Added discussion thread for Goblinworks Blog: You're in the Army Now!.
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm enormously excited to see the idea of cohesion addressed in the game. It's what's at the heart of what I study as a researcher, so this is a heckabomb nerdgasm :)
I applaud you all for thinking about this, and in so doing I see true innovation. One question I have is about whether you plan to have trust be part of cohesion.
Cohesion is about placing the welfare of the group above the individuals. It's why Marines hump, and place so much meaning on performance on humps (go on forced marches). It has very little practical value: at The Basic School (TBS) only about 13% of Marines will be in infantry/provisional infantry jobs, and even for them there won't be a lot of extended foot movements (at least in the current operating environment). And yet it's incredibly important to Marines--you can't graduate OCS if you can't complete humps, and Marines evaluate each other in the strongest terms possible based on performance during humps. The reason is because it's a physical proxy for the moral: for you values hierarchy, and whether you put the group (and hanging with the group) above yourself (i.e. falling out because your pain is what matters to you).
In the real world, cohesion has stakes, because you're at risk (for suffering in training, for death/wounding in combat), and so cohesion is enacted in combat through trust. That's why Marines at TBS all read Gates of Fire: cohesion is trusting that the hoplite to your right won't drop his shield--you can drop your sword and be forgiven, but you can never be forgiven for dropping your shield, because you've f***ed your comrade to the left.
But in the game, where's the stakes? How do I enact trust (show cohesion) when dying means nothing?
If cohesion in this game is about coordination, then that's pretty interesting, and adds a lot to the game--good on you guys. But if there was a way to really have cohesion--caring more about the group than yourself--it would be amazing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We wanted to give players a reason to form into units and to maintain unit cohesion.
Awesome! There have been some attempts at this before, but nothing that's seemed to work yet.
... the better each player is at maintaining the unit's cadence of actions, the more effective that unit is.
Did I say "Awesome!" yet?
What we hope to create is a system where players naturally re-create a lot of real-world military tactics and strategies.
I am cautiously optimistic that this will include "strategies" like Division-level feints, and strategic misdirection.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is really exciting for me to read! I've got my doubts that this can be done well, but I can't wait to see it. The reference to Guitar Hero kinda scares me. I hope they can make mass combat using this system fun for individual players and not just the unit leaders. I think it'd be kinda silly and boring to sit and push certain arrow keys for an hour, trying to stay in sinc with your buddies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Very impressed with this week's offering. We will be our own raid content! Very, very nice.
Dunno that I like the DDR example, but I suppose that to mean we'll need to coordinate actions, not mash buttons, right?
Your guess is as good as mine.
It sounds like there will probably be a series of commands for the officer to be able to give in order to move the unit around, put it into a defensive posture, engage enemy, charge, hold, flank, turn, and a variety of other small unit tactics. Those commands will have a corresponding button on a special group tactics toolbar that the grunts in the unit have to hit within a window of time with being either early or late being bad.
For example: The officer yelling "Advance!" means that on a certain beat (generic term designating a period of time and in now way related to DDR) you need to press the button labeled 'advance'. "Wheel left" means you need to hit the one that turns the unit left and so on.
I'd also guess that generals will be given a slightly modified version of that command list that would allow them to command the officers under them to go various places or to perform various tasks which get repeated down the line.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But in the game, where's the stakes? How do I enact trust (show cohesion) when dying means nothing?
This is a fantastic post by Mbando, right up until he makes this assertion. In battle, whenever a unit of any scale suffers casualties, you can bet your bottom dollar it has consequences. Saying otherwise is like saying 100 Spartans could do the job of 300. Sure, the ramifications of death are significantly less than in the real world, but your cohort will still suffer from your downtime as you make your way back to your body. Additionally the battle may very well have moved from the ground where your body lies useless. The Force Multiplier effect of organized unit cohesion only has so much effect when you've got no force to multiply.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any idea how these "units" will be created? Will they be grouped on-the-fly based upon proximity, created in the manner of creating a team in other games or will they be required to be charters?
Here is a hypothetical case that makes this question pertinent: If a company with 25 members specialized in soldiering...and specifically leading soldiers on the battlefield, could those 25 members be split to lead 10-15 individual units composed of persons who are not specifically trained to be soldiers; units built just prior to conflict with a "/unit invite" mechanism? Or will the divisions between units be required to be along less ambiguous, such as following company lines?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The point of mass combat is to take and defend territory. The mechanics for besieging a settlement or breaking a fort or watchtower will be driven by mass combat. The mass combat system is not really appropriate for the experiences you may have on an adventure in a lair, cavern or ruin. Armies require sophisticated logistics as well, so they are not likely to be found roaming randomly around a hex.
Sounds like a whole other system for mass combat/kingdom wars compared to eg adventuring :)
What we hope to create is a system where players naturally re-create a lot of real-world military tactics and strategies. We want you to care about terrain, about line of sight, about being flanked, pincered, and encircled. We want to see lines break and reform, units to withdraw and be replaced by fresh troops. We want being a solider to be as fulfilling and interesting a long-term play experience as being an adventurer or a crafter.
It's interesting if the high-level tactics of armies brings about an emgergent player skill for eg leaders to experience and become more and more experienced at (battlefield awareness).
I'd love to see a zerg crushed via the above.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But in the game, where's the stakes? How do I enact trust (show cohesion) when dying means nothing?
If cohesion in this game is about coordination, then that's pretty interesting, and adds a lot to the game--good on you guys. But if there was a way to really have cohesion--caring more about the group than yourself--it would be amazing.
I'd think there could be two competing factors to this mass combat: mass and discipline. Mass is the number of people you can group together. Discipline is how they drill together; which will affect how fast the officers can change facing, move the formation, etc. With equal gear and discipline, mass will win. But having more people in a formation will not be helpful if the additional bodies aren't practiced; they'll slow down the unit and degrade its DPS.
When two formations clash, the people involved may see their health bars depleting - but if they break out of formation to save themselves, they'll screw up the discipline/tempo of the unit, making it less effective and they'll screw up the mass of the unit, so it does less damage. The most cohesive units will be those that have dependable players who come out for battles *and practice sessions* and will march and drill as their officers command with the dedication of a raiding guild.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a fantastic post by Mbando, right up until he makes this assertion. In battle, whenever a unit of any scale suffers casualties, you can bet your bottom dollar it has consequences. Saying otherwise is like saying 100 Spartans could do the job of 300. Sure, the ramifications of death are significantly less than in the real world, but your cohort will still suffer from your downtime as you make your way back to your body. Additionally the battle may very well have moved from the ground where your body lies useless. The Force Multiplier effect of organized unit cohesion only has so much effect when you've got no force to multiply.
Gruffling, I meant personal stakes, not unit stakes.
Cohesion is the philia bonds between military members: a values hierarchy where the group's good is higher than your own. Cohesion represents the somewhat paradoxical understanding that collective security in combat is enhanced by individuals’ disregard for their own safety. Individual behavior that seems irrational from a self-interest standpoint—shielding another from a grenade blast with your body—is rational when aggregated into group behavior. It is also a force-multiplier--trust allows members to take risks, op-tempo is raised, members engage in highly effective collective practices with resources, etc.
If somehow in this game combat had individual stakes, then the unit that could create cohesion would have a huge comparative advantage on the battlefield. I don't know if that's possible--adding coordination may be what this blog is getting at, and I think that would be a huge step up from the mass/mob combat in current MMOs. Ryan's point is well-taken: mass combat in games right now is generally a mob version of individual PvP, using the same mechanics. Re-thinking mass combat and designing it as such is a total win.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If PFO is going to go this route (and I endorse and recommend it!) I would like to request that we have a venue where we can hone our skills in unit training. Having the appropriate skills on paper is one thing - having these skills drilled in through repetition is even better.
It could be as simple as allowing PCs to practice unit formations. Improvements to the settlement could allow for training against other players or constructs. At the upper end, a building could provide an instanced room where units could fight one another with simulated damage (but which does no real damage).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Soldiering will be its own career path - would be be able to do this then without breaking our e.g. wizard/sorcerer progression?
Sounds like it to me since he talks about formations that allow spell-casting, etc.
I think he means "career path" as in a major line of skill advancement.
Goblinworks Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing I was always concerned with something like big battles was being a healer and trying to keep tabs on everyone that might need healing.
Some relief was having more then one medic in different groups that was able to keep tabs on their designated group(s). Like me I was clicking everywhere and some games it was hard to do that in the midst of battles without some kind of raid windows to see everyone's health.
Thinking of how battles I can't ponder how much practice it would take to get everything down and done effectively. Saturday - practice drills, sunday - we're doing a mock battle with others. That does sound fun though, and what possibilities of big battles will be like.
Like to know what all these abilities will be.
flank, flank them now!
How do you flank?
Did you not pay attention to the battle drills?
No, I was watching Dr. Who.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... stuff i said...
Cohesion is the philia bonds between military members: a values hierarchy where the group's good is higher than your own. Cohesion represents the somewhat paradoxical understanding that collective security in combat is enhanced by individuals’ disregard for their own safety. Individual behavior that seems irrational from a self-interest standpoint—shielding another from a grenade blast with your body—is rational when aggregated into group behavior. It is also a force-multiplier--trust allows members to take risks, op-tempo is raised, members engage in highly effective collective practices with resources, etc....
If somehow in this game combat had individual stakes, then the unit that could create cohesion would have a huge comparative advantage on the battlefield. I don't know if that's possible--adding coordination may be what this blog is getting at, and I think that would be a huge step up from the mass/mob combat in current MMOs. Ryan's point is well-taken: mass combat in games right now is generally a mob version of individual PvP, using the same mechanics. Re-thinking mass combat and designing it as such is a total win.
My assertion is that the "stakes" game is inherent in sitting down and playing. Everyone will greatly desire to find success (ergo, winning on the battlefield in this context), and as such once the tangible mathematical benefits have been analyzed and disseminated into the "Soldiery" populace, then we'll see the Unit's stakes and the Soldier's stakes will align in the way you want.
As popular as it is to assume everybody one meets on the internet is a rampaging sociopath with ADD, in truth the capacity to form coherent social units with an aligned sense of responsibility is pretty easy to do.
On a semi-related philosophical note:
I find it fascinating and impressive how articulately and effectively a fully modernized military (particularly the Marines, and the elites of the US Army) have tapped into the basic sociological instincts of humans to bond as you described. Unit safety by sacrificing individual safety is one of the basic evolutionary influences that drove the success of Homo Sapien at the same time there were a number of other hominids romping about. And our in our modern era, we tap into that instinct, one that is inherently protective, and turn it into the single most effective aspect of war-fighting. When we point our military at something and say GO, its hard to argue in anyway that it could be more effective. Its really only when we align it behind political goals that things go sideways.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The one thing I was always concerned with something like big battles was being a healer and trying to keep tabs on everyone that might need healing.
Some relief was having more then one medic in different groups that was able to keep tabs on their designated group(s). Like me I was clicking everywhere and some games it was hard to do that in the midst of battles without some kind of raid windows to see everyone's health.
Thinking of how battles I can't ponder how much practice it would take to get everything down and done effectively. Saturday - practice drills, sunday - we're doing a mock battle with others. That does sound fun though, and what possibilities of big battles will be like.
Like to know what all these abilities will be.
flank, flank them now!
How do you flank?
Did you not pay attention to the battle drills?
No, I was watching Dr. Who.
Also seconded, I kind of had a feeling this would be the way after recent discussion on chartered companies by Ryan. IE a settlement/kingdom of 500 people, also contains dozens of chartered companies of 24 max people. So in war, each of those groups could be forming seperate roles, fighting on different parts of the battlefield, co-ordinating with the other chartered leaders to arange a pincer flank etc... Resulting in many people who work well together, making seperate but unified well oiled machines.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can sort of see a hierarchy where the top people in the skill trees are 'generals' and can have chat dialogues with all the unit commanders (for purposes of this discussion let's just say an army has a leader and many units - of course you can have a command chain as deep as you'd like) as well as an overhead minimap with the location of each subordinate and the enemy units (and terrain).
The general could issue orders to his subordinates by clicking on the minimap. These orders could be to take a position, attack a unit, etc. Through team speak (or an equivalent) he could clarify those orders to his subordinates. The subordinates would see the objective in the real world (say as a big red arrow). The subordinates would also be able to talk his immediate commander and the men immediately under his control. If there's nested command structures then the subordinate also has a mini map.
When you get down to the individual unit, I think it will play out much like its been described. With regards to healers and spellcasters, I can see different formations (say like an I formation in football or a 2 back formation for a simple line with spellcastwrs in the rear). Of course, the composition of units will be left up to the individual army. You could, for example, have a unit of straight fighters with potions of healing.
One last thing to consider... there will of course be mercenary units made up of PCs willing to sell their services to the highest bidder. Some of these will be very strong after constant practice and combat. Rich nations will no doubt bolster their armies if they have the treasury to afford them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can sort of see a hierarchy where the top people in the skill trees are 'generals' and can have chat dialogues with all the unit commanders...
One thing that's much more likely is the use of Voice Chat 3rd party programs to coordinate. They're free, easy to setup and use, and generally ubiquitous. Also a billion times better for coordinating people than chat interfaces.
One thing I'm quite pleased about is how this Soldiery angle is quite different from any sort of Explorer/Dungeoneer or Bandit/Bounty Hunter. Yet another example of how I'll desperately need several character slots for different paths :D.
I wonder how unit cohesion will work with summoned units. This thread just made the Necromancer a more and more beautiful prospect, especially if multiple summons are allowed. A squad of ten men? How about 10 necros and 100 bodies?
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Yeah Hanz that would be something too, war brings an abundant supply of materials to create more soldiers.
Armies moving forward stepping over dead, but fails to notice the army rising up from behind them.
*granted what they would set up for what was needed to do this, and the time all that fun stuff.*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing that's much more likely is the use of Voice Chat 3rd party programs to coordinate. They're free, easy to setup and use, and generally ubiquitous. Also a billion times better for coordinating people than chat interfaces.
All of those 3rd party programs have prolifereated because in-game MMO voice communications have usually been terrible. If PFO itself had a decent voice communication system, they might not be needed.
The mass combat system sounds pretty exciting. I don't think anything requiring the precise timing of DDO could ever work in an MMO, because lag is beyond players' control. With a little more time for players to react, though, the system could work.
LOTRO has a similar concept (at a smaller scale) called Fellowship Maneuvers. Once one player initiates a fellowship maneuver, the other players have a limited amount of time to choose how their characters will contribute to a group action. A practiced, well-coordinated party can achieve much more powerful results than a group of untrained players.
This sounds AWESOME. I guess I know what skills hopeful-officers who join The First File will want to pursue!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of those 3rd party programs have prolifereated because in-game MMO voice communications have usually been terrible.
That's only part of the reason. Another major reason is that it's easier to deal with a VC program as a separate client because then you can log out and back in without losing VC, and you can chat with people who are playing different games, and you can chat with an arbitrary group of people that aren't grouped or guilded in-game.
I hope PFO doesn't waste time trying to perfect in-game VC when it's actually better as a separate client.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... having in-game voice to fall back on when casually grouping (especially in PvP) is a HUGE asset.
That's a really good point. In-game VC is a great option for ad hoc groups where the cost of having everyone stop and download the right client and get connected is just too much.
Thanks for reminding me of that aspect of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It sounds like players will want to engage in practice drills in order to get better at mass combat, both individually and acting as a unit. Hopefully, we'll be able to even stage Red Team vs. Blue Team exercises and engage each other at full power. It also sounds like the best units will be those who practice together consistently.
Ryan, can you talk a little about the impact of relatively unskilled players being included in a unit? Will it be worthwhile to include a fresh-out-of-the-box newbie in a unit, or will he be more of a liability than an asset? Also, will an individual be able to wreck the unit's cohesion intentionally?
I'm hoping that it will be worthwhile to include a fresh newbie, even if it's not very worthwhile. I'm also hoping that a few bad apples won't be able to spoil the whole bunch by deliberately sabotaging the unit - at least, not without having to train some specific sabotage-related skills first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know, it sounds like something more fitting of an RTS with turn-based play that bases all combat on this structure. Without a combat system like the army mode in Suikoden it seems like this could get a bit fiddly for those that want to use it as compared to the berserker style that most mmo games end up fostering. Once you delve into the mmo side of things much of that can go out the window depending on the time each player is expected to be able to stay alive. Fellowship Maneuver are mentioned above but those are just skill chains which were probably based off the system that EQ2 had which could be done on the party level without the need for company based formations.
As an example, say army A (using this formation system) is fighting army B (using a berserker style crash the boards method). Army A might get some decent bonuses before initial contact but if building into that and maintaining it takes more time than it takes for army B to just run up and cause chaos among army A by getting into the ranks (army B getting in the way of fancy formations and such) and just going all out it sort of defeats the purpose of the whole system. There is a reason that all those old military formations stopped being used in practical combat and have just become the thing of parade grounds and training exercises.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is a reason that all those old military formations stopped being used in practical combat and have just become the thing of parade grounds and training exercises.
Isn't that reason mainly advanced firearms? Or are you trying to say that there's something inherently ineffective about these formations that has nothing to do with them being susceptible to artillery?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There is a reason that all those old military formations stopped being used in practical combat and have just become the thing of parade grounds and training exercises.Isn't that reason mainly advanced firearms? Or are you trying to say that there's something inherently ineffective about these formations that has nothing to do with them being susceptible to artillery?
There are weaknesses in relying on formation tactics, even in the absence of artillery. Specifically, if you are attacked while not in formation, a significant portion of your training works against you. It's hard to attack a well-drilled army when they don't expect it, but a small group of warriors in the middle of a camp of surprised soldiers still in their beds is much more effective than a small group of soldiers in the middle of a camp full of surprised warriors still in their beds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't that reason mainly advanced firearms?
That was my immediate thought; repeating rifles alone didn't stop mass formations, it took widespread use of machine guns.
say army A (using this formation system) is fighting army B (using a berserker style crash the boards method). Army A might get some decent bonuses before initial contact but if building into that and maintaining it takes more time than it takes for army B to just run up and cause chaos among army A by getting into the ranks (army B getting in the way of fancy formations and such) and just going all out it sort of defeats the purpose of the whole system.
Yup. Melee formations should give significant boosts to defense and maybe lesser boosts to offense. But they should be lethally deadly to skirmishers and mobs in a fight. One of their advantages is that they can get more bodies into a given space, while skirmishers using uncoordinated fighting techniques will impair their neighbors. Not sure how that can be modeled.
Missile formations should have the choice of firing very fast against mobs or formation targets (which is where the longbow's legendary rate of fire is from, not against point targets, iirc) or horrendous numbers of missiles against point targets, at a slower rate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Formations were used primarily before initial contact during the movement phase (pincher/flanking), to dig in against an approaching target (holding the line), or in smaller close combat offensive/defensive situations (box/circle/wedge). Those are all fine and dandy in the real world but this is a game where pulling some of those off might be more trouble than it is worth in the long run.
I think Age of Conan had or was going to have something similar that used a sort of rubber band effect to hold players loosely in formation. I know they had formation buffs that gave various group bonuses which is more reasonable in practice. I just don't see how you could reliably code something that relies on a group of single players to get the same effect as that would though without them playing the formation game at a detriment to the actual fighting portion of it. I have played in a guild that has used tactics that were not coded into the game but such things as pinching and flanking really don't need a system to be effective.
I suppose my main issue is that if too much emphasis is put into designing a formation system that sounds good in theory but lacks in practice takes a bunch of design time as opposed to adding in an easier group buff method that doesn't care how you line up to gain the benefits was a waste of resources. I am all for new practical innovations but at some point it becomes too much just for the sake of trying to appear as innovative.
Added: It just seems that adding in a set of group buffs that increase the effect when within range of another group using the same buff (and this itself could expand the radius/bonus to add more groups within reason) makes more sense than trying to make individual players line up in various formations to benefit from them.
Something along these lines.
Hold the Line Formation
Radius: 40 Feet
0.5% defensive bonus per member (max 20 members or 10%)
0.5% offensive bonus per member versus mounted opponents (max 20 members or 10%)
As long as any 2 allied groups are within range of each other using the same buff they double the benefits (0.5% defensive/offensive bonus with a max of 20%).
This makes the person giving this buff, the leader, a strategic part of each group similar to how in a game of Warhammer 40K you want to get the bonus from the HQ squad to surrounding units while protecting the unit that gives the bonus. This opens it up to more possibilities such as demoralize/rally (based on the leaders skills) when the leader is killed and so forth.
I'm desperately hoping that cavalry becomes available. On a related note, I'm desperately hoping that the cavalier becomes available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Age of Conan had or was going to have something similar that used a sort of rubber band effect to hold players loosely in formation.
I remember there being a mechanic that would kind of lock a few tanks in a line, but as I recall they abandoned that attempt either because it wasn't work well or because the players hated it.
It just seems that adding in a set of group buffs that increase the effect when within range of another group using the same buff (and this itself expands the radius/bonus to add more groups) makes more sense than trying to make individual players line up in various formations to benefit from them.
Are you saying that makes more sense to you? Or are you saying it makes more sense with respect to accomplishing their stated goal?
What we hope to create is a system where players naturally re-create a lot of real-world military tactics and strategies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm enormously excited to see the idea of cohesion addressed in the game. It's what's at the heart of what I study as a researcher, so this is a heckabomb nerdgasm :)
I applaud you all for thinking about this, and in so doing I see true innovation. One question I have is about whether you plan to have trust be part of cohesion.
Cohesion is about placing the welfare of the group above the individuals. It's why Marines hump, and place so much meaning on performance on humps (go on forced marches). It has very little practical value: at The Basic School (TBS) only about 13% of Marines will be in infantry/provisional infantry jobs, and even for them there won't be a lot of extended foot movements (at least in the current operating environment). And yet it's incredibly important to Marines--you can't graduate OCS if you can't complete humps, and Marines evaluate each other in the strongest terms possible based on performance during humps. The reason is because it's a physical proxy for the moral: for you values hierarchy, and whether you put the group (and hanging with the group) above yourself (i.e. falling out because your pain is what matters to you).
In the real world, cohesion has stakes, because you're at risk (for suffering in training, for death/wounding in combat), and so cohesion is enacted in combat through trust. That's why Marines at TBS all read Gates of Fire: cohesion is trusting that the hoplite to your right won't drop his shield--you can drop your sword and be forgiven, but you can never be forgiven for dropping your shield, because you've f***ed your comrade to the left.
But in the game, where's the stakes? How do I enact trust (show cohesion) when dying means nothing?
If cohesion in this game is about coordination, then that's pretty interesting, and adds a lot to the game--good on you guys. But if there was a way to really have cohesion--caring more about the group than yourself--it would be amazing.
More importantly, there needs to be a pog/REMF debuff for those who dont participate..........................*kidding*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As an example, say army A (using this formation system) is fighting army B (using a berserker style crash the boards method). Army A might get some decent bonuses before initial contact but if building into that and maintaining it takes more time than it takes for army B to just run up and cause chaos among army A by getting into the ranks (army B getting in the way of fancy formations and such) and just going all out it sort of defeats the purpose of the whole system. There is a reason that all those old military formations stopped being used in practical combat and have just become the thing of parade grounds and training exercises.
My first mental picture was of the Romans and how they were nigh on invincible against some of the barbarian tribes: The numbers tell that story better than I can!
The "Look Out, Sir!" rule might/could be a nice addition as you mention however. :)
Added: It just seems that adding in a set of group buffs
that increase the effect when within range of another group using the same buff (and this itself could expand the radius/bonus to add more groups within reason) makes more sense than trying to make individual players line up in various formations to benefit from them.Something along these lines.
Hold the Line Formation
Radius: 40 Feet
0.5% defensive bonus per member (max 20 members or 10%)
0.5% offensive bonus per member versus mounted opponents (max 20 members or 10%)
As long as any 2...
There's something to be said for this, if the "formations" idea becomes to unwieldy. Just base the bonus off distance.
But I think "formations" is about groups creating shapes and the shape determining the bonus applied and being able to visually see a group's shape and therefore bonus and with a number of different shages eg Triangle/Square/Circle (!) counter each other as well as possibly how effective the group is at keeping the shape in tact and how big they make the shape? That's what I'm guessing, so still think it has merit if formations is possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Practice
You'll certainly be able to practice forming up and following orders. But you won't get any mechanical benefit from that practice. (otherwise it will just get botted). You'll get a mechanical benefit as you earn merit badges and gain abilities from actually fighting, just like you will for doing anything else in the game.
Soldiering as a Career
It's not an archetype. Archetypes can be soldiers. Every army needs archetypes. Learning how to be a great soldier as you advance down an archetype path is just one possible way to develop as an archetype.
Armies vs. Disorganized Opponents
As an amateur military historian, my opinion is that the efficacy of skirmishers vs. trained military forces is wishful thinking on the part of some posters.
Units were still fighting in formation up to the Civil War (when artillery and accurate firearms finally made them so dangerous that they had to be abandoned for trenches and the static battle lines of the first World War). Formations were the best way to both defend and attack, and formation based combat was the norm from the battles of ancient Egypt through several thousand years of history because it was simply better than all alternatives.
The Romans rolled over every barbarian horde they fought - from the British Isles through middle Europe across north Africa, into the Levant, down the Nile, and around the Black Sea - with the exception of rare cases when they got themselves into battle in terrain where their formations could not be used to effect (Black Forest in Germany) or where the conditions they fought in were so hostile that their ability to maintain unit cohesion was degraded beyond the point where they could function effectively (deep in the desert of the middle east).
An army posts sentinels and stands watch. They don't let random bands of barbarians ride up unmolested and into their camp at night. Armies are trained to get up and get into formation quickly even in the chaos of a surprise attack. Armies use scouts to find and fix the location of nearby hostile forces so they don't expose themselves to an unexpected assault. Armies rely on intelligence gathered from many points to prepare for battle, understanding the terrain, the weather, the ability to protect supply lines, the order of battle of the opposing force, the reinforcements that may be available, the relative capabilities of the opposing commanders, etc.
There's a good reason that professional armies dominate wars. It's because they win them.
Regardless of your opinion of my opinion, Pathfinder Online isn't real, and we have control over the game mechanical advantages to fighting in formation to ensure that they overwhelm disorganized opponent forces, so it won't be theoretical, it will simply be fact: An army will beat a mob.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Except the victor writes the majority of history and that makes for some of the best propaganda out there.
I just have a hard time with seeing it work in practice as set out in the blog. Romans never had magic users with AoE to contend with for example. I would also say that an mmo is one of those chaos locations with how combat plays out in most situations except the ideal which is what the Romans probably relied on for the majority of their encounters. Your beloved EVE Online came up with the term, blob, but it has always existed in pretty much every game.
Romans never had magic users with AoE to contend with for example.
My thought as well.
To what extent will casters be able to qualify as advanced artillery with the potential to break down the system?
1) Cast battlefield control of choice. (Skip this step if multiboxing.)
2) Cast several coordinated fireballs.
3) Win regardless of your formation or theirs?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The easy answer to your question is "units in formation are highly resistant to magical attacks".
The more complex answer to your question is "when subjected to a magical attack, a unit may have to perform a cohesive action to degrade the impact of a magical effect, and the amount of that reduction is a function of leadership, unit ability, and player skill."
A functional answer to that question is "if a wizard shows up on a battlefield against cohesive units, the wizard won't last long enough to do much damage". And when acting as a part of a unit, wizards won't have the ability to cast independent spells as if they were acting alone - they'll be taking cohesive actions along with the other characters in the unit, and by their presence in the unit affecting what kinds of actions that unit may be able to take - based on the abilities of the other characters, the unit's leadership, and the skill of the players.
