster when it was ported to Win32, despited a lot of goodies where added in / activated.
In fact, they got even the multiplayer part, that was in it since the beginning but never used, to work - they needed it for the military Version. These changes are "rolled back" into the normal Version.

A.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Hey Keir Maxwell,

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I got to this type of gaming in a similar fashion... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif My original roots were in pen and paper fantasy rpg's and board wargames, though, which led to computer rpg's and wargames, etc. I know that my knowledge of the then modern world expanded exponentially when I started playing Balance of Power way back when...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I could not agree more on all points (including the GW comment!) As far as the issue of afflictions, etc., I guess I don't have too hard a time imagining that a wizard could call forth powers that could afflict a large number of troops. Like you, I guess, I am more put off by the warband-sized armies (when using a 1 to 1 relationship).

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">From my relatively limited playing of the demo, I think that the game system would quickly spiral out of control if one were to try to maintain a 1 to 1 ratio and implement tens of thousands of units...talk about micromanagement to the nth degree!!! There are some great monster boardgames out there that are fun to think about (if one is into rulebook reading for fun, like I am), but playing them is darn near impossible... I always wanted to play a full campaign of Vietnam 1965-1975, but didn't have a place where I could set up the game and leave it for 2 or 3 years! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Personally, like you, I prefer the representation in games of one unit representing a number of men (probably goes back to my board wargaming days). Fitting in with that representation, I would like to see units cause less damage as they take casualties, and not necessarily lose attack or defense factors (i.e. fewer blades swinging, but those swinging have the same chance to hit)... I've always enjoyed the tough decisions that must be made when considering to refit an experienced unit, since there is always a trade-off between increasing the survivability of the unit (i.e. recovering hit points) vs. reducing the morale and/or better attack/defense Ratings that a more experienced unit possesses (i.e. to represent the inclusion of raw recruits into the unit).

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">From where I am sitting right now, I concur 100%. Granted, I have only been playing around with the demo, but the sentiment just expressed is pretty much why I started this thread. First off, I wanted to see what the scale "officially" was, and from there determine if others who have a similar game philosophy as mine could get past this issue and continue to enjoy the game as a whole. As PvK most eloquently put it in an earlier post, I have limited time to game these days and didn't want to waste that time learning a game system that I might ultimately be turned off to due to certain inconsistencies in the games' "foundation". One of my biggest pet peeves in gaming is the seeming lack of adherence to proportion and scale (most RTS' are absolutely TERRIBLE in this regard, and I agree that Medieval TW doesn't exactly earn 5 stars in its adherence to historical reality...) One game series that has really impressed me, though, is the Europa Universalis series. I find it hard to fault when it comes to the size of armies that one can raise, support issues, attrition, etc. The diplomatic system is pretty impressive, as well, IMHO.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I keep hearing this over and over again, and I am most likely going to be ordering the game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I've been waiting for a good grand strategy game based on Middle Earth, and I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I myself have been looking for a game engine that I could mod to create a Conan/Hyboria scenario (I had a bLast in days past playing Hyborian War by RSI, a play-by-mail game).

Anyway, thanks for all of your comments; and, thanks to everyone who has posted for a lively and interesting conversation.

Good gaming,
Carl G.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I could not have said it better myself... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I don't have the time to game that I once did, and try to focus what time I do have into games that I will more than likely enjoy. Certain aspects, on face value, of Dominions 2 turned me off (those being the focus of this thread), and I was eager to see what veterans of the game had to say on the matter.

I must say that I am extremely impressed with the level and civility of the discussion here, which reflects well on the game and the people who play it.

Thanks, and good gaming,
Carl G.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is somewhat funny to talk about realism when referring to a fantasy world, isn't it? I do firmly believe, though, that a well-thought out and designed fantasy or sci-fi setting will "fit together" in its own Version of "reality". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I know that whether it's a game, a book, or a movie, I always look at the underlying reality of a mythos. While I won't say that I won't enjoy a poorly designed "world", it DOES reduce my level of enjoyment. For example, let's look at the movie Underworld. Vampires rock. Werewolves are cool, too. White Wolf's World of Darkness is great (which Underworld shamelessly plagiarized). The premise of Underworld was awesome...but, the execution left me cold. Let's see...were they vampires or SpecOps guys (don't know since there didn't seem to be any difference)? And the whole 1/2 vampire, 1/2 werewolf but greater than both thing was just too lame, and a ripoff of Blade. How about Blade? No, I cannot even go there... They ruined the vampire mythos in so many ways that I can't even touch that subject (I know he's supposed to be a comic book hero, but their logic falls apart)... 1/2 man, 1/2 vampire...stronger than both? Why??? I can understand how he could tolerate sunlight, but why would he be STRONGER than a pure-blood since pure-bloods are much stronger than a human? It doesn't make sense by the rules set forth in that world's "reality".

Back to Dominions 2... I think the underlying mythos and back story that is the fabric of the game is very cool and holds most things together very well. I just have a problem with its representation of the size of military forces based on the rest of the mythos they've put together. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I guess I haven't played enough to see how the other systems hold up (i.e. population, supply, etc.), but from my limited playing thus far, I get the impression that with some abstractions to how gold and supply are represented, they'd do okay with an abstraction to the number of men in a single unit (perhaps a 100 to 1 ratio, etc.) Now if I could mod the system to where full strength units do more damage than a reduced strength unit (i.e. due to casualties and thus fewer men trying to hurt other men, and on a sliding scale with cutoffs for like 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, etc., or since a computer is handling the details make it a straight percentage drop...25% fewer hit points results in 25% less damage rating for the unit), I think I'd be able to immerse myself fully. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Give me then the ability to refit a unit, and thereby dilute experience and associated bonuses, etc. (but increase survivability due to replenished hit points), and I'd be in heavan. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Interestingly, the exact opposite seems to have been the case in the progression from the Bronze to the Iron age when more advanced weapons and armor became available. The armies of the Iron age dwarf those of the Bronze age (which has to do with a number of issues). However, your statement does certainly hold true for post-Roman Europe, which didn't see massive armies again until the 19th century. Not disagreeing completely, just throwing out an interesting trend between Bronze age and Iron age military forces.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No complaint here that the production cost ratio between inexperienced cannon fodder and professional soldier is fine. I don't have a problem with ALL of Dominions 2's systems. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Just the one that bugs me the most in games...

Good gaming,
Carl G.

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

To stirr up the discussion again:

Runciman claims that the East Roman Empire had a force of sixty thousand cavalry stationed on the Syrian frontier during the first half of the eleventh century. (Runciman, p 62)

It's from this page - an interesting reading, by the way.
(May fuel another heated discussion. Explains why DOM knights cannot trample - and are way to effective nevertheless)

And if we can agree - or at least trust the devs choice in music (medieval), DOMs settings is pretty much that of a medieval fantasy (or the other way 'round), very much like the Ars Magica Series (Paper'n'Pen RPG)

There's an interesting account about medieval warfare (and army size) in that doc, too:

Mobility was also a characteristic which suited the essential raiding nature of warfare in the medieval period, described accurately as "above all made up of pillaging, often of sieges, sometimes of battles" (Contamine, p 219) He argues for the "relative rarity of true battles" because of the very high casualty rates that accompanied them. (p 258) There is considerable evidence to support this view. The chronicle of Geoffrey Plantagenet's military campaigns mentions only skirmishing, raiding, and siege. In nineteen years of civil war in England between Stephen and Matilda, Henry of Huntington's History mentions only two actual battles, at Northallerton and Lincoln, compared with twenty four accounts of siege and constant references to 'harrying with fire and sword'. In the eighty-year period from 1136 to 1216 there are only four pitched battles, one of which took place during the Third Crusade. The battle of Arsuf was the only set piece battle, as distinct from siege and skirmish, that Richard the Lionheart actually fought.

Warfare in the medieval period is thus unlike our notion of war between nation states or large-scale societies. It is more in the nature of 'feuding' or guerre guerroyante. (Contamine,p 219) The armed forces of the Roman state, of the Byzantine empire, and of the nation states of Europe from c. 1500 until the present day are the opposite to a medieval host. They had (or have) a unified central command, paid regular units of all arms, a systematic program of training, and a hierarchical command staff. By comparison, a medieval army was an ad hoc gathering of warriors led by an hereditary aristocracy and lacking any notion of national loyalty. A gathering such as this was unsuitable for a protracted military campaign in the modern sense. The mounted warrior, however, was strategically superior to other arms in the skirmishing and raiding warfare of the period because of his ability to cover distance rapidly, and to pursue effectively.
...
One particular aspect of a battle is quite striking. The number of infantry in a set battle is always greater than the number of cavalry, and greater by a considerable degree. Runciman, for example, argues that the proportion of cavalry to infantry in the army of the First Crusade was probably one in seven, and the total force was likely to have been four and a half thousand cavalry and fifteen thousand infantry. (p 336) Duby claims that the combatants at Bouvines probably numbered some four thousand cavalry (knights as well as sergeants) and twelve thousand infantry, a proportion of one in four. ( p 63) Green's analysis of twenty-three medieval battles, admittedly mostly from the later medieval period, shows that the infantry component considerably outnumbered the cavalry in every case.
...
Green's work also shows that the cavalry are almost without exception held as a reserve force, and that many of the knights usually dismounted to fight. This is the case with all twenty-three battles he discusses. Poole, discussing the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, claims that the mounted knights formed the core of a medieval army, but that the emphasis on cavalry fighting has been exaggerated. (p 23) There is abundant evidence that knights throughout the medieval period often dismounted to fight in a pitched battle. This is stated quite explicitly in a contemporary account of the battle of the Standard in 1138. According to Henry of Huntingdon, King Stephen and his knights dismounted and took up position in the centre of the line at the battle of Lincoln, 1141 (Hallam, p 172). John Beeler (1971), writing about the period AD700-1200, says:


"..to insist that the frontal cavalry charge was the sole tactical expedient of feudal generals is to ignore the evidence that can be found about literally scores of engagements" (p 251)




A.

[ January 16, 2004, 06:02: Message edited by: Arralen ]

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I doubt it very much. The Trojan War written of by Homer seems to have covered large parts of western anatolia which had recently formed itself into a powerful coalition with the decline of the Hittites to the East. This was a heavily populated area.

The Mycanaens (Greeks) where essentially taking on a major rival to their trade supremacy which bought them vast wealth.

To give you an idea of the scale of the conflict shortly after the Trojan Wars the defeated peoples of Anatolia rose up and destroyed Near Eastern Civilisation as far as Egypt where the "Peoples of the Sea" were turned back and went on to settle in Palestine, Sardinia, Italy, France, Corsica . . .

It is not suprising the tale has been passed down considering the incredible human epic the Trojan Wars unleashed and the fact that the dispossed peoples of Anatolia went on to found Rome, the Etruscan league etc and then went on to mold the future of the Mediterrainian.

If I ever write a book it will be this story which has emerged recently with the ongoing translation of Hittite archives and the reports back from the dig at Thera which have provided what seem to be the missing links. Starting in 1628BC with the Volcanic eruption that destroyed of Thera (which had flush toilets and running water!) and the fleeing of the Minoans to surrounding environs including Mycanae and West Anatolia.

Regarding battle sizes I would note that Meso American Cultures (Mictlan) regularily fielded armies of over 50 000 and even battles in that backwater England were generally of 1000's not 100's.

Cheers

Keir </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, yes, but Homer didn't write about all these people. Actually, as far as we know, Homer didn't write at all, and the Illiad was passed down through oral tradition, but that is beside the point. Homer's poem doesn't really dwell on large number, that was my point. To me, it is already quite epic enough to see that Mitzomatec the sun warrior, despite having lost an arm, has just embedded his copper hatchet into that evil warden's skull, I don't need to see my 205th Holy Regiment of sun warriors defeat the 107th Guardian Battalion of warden with heavy losses...

Go Mitzomatec GO !!

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Stationed full time? Sounds odd. Are you sure he's not talking about the total number of mounted in the border Themes? The Byzantines during this period kept there cavalry back from the border to attack raiders as they attempted to get away with their loot. In general Runciman should be taken seriously and the Byzantince armies had huge numbers of mounted in an army which relied heavily on its mounted but still had good foot - wasn't a feudal one either obviously. While Byzantium had features of feudalism it is more analogous to Rome.

This other dude(s) seems to be overdressing his case - of course the mounted charge wasn't the sole expediant but who suggests it was? Whats the battle where the William the Conquerors son Henry beats his borther Robert by dismounting the Knights to form a front line to ther foot and is able to repulse the Norman knights charge? [edit thats Technebrai (sp?) I think - remember Technebria become the Saxons response the the Normans cry of remember Hastings.] Revenge for Senlac (Hastings) was the cry from the Saxon (becoming English) foot having beaten the Normans second time round even if this time they were ruled by one of them.

I agree with the depiction of the general low level of feudal military capability/competence and the scrapiness of their warfare but most Feudal armies had their most important elements mounted - Konradins at Tagliacozza was entirely made up of mounted - and many feudal battles were decided by knight charges and this certainly goes for most during the first crusade. Suggesting Knights were almost always kept in reserve is gross exageration and I could bore you with many accounts of feudal battles to show this to be the case. The bottom line is feudal armies varied enormously in make up from French and Normans with large amounts of Knights in some periods to Germans who used alot of foot yet still fielded an entirely mounted army at Tagliacoza. Some Spanish armies relied heavily on their above average (for the period) foot while others were mounted for speed of raiding. It depends what you are up to when you stumble into battle.

In truth feudalism is such a period of military ignorance (hell general ignorance) and stupidity that fashion and bigotry played more of a role than sense in most Generals calculations and very few Generals had a clue how to fight a large battle - which for them meant more than 1000. Bunch of ignorant, thugish, brutes the nobility but man were they staunch in the charge - almost the only thing useful they knew how to do on the battle field. I would certainly argue strongly that the charge is the central, and almost only, weapon of most Knights once on the battle field and their enitire trainging (the whole Quitain thing) was based on making them succeed at the moment of impact. Trouble is most of their leaders were so incompetent that getting the charge in could prove difficult - without Bohemond (a rare smart one)to save them the First Crusade would have failed.

Arsuf was not actually a set piece battle in the classic sense its more an attack on a marching force. That Richard did so well is a testement to his strength of character even if he was a big headed, lying, murdering, utter bastard. Richard is actually responsible for some of the worst Crusader atrocities and has been seen as one of the reasons the Saracans turned their back on Chivilrous behaviour towards the defeated (other than miltary order who they killed out of hand for good reasons). Previously a fair element of decorum had existed in delaing with prisoners who were not religous nutters.

Cheers

Keir

[ January 16, 2004, 22:12: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

Re: Unit abstraction?
 

Another point on Feudal armies.

In many ways the only way to get a really good feel for the role of Knights on the battle field is there interaction with other cultures with more sane military traditions and thus somewhat less chaotic insane, accidental battles. Its the accounts of the Arabs and Byznatines that have lead military writers to place great weight on the role of the Knights charge as this was the thing the enemies of Knights feared and why Knights turn up all over the place as mercenaries. Knights were the best shock weapons of the period and Byzantine and Arab sources make this very clear.

Who has seen the Rohan hit the Orcish line in the Movie the Return of the King? The most inspiring depiction (indeed the only detailed one) of mounted hitting foot I have ever seen and boy did they trample them. Think about the training at the Quitain on this one and you will understand knights much better - flinch and you lose is what the Quitain teaches and Knights learnt this over and over agian in the becoming of a Knight.

The difficulty is that charging mounted only trampled foot who didn't maintain their nerve and also had the capability to form a solid wall. No idea how to represent this in dom at this point but including push backs would be a big step forward.

cheers

Keir

[ January 16, 2004, 20:53: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]