Static supply and surrender

[squarian]

I believe my reply in another thread is apropos to this discussion, so I hope it's acceptable to link it.

The question of rare freak results is probably not that helpful - obviously, they can happen and should be possible in a game. Obviously, by definition, they shouldn't happen very often.

The real issue is what should be normal, and therefore what should the player reasonably expect, and therefore what strategy will he adopt.

The fact of an 18th c. general's life was that fortresses usually could defy an enemy until a systematic siege conducted according to Vauban's scientific principles was prepared and carried out.

In effect, that meant that generals ordinarily expected not to able to take a fortress quickly. Nor could a fortress be ignored and left behind one's line of communications. Conversely, a general on the defensive could be reasonably secure either inside or behind a line of fortresses. The result was that siege warfare dominated the era.

These realities shaped 18th c. strategy and therefore the nature of 18th c. warfare. If fortresses don't function in the game they way they actually did in reality, players will conform their strategy to this different reality and the game will not resemble it's topic.

I don't think I've played enough yet to say with certainty that fortresses don't work the way they should, but I have seen some worrying indications. Fortunately though, AGE has a sterling reputation for sticking with their designs until they get them right, so I am sure all will be well.

[Jarkko]

My internet connection at home was dead, so wasn't able to upload/send the save yesterday. According to the phone-company it should be fixed today.


@squarian: Good post!

[rogs]

I don't agree that fortresses are too easy; in some cases they are more difficult than historical

glatz in 1760 and schwiednitz in 1761 were stormed by loudon with brilliant surprise assaults, without regular sieges, both fortresses taken undamaged

in ROP an assault cannot be launched until a breach has been made; this means the actual historical events at schwiednitz and glatz cannot be replicated

at the very least loudon should have a new special ability that permits him to assault unbreached fortresses

[PhilThib]

Good news, we will try for next patch to have a special attribute for general Laudon to allow him assaulting unbreached fortresses

[Bertram]

I dont know if I like that - it means that in game the player can send Laundon and be sure that he can assault an unbreached fortress. And that the defender knows he is safe if it isnt Laundon that assaults him.

That was not the case historically - it was just that Laundon was an optimist/briljant tactician/crazy gambler/real lucky/theoretically challanged and managed to pull of something that should not be normally possible according to the then current theory.

So, I would like to suggest a (very small) chance that an army can assault an unbreached fortress, incrasing with the number of breaches, and with a modifier for Laundon. That way there is always a chance of an assault, but a very small one for unbreached fortresses, and some generals have a better chance then others. I think this reflects better the historical uncertaincy and the chances of war.

[arsan]

So, I would like to suggest a (very small) chance that an army can assault an unbreached fortress, incrasing with the number of breaches, and with a modifier for Laundon. That way there is always a chance of an assault, but a very small one for unbreached fortresses, and some generals have a better chance then others. I think this reflects better the historical uncertaincy and the chances of war.

Sound very reasonable to me!
But again we have the "historical uncertainty" vs the "player total control" debate

[Bertram]

Yes, I vaguely recall we have discussed this before

[lodilefty]

Rule now active in latest 1.01i patch currently in last beta check:

If there is a supply unit or a depot with at least some remaining supplies, then there is a 95% chance that any surrender event is aborted.

If there is not such unit or structure, or the chance roll fails, then a surrender event can happen (others possible events are: make a breach or nothing). In the case that besieged units are under siege by a larger force, have some units unsupplied and a breach is already existing, then the surrender event has an increased chance to happen, because it is based on the discipline of the besieged units and such units will get a -3 modifier to the roll.

So: Only 5% chance to even start the 'surrender sequence' if you have a depot or supply unit that is not 'empty' [this was 20% before 1.01i, and was even 50% before 1.01g !!!]

New rule: There is a -3 modifier to your TQ roll [the roll that causes surrender. Low quality troops more likely to surrender] only if there is a breach and the besieging force is more powerful.
This is a rather large modifier, but at least it is still not a certainty once supply is depleted.

In short, there is much less chance due to supply protection, then you gain benfit if there is no breach or the besieger is weak.

hehe, do I dare to ask why anyone would hide in a fortress if you are stronger than the besieger????

[squarian]

Rule now active in latest 1.01i patch currently in last beta check:

That sounds very good to me - thanks, Lodi. Hope it's working well in the beta - can't wait to give it a spin.

(Though it looks like I'll have to wait, since I managed to drench my laptop in beer last night. Scratch one flattop. Fortunately, it wasn't very good beer. :bonk

[Jarkko]

I didn't have Internet access on Thursday (despite the phone combpany promising they should fix that) and as I was out of town from Friday morning until a few minutes ago... I guess my save isn't needed anymore.

5% chance means that if there is 5-10 sieges going on (like I seem to have in the later phases of the campaign game) each turn, it is still very likely we'll see massive un-historical garrison surrenders. Those just didn't happen in the 7YW (which had lots and lots of sieges going on, at times armies avoiding each other on purpose so that decisive battles wouldn't take place, especially late in the war), so I don't understand why those are in. This game is not Napoleonic wars, this shoul after all supposed to be about the Seven Year War, right?

Well, what ever. I think I'll play something else for now, perhaps I will some day see the light why such an un-historical option is deemed to be necessary

[Ebbingford]

I didn't have Internet access on Thursday (despite the phone combpany promising they should fix that) and as I was out of town from Friday morning until a few minutes ago... I guess my save isn't needed anymore.

5% chance means that if there is 5-10 sieges going on (like I seem to have in the later phases of the campaign game) each turn, it is still very likely we'll see massive un-historical garrison surrenders. Those just didn't happen in the 7YW (which had lots and lots of sieges going on, at times armies avoiding each other on purpose so that decisive battles wouldn't take place, especially late in the war), so I don't understand why those are in. This game is not Napoleonic wars, this shoul after all supposed to be about the Seven Year War, right?

Well, what ever. I think I'll play something else for now, perhaps I will some day see the light why such an un-historical option is deemed to be necessary

You might want to reconsider the "unhistorical option" bit.

For example the siege of Shweidnitz, started on 26th October 1757, garrison of 6000 men, capitulated on the 14th November 1757.
For details see http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=1757_-_Siege_of_Schweidnitz

This was a very brief resistance for such a strong fortress.

[arsan]

Besides, if i understand it right its not a 5% surrender chance, but a 5% chance than while still supplied, all the dice rolling around to see if the garrison may or may not surrender gets started.

[lodilefty]

Besides, if i understand it right its not a 5% surrender chance, but a 5% chance than while still supplied, all the dice rolling around to see if the garrison may or may not surrender gets started.

That is my understanding also.

..and this is an easily modded value, if a player has incurable heartburn over even that small [and apparently historically accurate ] chance.

[Jarkko]

You might want to reconsider the "unhistorical option" bit.

For example the siege of Shweidnitz, started on 26th October 1757, garrison of 6000 men, capitulated on the 14th November 1757.
For details see http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=1757_-_Siege_of_Schweidnitz

Oh yeah, you found one capitulation from the seven years of war. Good for you. Still, the siege siege took in game terms two turns, which is about 100% more than one turn. And there were over three times more besiegers than besieged (and in game terms, the Austrian engineers and siege mortars were present). Suprisingly short siege, yes, and definitively something I wouldn't have a problem to see in the game.

But that is not what is in the game, with 5% chance per siege per turn for an out-of-the-blue capitulation. If the chance was 1%*and* the siege would require to have lasted at least two turns and the besieger would require at least three times more troops than the besieged (like in the case of Schweidnitz), we would *still* see many more capitulations in the game than actually happened during the war, and on a much larger scale than Schweidnitz.

I am sorry if I sound blunt, but have you even played the full campaing game so far? If you have, do you honestly claim you didn't see lots and lots of sieges ending much more sooner than you thought would be fitting for a campaing of this era? If not, then there is something wrong with either my or your game

[Ebbingford]

but have you even played the full campaing game so far?

I've been beta testing it for months, so yes!

Under 1.01i there are far less of these sudden surrenders though, see Pocus's notes at the top of 1.01i. It does seem a lot better.

[Jarkko]

I've been beta testing it for months, so yes!

I've been testing quite a few strategy games over the years too (both computer and tabletop games), and I know for a fact the beta testers are not usually that keen to actually play the full game immediatly after the game actually is released (having burned themselves out trying to hunt bugs and make the game crash by trying various things, which is *not* the same as actually *playing* the game) So, excuse me if my question sounded offensive, but the very reason I asked was because I saw you are a beta tester of ROP

[PhilThib]

Cool Keeping a low 5% chance of potential surrender is acceptable...that could be considered as a way to treat a key factor in warfare in the Age of Reason, which was 'Honors of War'...at some point, fortress commanders, even when the situation was not totally desperate, would request Honors of War to the besieger, who often granted it

[Pocus]

This is not 5% chance to surrender per turn.

This is 5% chance that, IF you failed miserably your dice roll and have to surrender, your supply depot/wagon won't protect you from that.

[Knight of the Realm]

Surely at the level you are meant to be a commander in the AGEOD system you don't necessarily know what the hell is actually happening on the ground as it were. I agree that as long as these unexpected results happen rarely, it should not be considered an issue. As somebody said, expect the worst, build in a contingency plan in case it all goes tits up!

Personally I like the odd bit of chaos, though I am sympathetic to being frustrated when things go a little bit awry! I only get really frustrated when something happens that I can't understand, though there have been moments playing the AGEOD games when I too have felt like giving up when it all goes horribly wrong and not according to my meticulous to plan!!! But surely that should be part of the fun! Was it Von Moltke who said: "A plan only lasts until first contact with the enemy..." Isn't this what FOW or Friction is all about? War is inherently chaotic.

One of the things I always hated about old board wargame's odds based CRTs was their predictability - you always knew that if you got the right odds , you would win, and that always felt wrong to me (okay those odds might be 6-1, or more, but even so...). One of my favourite BWGs GMT's "Lost Victory" had a SNAFU table, that added a bit of unpredictability to the CRT, which I really liked... (it was meant to represent orders getting lost or misinterpreted, bad weather, timings, logistics constraints etc. IIRC there were the counterpoints too, and the odd unexpected success against all odds...).

I must admit I wouldn't mind seeing a few ahistorical (or even counterfactual) options... (choices on starting the game that could add some more variety).

Cheers

[Pocus]

Loosing is fun. Yeah, that what the dwarves say