March in AJE

[Matto]

I have a question to speed of armies march in AJE. It looks that armies are really quick ... is it real? I do not have any numbers, it is just feeling ... sometimes it looks like armies are motorized

Others feelings?

[lekseus]

I don't have the same feeling. There are too ways of running to extremes: too much history and too less gameplay and vice versa. So, keep in mind: this is a game, not a antiqiuty simulator

[yellow ribbon]

I have a question to speed of armies march in AJE. It looks that armies are really quick ... is it real? I do not have any numbers, it is just feeling ... sometimes it looks like armies are motorized

Others feelings?

in the years the legions started to colonize Austria (after +5), they had 30 Km in rough, wooded terrain. EACH DAY, half the year. just as patrolling, showing off.
twenty Roman miles, 18.4 miles, 29.6 km and they had FIVE HOURS for this distance.

provided that a large column could stretch out at least eight mile, 2/3 in the front, then the train/luggage, then 1/3 of the troops, you can assume higher distances in field, but understand why they used streets whenever it was possible.

my best advice, accept the fast pace, but use the extreme delayed orders option for your troops, that would be close to reality

[Matto]

I know, I do not want simulate everything, but as I wrote, my feeling for fun and good gameplay is that armies are too quick (compare with Rise of Prussia etc.)
When are not so quick, I must be more sure what to do and where to send any troops ... now is easy be in two turns near anywhere on the map ...

[Matto]

So ok, lets say 30km per each day is real ... from Neapole to Barcelona it is about 1800km = 60 days ... in AJE are my forces able do it in 38 days ... so I feel some small difference

[yellow ribbon]

When are not so quick, I must be more sure what to do and where to send any troops ... now is easy be in two turns near anywhere on the map ...

well said, but people already asked for 14-day-turns, the game would be too unpredictable ^^

[yellow ribbon]

So ok, lets say 30km per each day is real ... from Neapole to Barcelona it is about 1800km = 60 days ... in AJE are my forces able do it in 38 days ... so I feel some small difference

dont tell it the devs, but i already asked for higher supply consume while marching as a potential post-beta-point (yes we have such ones, but the devs no time). it would create more stops in between.
and one can argue of higher cohesion loss too, a army can already be unable to move Rome-Sicily-Rome within two turns, gets extreme movement rate reduction from low cohesion after one turn...

PS: same what you described was said from me for the southend, the Cyrenaica

[Matto]

OK, I will quickly delete this thread ...

[yellow ribbon]

nay, but we can ask wise Rafiki shift it to the historical discussion

when i had similar concerns while testing, this helped me to get into the topic (i have a empirical academical background):
http://garyb.0catch.com/march2_basics/march_basics.html

but i find his 10 miles example too low

[JacquesDeLalaing]

well said, but people already asked for 14-day-turns, the game would be too unpredictable ^^

Why do you say "but"? I think that 15 day-turns would help to fix Mattos issue that armies are too unpredictable because of their huge reach. Instead of lowering their speed, one can also circumvent the game-play-consequences of their "speed" (=unpredictability) by increasing reaction ability.

I guess that the number of regions can also increase (high number of regions) or decrease (low number of regions) unpredictability. If there are too many regions, armies will be able to dance-by each other and it will be hard to force decisions, and also to gather information about the enemy (same amount of eclaireur-troops but more regions to cover...). Therefore I'm not quite sure if the current map-project (split up most regions by 2) is a good idea. An increase in the number of regions would have big effects on gameplay if there are no means to counter the increasing unpredictability (more skirmishers, lower turn-intervalls,...). On the other hand, my feeling is that RoP was perhaps a bit too restrictive in this matter (relatively small areas with limited regions / fewer movement options). And the "marching to the sounds of the guns" made it even more restrictive.

[yellow ribbon]

thats simple, these are two different issues: speed of troops in a 14 days turn would not change. they still can march 3-4 days each province and cross a whole country before even being able to intercept them.

once you loose line of sight, you loose them. thats it. now remember all the other threads, stopping armies despite red-red orders when they even meet resistance is a nuisance for some, that armies might NOT stop and move to the endpoint far away for other players etc
so lowering the turn duration will cause pain to that and that many players and making others completely happy.

I think, the AI needs improvement before something like lower turn duration should be addressed. the rest i cannot discuss outside of the beta-forum

[JacquesDeLalaing]

thats simple, these are two different issues: speed of troops in a 14 days turn would not change. they still can march 3-4 days each province and cross a whole country before even being able to intercept them.

Of course you're right. But I was refering to the game-play-consequences of the speed, which is, if I have understood Matto correctly, unpredictability. Of course, if you loose an enemy out of sight, he's gone. But with shorter turn intervalls, you can at least be sure that he's not located somewhere within a huge 5 region-radius (e.g. 20 possible regions), but only in a small 1-region-radius (e.g. 4 possible regions). So it does make a big difference. It will be easier to keep contact with enemy forces and also to intercept them and there would be less punishement incase you "missed" the enemy. Having the enemy still within reach would be more forgiving.

now remember all the other threads, stopping armies despite red-red orders when they even meet resistance is a nuisance for some, that armies might NOT stop and move to the endpoint far away for other players etc
so lowering the turn duration will cause pain to that and that many players and making others completely happy.

I'm not quite sure if I understand you correctly here. But if players complain about even minor engagements stopping their armies dead in their tracks, then shorter turn intervalls would also help a bit, as players would only loose 10 days if they had been stopped on day 5, and not 20, as it would be the case with 30 day-intervalls? It would be a kind of middle ground for both player-groups that you've described.

Shorter turn intervalls would increase the operational flexibility of armies in many ways, especially as long as there is no "wait for x days" order. With the current long turn intervalls, you have to waste a lot of time if you don't want to move your forces around blindly - it's a matter of: "number of regions that a force can cover in one turn" versus "how far does the detection/line of sight of a force reach". If a force can move much farther than its' line of sight, then the game is getting unpredictable (to an extent that I'd consider implausible). Even if you put up a skirmisher/detection screen, armies can push through that screen and still engage your main force in the very same turn. So you'd need to put up a tremendous amount of detection forces all over the area in order to be able to get a feeling if you're within reach and danger or not. Shortening the turn intervalls would not make armies slower in general, but it would limit the amount of regions that a force can cover in a single turn - to a number that fits better to the detection ranges in the game (imho).

Granted, a certain degree of unpredictability contributes to the tension, plausibility and overall appeal of the game. I don't want to miss it. It is even neccessary to represent the delay of information in the pre-telegraph-era. (ideally it should be connected to the distance that the messenger has to travel to ..well you? Every game has its limits). But I think that 30 days are over the top. It takes away any chance to predict your enemy's movement, so that you have less arguments or information to base your plans on (and planning is the greatest thing in AGEOD games! ). In Rop, I was able to go through all the possible movements of enemy troops and potentially cut them off/surround them. In AJE, I can't. But then again I still think I might have a rather strange approach to the game. Other players might play it differently and put more emphasis on other aspects of the game. I might be too much focused on micro-aspects, while being incapable of grapsing the bigger strategic picture (which is why I always plead for small scenarios! :mdr .

[Cfant]

Well, I have to agree. As fas as I know, Roman legions could achieve a 30 km per day (dont know if they could hold this speed for a longer period). Didn't test, but I guess troops are a little too fast in the game. BUT: I want a game to feel historic, not to be historic If the devs (sounds like devil ) have to decide between historic authenticity and game play, I prefer them to take game play! Always and ever - for me it's more important. The other point is the 14 days vs. 1 month. The "problem" is: For enemy troops can move so fast, there is no strategic value in certain regions. Defending the Alps would be strategic wise in RL, but if the enemy can go around you AND still cross the alps on an other spot, there is no use in doing so. Sure, he will loose more cohesion, but still... In WiA you can force the enemy to take a certain way by blocking him. You can also force him to stop or battle. That's not possible in AJE. I think that's why many players would like 14 days or things like that.
Still, in every game decisions must be made. The devs decided for this way, and made a really great game (as soon as the most bugs are eliminated ). So I won't complain

[JacquesDeLalaing]

The other point is the 14 days vs. 1 month. The "problem" is: For enemy troops can move so fast, there is no strategic value in certain regions. Defending the Alps would be strategic wise in RL, but if the enemy can go around you AND still cross the alps on an other spot, there is no use in doing so. Sure, he will loose more cohesion, but still... In WiA you can force the enemy to take a certain way by blocking him. You can also force him to stop or battle. That's not possible in AJE. I think that's why many players would like 14 days or things like that.

I can't quite follow you to 100%. Taking a route to circumvent the alps will of course take longer (and thereby draw more cohesion) than using a pass. There's no difference between 15 day intervalls and 30 day intervalls here. But the point is: with 30 day intervalls, you will be slower to react once you've noticed that the enemy has taken another route. Instead of being able to react after 15 days, your troops will still stand there and defend the pass against their own shadows for 15 additional days, while the other force is happily marching on. This delay might give the circumventing force the time it needs to recover from its long march. Even though this is a highly hypothetical situation, it shows that long intervalls diminish the tactical appeal and fine-tuning of the game a bit. 15 days can be very, very, very important, yet they often end up but as a wastage of the lavish 30 day-turns. They are lost and won by the blur/unsharpness of the turn-intervalls/reaction-ability, not by the players.

[Blind Sniper]

Why do you say "but"? I think that 15 day-turns would help to fix Mattos issue that armies are too unpredictable because of their huge reach. Instead of lowering their speed, one can also circumvent the game-play-consequences of their "speed" (=unpredictability) by increasing reaction ability.

+1.
I agree that come back to 15 days per turn would improve the game in several ways.
Now if your stack switch order for whatever reason you "waste" a lot of time, you lose contact with enemy too easily, too much turns to take small cities, you cannot quickly react to enemy actions, very few summer turns, etc...

[JacquesDeLalaing]

Oh well I've forgotten about sieges. They would need to be adapted to the new intervals because they're based on turns, not on days (like movement). I don't know if it is the same with reinforcements (days or turns?).

[jimwinsor2]

Designers made the right call in this case going with 30 day turns. Scenario length is such that the game can be comfortably played in an evening or two. Plus in this time period, lack of speedy communications justifies move reaction to monthly as opposed to bi-weekly.

[yellow ribbon]

So ok, lets say 30km per each day is real ... from Neapole to Barcelona it is about 1800km = 60 days ... in AJE are my forces able do it in 38 days ... so I feel some small difference

just for the sake that i am having a game open. While

- a legion with full cohesion will take 24 turns for Rome-Messana (Sicily) 714 KM on the modern highway

- an AUX Rome - Narbo with low cohesion 1110 KM on a modern highway, would need 47 days

[color="#FFFF00"]maybe the AUX and Supply wagons should reduce the stacks velocity even more / should be even more slower.
what do you think as players[/color] ?

[JacquesDeLalaing]

Designers made the right call in this case going with 30 day turns. Scenario length is such that the game can be comfortably played in an evening or two. Plus in this time period, lack of speedy communications justifies move reaction to monthly as opposed to bi-weekly.

To exagerate: But I prefer a fine-tuned rapier over a blunt hammer, even if I had to play for several evenings. And judging from previous games, I don't think that typical AGEOD players consider it a necessary prerequisite for a game to be "finishable" in two evenings. Anyway, I think I've made my opinion clear enough by now.

[Narwhal]

On the 15 / 30 days turn, it was a design decision which had to be taken very early in game development, I suppose - and then the decision had to be final. 15 days turns is more "realistic", but make the campaign much too long. 30 days was good enough for WIA, after all.

I had calculated quickly whether it was possible for an army to go from Dyrrachium to Athens in less than one month, and it looked OK, but I think I took into account Sulla's bonus and maybe more than 30 km / day.

[caranorn]

nay, but we can ask wise Rafiki shift it to the historical discussion

when i had similar concerns while testing, this helped me to get into the topic (i have a empirical academical background):
http://garyb.0catch.com/march2_basics/march_basics.html

but i find his 10 miles example too low

Interesting link. I'll have to look at a few books I have lying around and old links on my computer sometime for that topic. In any case, what that site explains nicely is how an army's speed is directly linked to an army's size and composition. That is the larger the army, the longer the column and therefore the slower the march (as long as the army moves as a single force). The 30 km march we know so well for roman legionaries might be just that, what a small detachment could march under good conditions (roman road, decent weather) (iirc 30 km is about a 7 hours march assuming regular water breaks along the march, which is quite reasonable if you add the time needed to set up fortified camp afterwards) and an army's march is likely to be much closer to the 10 miles/day given on that website (somewhere I have historic march rate comparisons from Antiquity to the modern age lying around, wish I knew where)...

In any case, as long as road congestion (and wear and tear) cannot be simulated this will be difficult to portray. Therefore the easier approach is indeed look into march distances for all forces (as long as they are in command and in good health). And there the average should be somewhere bellow 30 km/day as that march rate could probably not be kept up...

One other thing to consider, roads in this time are not (always) straight as an arrow, that is to say they will navigate around certain obstacles etc.

Note, I just looked in game and am shocked. I gave a commanded legion located in Toletum (Hispania) a march order for Pisae (Italia) which the game tells me should take 27 days. In real life that's a distance of 1686 (using modern roads) according to via michelin. That means a daily march rate of 62,5 km which is much too high. Replacing the legion by an auxilia I get 52 days (32,5 km/day), an equites 36 days (47 km/day) and an impedimenta 50 days (34 km/day). The officer I gave command to those various units has no movement bonus (Quintus Cassius Longinus in Caesar vs. Pompeius scenario), elements involved average betw. 0 and 2 star experience (so nothing mutch if experience even matters). Weather should be good along the entire way (July). So overall this (very limited) example would indicate much too high a march rate. This shoudl definitelly be looked into...

[Narwhal]

You make a compelling case indeed.

[Kensai]

Note, I just looked in game and am shocked. I gave a commanded legion located in Toletum (Hispania) a march order for Pisae (Italia) which the game tells me should take 27 days. In real life that's a distance of 1686 (using modern roads) according to via michelin. That means a daily march rate of 62,5 km which is much too high. Replacing the legion by an auxilia I get 52 days (32,5 km/day), an equites 36 days (47 km/day) and an impedimenta 50 days (34 km/day). The officer I gave command to those various units has no movement bonus (Quintus Cassius Longinus in Caesar vs. Pompeius scenario), elements involved average betw. 0 and 2 star experience (so nothing mutch if experience even matters). Weather should be good along the entire way (July). So overall this (very limited) example would indicate much too high a march rate. This shoudl definitelly be looked into...

If your numbers are right then it needs to be corrected indeed. HOWEVER, are we sure the estimate the game gives before the turn starts is always accurate? If even one unit in the stack drops to low cohesion, then it slows down the entire stack. Moreover, it is important to tweak the game for realistic marching distances, but please bear in mind that rarely you will give a long march order in a game that has 30-day turns as if you meet a rival army after the 25th your cohesion might be disastrously low...

[yellow ribbon]

well,

- we know from Gaul that the advanced guard was sometimes 3 days ahead,

- we know that many legions were well below 2000 men

- and Carnuntum and later places around the Limes, we know that the 30 KM were a normal TRAINING distance. even for ad hoc forces of three cohorts and later the infamous 1200/1400 men legions

thinking about that modern armies, after the 17. century low pace, walked around 10-15 miles a day (including de-camping/encampment) and todays training is based on long distance marches with an average of 10 KM each hour ( while one break of at least 20 min. for 40+ KM marches, 7 Km each hour minimum distance) the 30 KM seam reasonable.

especially if the train / luggage was often burned. otherwise the link is reasonable, mules will hardly march more then 4-5 miles a hour for many days, even modern horses shouldnt be used more than 15km each day or they need rest the next day

*********************

I read for the Varus battle, 3 legions, they had a column stretched out to a degree (supposed to be roughly 15 KM) that they could be attacked for 4 days.
but its known that they managed to build at least two fortified areas during that 4 days. and you know, any situation couldnt be worse.


************************

for your example, was the commander activated or not. i figure the non-activated-movement-malus could be higher, buts only an opinion. if you need 3 or 4 days doesnt really matter for each province
you feel the pain only if cohesion is already below 60%, i think to recall.

[yellow ribbon]

. That means a daily march rate of 62,5 km which is much too high. Replacing the legion by an auxilia I get 52 days (32,5 km/day), an equites 36 days (47 km/day) and an impedimenta 50 days (34 km/day). ..


thats what i did mean above. higher penalty from AUX and supply wagon would be desirable, at least. remember, its easy to alter the legion as it should loose more cohesion and supply on the march, then it would need to stop anyway.

the problem i see it that large stacks of completely different units can be shuffled around too fast, as soon free roads come into the game. the velocity is ok, but the malus of troops composition and the CONSTANT velocity are a problem.

as said above, if you take Caesar and move him Rome-Sicily-Rome with the stack from Ravenna, his cohesion can drop that far that he needs 24 day down there and over 40 days back.
but if no malus comes into the calculation, he even recovers from all losses, not needing the second half of the second turn...

[JacquesDeLalaing]

Reducing overall movement speed would also help to reduce unpredictability (though in a less elegant way than shorter turn intervalls) by adjusting movement speed to the line of sight a bit more. But, as yellow ribbon has said, reducing the speed of a single unit type (support units/impedimenta) will only lead to players forming seperate stacks with them (while only suffering a relatively small combat malus). The problem of constant high movement speed can only be tackled via cohesion (more cohesion loss/slower recovery/higher movement malus for lack of cohesion). By the way: do you know if cohesion loss (which is certainly calulated "live", during the turn) affects movement speed during a single turn (whenever a stack wants to enter a new region, for example), or is the movement speed determined based on the cohesion status at the beginning of the turn, only once, no matter how many regions you want to travel through?

I can imagine though that the AI might run into problems with bigger effects of cohesion? Moreover, I wanted to point out that cohesion (and thereby movement speed) is also affected by national morale to a certain (rather small) extent.

[caranorn]

well,

- we know from Gaul that the advanced guard was sometimes 3 days ahead,

- we know that many legions were well below 2000 men

- and Carnuntum and later places around the Limes, we know that the 30 KM were a normal TRAINING distance. even for ad hoc forces of three cohorts and later the infamous 1200/1400 men legions

thinking about that modern armies, after the 17. century low pace, walked around 10-15 miles a day (including de-camping/encampment) and todays training is based on long distance marches with an average of 10 KM each hour ( while one break of at least 20 min. for 40+ KM marches, 7 Km each hour minimum distance) the 30 KM seam reasonable.

especially if the train / luggage was often burned. otherwise the link is reasonable, mules will hardly march more then 4-5 miles a hour for many days, even modern horses shouldnt be used more than 15km each day or they need rest the next day

*********************

I read for the Varus battle, 3 legions, they had a column stretched out to a degree (supposed to be roughly 15 KM) that they could be attacked for 4 days.
but its known that they managed to build at least two fortified areas during that 4 days. and you know, any situation couldnt be worse.


************************

for your example, was the commander activated or not. i figure the non-activated-movement-malus could be higher, buts only an opinion. if you need 3 or 4 days doesnt really matter for each province
you feel the pain only if cohesion is already below 60%, i think to recall.

I don't see why roman armies should march substantially faster than modern ones (assuming both are foot with horse/mule transport only). Are you sure about that 10 km/hour figure? I don't see how that could be done (I'm tall and my leasurely walk is 6 km hour which I can easily raise to 8, maybe 9 and maintain for an hour or two without a break (walk is part of my work) regardless of elevations as long as I'm on firm ground) without jogging (double time, which is not sustainable)...

Anyhow, I made a quick search with google and found this discussion: http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/302487-march-speed-rates.html Seems they are thinking roughly as we do that 30 km (20 roman miles) is a theoretical march rate, that large forces will not be able to achieve it, but that a moderate force force-marching can exceed it. Also that taking the wagon train would greatly slow a force down...

To note, nothing I've read so far covers a supposed march sustained for a whole month. That is one other thing to consider, that all examples we have from history cover a period up to say 10 days marching. we have to assume a gradual decrease in marching rate as a force gets exhausted (therefore indeed more cohesion loss in game terms)...

Just one more comment. Modern horses can easily travel more than 15 km a day, they just have to be trained accordingly. 15 km is about a two hour ride (assuming mostly walk and a bit of trot, which makes me wonder whether horses in the roman era could commonly use the "pace" gait, between walk and trot, very sustainable, but today only natural to a very few rugged breeds and trainable for a few more (mostly trotters), in the middle ages quite a few horses (before our modern breeds appeared) were still able to go at the pace). Even a moderately fit horse could do that on succesive days. A well trained horse could easily do 40 km/day for several weeks (a friend plans such a trip next year, from the Belgian Eifel to the Spanish Pyrenees). And a pre-1945 military horse can be supposed to be in a similar level of fitness. All of course assumes sufficient fodder (40 km/day marches will require oats in addition to hay, probably 1-2 kg oats (note I don't ride endurance so can only guess, I hardly ever feed a horse more than 200 g / day, though I could look it up in feed manuals), probably 10+ kg hay...

Got to get ready for work now (as one might guess it does involve horses and walking), will probably do some additional searches later in the day...

[caranorn]

Two quick points:

1) I'd say the best estimates should assume marching under green/green orders, that is to say with minimal cohesion loss, maximal cohesion regain in friendly territory. Also take into consideration that the very high march rates we can find were under leaders who'd have a movement trait in AGE and under force march orders...

2) Another link, no time to look it through but some of the data sounds familiar http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/mil_hist_inst/m/march2.asc ...

P.S.: The legion in my test probably had more than 100 movement coeficient, I can't be certain before checking tonight, but I think it was a gaulish unit (it was one of the weaker ones which had marched with caesar from Gaul to Hispania and were left there after conquest, the weaker ones seem to have a higher movement percentage)...

[Wiking]

The fast moving of units is one of my few complaints regarding AJE. In my current game, Pompey not only broke out of Spain in 30 days, but a few of his legions were already half-way through Gaul, taking huge swathes of undefended land in the process. Surely in real life a legion wouldn't be able to march from Hispania half-way to the Channel in a month?

[JacquesDeLalaing]

One more thing to consider:

I've experienced here* that movement boni and mali have bigger effects when you're moving in difficult terrain than when you're moving in favourable terrain (where you might notice hardly any difference at all). This is due to the fact that the game has days as the smallest time unit and the boni/mali are calculated in %. Example:

Assuming a movement penalty of 15% due to a 30% cohesion lack:
Favourable terrain (3 days to enter): 3*1,15=3.45 - which is not enough to add a whole day to the movement (assuming that rounding works this way...)
Unfavourable terrain (9 days to enter): 9*1,15=10,35 - it will take an additional day to enter the region

So I think that a small increase in the base values (days needed to enter a region), especially for favourable terrain, OR a bigger effect of cohesion lack on movement speed would be quite important if we wanted to feel the effects of cohesion more. Increasing cohesion loss per day or reducing recovery rate alone doesn't do the trick.

* In a special situation, I wondered why forced marches didn't give me a bigger speed-boost. The reason was: as I planned to move over roads, because of which it took me only 3 days per region, the speed bonus of the forced march was not enough to reduce the time needed to move through regions by a whole day as long as I also had a movement malus of 10% for being under-commanded. Without the 10% undercommanded-malus, the forced march gave me a speed boost of a full day per region, even on roads. Only when I planned to move over mountains instead, the forced march showed effects despite of the 10% undercommandment-malus, simply because x percent of 9 days are more than x percent of 3 days (which was not enough to reach the threshold of a full day). To put it in a nutshell: the effect of cohesion on movement speed (and for that purpose all other speed-modifications, e.g. the unit movement coefficient?) differs depending on terrain (and weather and unit type). It tends to become less perceptible in favourable terrain (or with fast units or in good weather), where some effects might be lost due to "rounding". This unsharpness of rounding becomes more perceptible when accumulated by movement through multiple regions.