Discussion on battle round length

[irdeggman]

Based on the discussion and results from the previous poll - it appears as if some further discussion would be beneficial prior to calling for another vote here.

What I see as choices are 10 minutes (the poll's majority opinion),

Several have suggested 6 minutes

Some have suggested 1 minute

Some have wanted a longer time than the 15 minute or 30 minutes ones presented. Need some input here on what would be a better choice for a long time to use.

[Osprey]

I read 5 minutes as an option in multiple posts, so that should definitely be an option in any subsequent poll, too.

BTW, I am curious if anyone else has some thoughts on how one justifies the very slow sppeds of unit movement vs. adventure scale. Can it be justified, or does scaling things to the battlefield just require a large dose of suspension of disbelief?

[Michael Romes]

Originally posted by Osprey@Mar 19 2005, 03:24 PM
I read 5 minutes as an option in multiple posts, so that should definitely be an option in any subsequent poll, too.

BTW, I am curious if anyone else has some thoughts on how one justifies the very slow sppeds of unit movement vs. adventure scale. Can it be justified, or does scaling things to the battlefield just require a large dose of suspension of disbelief?
Another thought about movement speed:

The movement speeds in the 3.5 PHB are only valid for individuals.

An army unit never is as fast as a single individual, regardless of the load the individual carries.

An army unit may be able on the march to sometimes nearly achieve the speed of individuals but the result is dangerous (Varus Legions spread out on the march and becoming vulnerable).

Army units on the battlefield need to maintain their formation. Not only due to the need for Pikemen to present a hedge of spears to the enemy, but also for e.g. Infantery using a shieldwall.

An army unit needs also to maintain formation, so that each soldier can support his neighbour, that wounded soldiers can retreat through the ranks and be replaced and that all soldiers stay within reach of their commanding officers voice.

Using that as justification one could use the PHB p. 163 rules on hampered movement and say that for soldiers moving as a cohesive army unit ALL terrain is difficult terrain.

Would that give you acceptable unit spees Osprey?

[Osprey]

OK, here’s a layout of unit speeds using Micheal Rome’s hampered movement idea.

Default unit speeds = hampered movement (1/2 speed)
Marching speed = walk/hustle + combat


Light foot units can march 15’ per round = 150’ per minute = 1500’ per 10 minute battle turn
Medium/heavy foot units can march 10’ per round = 100’ per minute = 1000’ per turn
Light irregulars can march 20’ per round = 200’ per minute = 2000’ per turn
Medium/heavy irregulars can march 15’ per round = 150’ per minute = 1500’ per turn

Light cavalry can march 30’ per round = 300’ per minute = 3000’ per turn
Medium cavalry can march 25’ per round = 250’ per minute = 2500’ per turn
Heavy cavalry can march 18’ per round = 180’ per minute = 1800’ per turn

Irregulars don’t suffer from hampered movement as they move only in loose formation. However, they still must maintain some semblance of formation, so their speed is adjusted as if they had one extra level of encumbrance.

5 minute battle rounds would halve these speeds.

If 1” = 100’ (1 grid square), this gives us the following unit speeds per 10-minute battle turn in open terrain (5 minute turn speeds in parentheses):

Light Foot: 15” (8”)
Medium/Heavy Foot: 10” (5”)
Light Irregulars: 20” (10”)
Med/Hvy Irregulars: 15” (8”)

Light Cavalry: 30” (15”)
Medium Cavalry: 25” (13”)
Heavy Cavalry: 20” (10”)


These speeds end up far exceeding missile ranges, allowing any unit on the field to start the turn out of missile range, then charge to engage in 1 turn. Net result = melee units will entirely dominate the field, while missile units will be mostly worthless.

Such speeds also require a tremendously large battle map to allow sufficient room for maneuvering.


So I'd say there's still a big problem in converting tactical speeds to battlefield speeds...

Osprey

PS, Micheal: Units don't typically march in shield wall or phalanx formations - those are meant to be either stationary or slow-moving defensive formations. More likely such units would march in more standard formation (1 man per 5' square is fairly reasonable), then reform when close to engagement. Infantry might not use a shield wall at all if they plan to attack. Also, the shield wall is really only appropriate for infantry units with shield training and/or defensive specialty training. Most infantry, though they may have shields, wouldn't tend to have this sort of training. OTOH, shield training is one of the best infantry training options available. ;)

[geeman]

At 03:24 PM 3/19/2005 +0100, Osprey wrote:



>I read 5 minutes as an option in multiple posts, so that should definitely

>be an option in any subsequent poll, too.



Agreed. If I have a first choice it`s for 6 minute battlerounds. That

choice is, however, a little symbolic in that it references the 6 second

combat round of the 3e+ adventure level of combat. The math does work out

nicely too, but by and large the length of combat rounds is really about

the minimum point at which one sees adventure level combat being abstracted

out into a macro scale. For me that`s at about 50 rounds of action. I

prefer the 6 minute battleround simply for its symbolic/referential

significance, but when it really boils right down to it the difference

between an abstracted 5 minute battleround and an abstracted 6 minute

battleround is pretty slight.



It might also be sensible--just to throw this out there--because the large

combat system is abstracted to say that the battleround isn`t a single,

absolute time value. That is, a battleround might be defined as "4-7

minutes" or "8-12 minutes" etc. If we wind up with a set of votes that are

close that method might satisfy the issue. That is, if voting is split

about 50/50 between the 5 minute round and the 10 minute round the

battleround might be defined as lasting 5-10 minutes.



>BTW, I am curious if anyone else has some thoughts on how one justifies

>the very slow sppeds of unit movement vs. adventure scale. Can it be

>justified, or does scaling things to the battlefield just require a large

>dose of suspension of disbelief?



I justify it by noting that the speed that troops can move on a battlefield

isn`t a straight line computation of the 30` (usually) movement rate of an

individual soldier times the number of rounds that the battleround

represents. It represents a broader series of actions including the

transfer of orders to the unit as a whole, and complexity of moving a whole

unit of soldiers in unison.



Gary

[Osprey]

I justify it by noting that the speed that troops can move on a battlefield
isn`t a straight line computation of the 30` (usually) movement rate of an
individual soldier times the number of rounds that the battleround
represents. It represents a broader series of actions including the
transfer of orders to the unit as a whole, and complexity of moving a whole
unit of soldiers in unison.
Gary

Yeah, I get all that - Micheal Romes' idea of units moving as hampered seems to account for most all of that. Plus add in a battlesystem that accounts for changing facing by costing movement speed, and you've also consumed the biggest time factor, turning in formation.

No, the real problem remains: even accounting for all of those factors, 5-10 minutes is a LONG time in which to move, assuming the unit remains unengaged that turn.

You can tweak the math involved, but it's difficult to ignore it entirely.

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=3038

>

> Osprey wrote:

> OK, here’s a layout of unit speeds using Micheal Rome’s hampered movement idea.

>

>

Michael Romes...

...



>So I`d say there`s still a big problem in converting tactical speeds to battlefield speeds...

>

But it is at least better than what you assumed before where army units

would move 100% faster than this :-)

bye

Michael

[geeman]

At 06:33 PM 3/22/2005 +0100, Osprey wrote:



>No, the real problem remains: even accounting for all of those factors,

>5-10 minutes is a LONG time in which to move, assuming the unit remains

>unengaged that turn.



It does depend on the size of the battlesquare also. That is, the smaller

the battlesquare, the more difficult it is to justify the length of the

battleround and movement rates. A battlesquare that is, say, 300 x 300

suddenly starts to make better sense if one is going to assign movement

values around 3-5 to infantry.



Gary

[The Jew]

Originally posted by geeman@Mar 22 2005, 03:20 PM

It does depend on the size of the battlesquare also.* That is, the smaller

the battlesquare, the more difficult it is to justify the length of the

battleround and movement rates.* A battlesquare that is, say, 300 x 300

suddenly starts to make better sense if one is going to assign movement

values around 3-5 to infantry.



Gary




The problem, as I believe Osprey was pointing out, is that no matter what size squares are used any reasonable amount of movenent within a 5 minute or longer battle round will be farther than the range of a bow. Whether the unit can move 12 100' squares or 4 300' in a battle round, they will still be able to move from outside a bows range to within melee combat with the archers unit within one round.

We are either going to have to set battle rounds at a minute or less, or decide to set movement rates or archers ranges at unrealistic levels if we are to keep a proper balance between long range and short range units.

[RaspK_FOG]

I actually think we should estimate the ammount of hampering each unit gets according to the kind of unit: pikement/halberdiers needed too much time to move, while archers were always pretty agile on the field...

Furthermore, units don't always move coherently: most of the time they keep loose formation for ease of movement.

[Osprey]

I actually think we should estimate the ammount of hampering each unit gets according to the kind of unit: pikement/halberdiers needed too much time to move, while archers were always pretty agile on the field...

Furthermore, units don't always move coherently: most of the time they keep loose formation for ease of movement.

Earlier I made a statement that what might work best is if each army is assumed to have spent most of the battle time in the final stages of the strategic adjustment. Then the battle being played out represents the shorter time just before negagement. At this point we're not talking about marching formation, we're taling about battle formation. So units should be moving on the field as if they are about to engage or fire missiles.

While pikemen are probably the densest formations, they're also the ones most likely to fight in square formations (historically, this was one of the things the Swiss pikemen pioneered as I recall). Duane pointed out in an earlier post that one of the great advantages of a square (box) formation is its ease of turning by "about-face."

Rather than getting too specific about different formations, though, I think it's reasonable to keep pikes and infantry at the same overall level of mobility.

Irregulars, mentioned in my previous post, are the one unit type that tends to be in loose formation by default. This is why infantry get a melee bonus against them. What is sad is that irregulars cost the same as infantry and archers but are generally inferior...I have a few ideas to even that out, mainly adding a point of mobility to irregulars (1 step faster than comparable infantry), and giving them +2 defense vs. missile fire (one of the main advantages of a loose formation is less hits from mass missile fire).

Archers, hmmm...I debated whether they should have more speed than comparably armored infantry. If they typically move in loose/irregular formation, however, then they should suffer the same disadvantage vs. infantry that irregulars do. What I think is better is to leave them alone: when close to engagement, archers will spread out in long, thin lines to maximize volleys of fire. A 200-man company will probably be about 4-5 men deep and 40-50 wide...which is pretty slow to maneuver, and especially turn, in quick time. So again, I'd say the pros and cons roughly even out, giving them speed comparable to infantry.

If we're working out a battlesystem where units aren't given formation choices, we have to abstract and generalize those things without creating too much extra complexity. It's a tricky balance to achieve, of course, since any simplifying also kills pertinent details of a truer simulation.

[geeman]

At 06:33 PM 3/22/2005 +0100, Osprey wrote:



>>I justify it by noting that the speed that troops can move on a battlefield

>>isn`t a straight line computation of the 30` (usually) movement rate of an

>>individual soldier times the number of rounds that the battleround

>>represents. It represents a broader series of actions including the

>>transfer of orders to the unit as a whole, and complexity of moving a whole

>>unit of soldiers in unison.

>

>Yeah, I get all that - Micheal Romes` idea of units moving as hampered

>seems to account for most all of that. Plus add in a battlesystem that

>accounts for changing facing by costing movement speed, and you`ve also

>consumed the biggest time factor, turning in formation.

>

>No, the real problem remains: even accounting for all of those factors,

>5-10 minutes is a LONG time in which to move, assuming the unit remains

>unengaged that turn.



Well, 5-10 minutes is a long time in the rather hyperactive scale of D&D`s

6 second adventure level combat round. When coordinating the activities of

hundreds of individuals it`s not really that long. In fact, I`d argue that

it`s pretty brief, and even the movement rates being bandied about here are

pretty quick compared to how troops would necessarily move in reality.



I think part of the problem here is that we`re erring way on the side of

command and control in a game mechanical sense. That is, the assumption is

that the player controlling the units in question is going to have control

over those units in the same way that he controls his PC, moving him along

on the battlegrid with total and unquestioned precision. The suggestion

that a company of soldiers could move a like distance and in any direction

the way a PC does, fire the same amount of times, attack in the same way,

etc. all assumes that the player has the same kind of control over the

hundreds of members of that company, their sergeants, officers and mounts

(if any) that he has over his PC. Not only does this assume the player can

issue what would be some pretty complex commands to these units, but it

assumes every individual in those units follows and performs those commands

with perfect precision and coordination, and they follow those orders

instantaneously.



Rather the more true to reality way of looking at this within the game

mechanics might be to assume not that the units are a kind of surrogate

player character, but that they represent hundreds of NPCs who are only

marginally under the control of the player. They are organized in some

manner (depending on the troop types, training, etc.) but they really

aren`t under the player`s control per se. Certainly not in the same way

that he controls his PC. The player`s PC can issue orders to a unit of

soldiers, but then those orders must be heard, understood, and performed by

several hundred individuals all acting on their own. Some don`t hear the

commands properly, others misunderstand them, still more disagree, three or

four have a stone in their shoes, one sergeant doesn`t like another

sergeant and wants to mess with him, the lieutenant is thinking about

something else entirely, there are at least a dozen soldiers of below

average intelligence in the group who are going to slow the whole process

down because they can`t hardly tell right from left.... All of these

things get abstracted into a slower movement rater for a unit on the

battlefield than would be possible for a 3e+ character.



Gary

[Osprey]

All of these things get abstracted into a slower movement rater for a unit on the battlefield than would be possible for a 3e+ character.

Uh huh. And aren't all of those things you mention exactly the sorts of things that get fixed/improved upon through drilling? Of course there are degrees of overall discipline and coordination in a unit - it's the major justification for more experienced units having higher Move ratings. But most of the things you describe reflect typical inanities of green/conscript units. They would be much rarer in regular units, and rare among veterans. Which means veteran units should be capable of speeds much closer to adventure/personal speeds.

The speeds I was throwing around were 1/2 personal speed - a quite significant penalty. Sure there's lag as orders are sent and received, then bawled out by sergeants; units slow down to turn, reform, or change speed; and so on.

You're right, the speed of 3e combat is incredibly quick in some respects, particularly when considering that almost every D&D spell has a casting time of a second or two...a few, 6 whole seconds. :rolleyes: Plus high-level full attacks get ridiculous...it's totally geared toward ideas of heroic combat. Just heroic combat with 10,000 technical details, ALL of which must be accounted for...

OK, sorry for that little rant...sometimes I miss the story(telling) because I'm too busy playing rules lawyer as DM.


Anyways, if I could go go and watch medieval field battles in action, I'm sure I could get a much better handle on real unit speeds. Nor did medieval observers write too much about technical details of the military, like marching speeds and typcial unit reaction times. *sigh*

[geeman]

At 02:15 AM 3/24/2005 +0100, Osprey wrote:



>And aren`t all of those things you mention exactly the sorts of things

>that get fixed/improved upon through drilling? Of course there are degrees

>of overall discipline and coordination in a unit - it`s the major

>justification for more experienced units having higher Move ratings. But

>most of the things you describe reflect typical inanities of

>green/conscript units. They would be much rarer in regular units, and rare

>among veterans. Which means veteran units should be capable of speeds much

>closer to adventure/personal speeds.



Such things are certainly opposed by experience and training, but on the

whole they never really go away entirely. Given "the fog of war" I very

much doubt that any unit of +/- 200 soldiers would ever really reach

maneuverability comparable to that of individuals in battlefield conditions

and still remain a cohesive fighting force. It`s one of those bell curve

sorts of relationships; as the number of individuals in a group goes up the

efficiency of that group goes down, other things being equal.



It`s also probably a bit questionable how much drilling and experience a

unit at the BR large scale combat level gets. That is, one could certainly

assume that they learn basic things, but if we`re going to assume a

medieval level of military thinking and culture, most soldiers are

conscripts and not very well trained.



The way I did this kind of stuff was to use a series of training and

special abilities that increased the values of companies. "Elite"

training, for instance, added to the maneuver rating of the unit, as did

IIRC "scout" training. Things like that satisfied the issue as for me, at

least.



>Anyways, if I could go go and watch medieval field battles in action, I`m

>sure I could get a much better handle on real unit speeds. Nor did

>medieval observers write too much about technical details of the military,

>like marching speeds and typcial unit reaction times. *sigh*



True. While we do know some stuff about overland movement and marching

times, but we are painfully lacking information on the kind of thing we`re

talking about here. "Battlefield" performance is, of course, different

from marching soldiers from one place to another. Since what we`re talking

about here isn`t the amount of provinces a unit can travel through in a war

move but the actual battlefield movement and maneuvering the source

material is more difficult to come by. There`s good info from about a

century before Napoleon but then it gets pretty fuzzy.



Gary

[Osprey]

Such things are certainly opposed by experience and training, but on the
whole they never really go away entirely. Given "the fog of war" I very
much doubt that any unit of +/- 200 soldiers would ever really reach
maneuverability comparable to that of individuals in battlefield conditions
and still remain a cohesive fighting force. It`s one of those bell curve
sorts of relationships; as the number of individuals in a group goes up the
efficiency of that group goes down, other things being equal.

Good points.


It`s also probably a bit questionable how much drilling and experience a
unit at the BR large scale combat level gets. That is, one could certainly
assume that they learn basic things, but if we`re going to assume a
medieval level of military thinking and culture, most soldiers are
conscripts and not very well trained.

Except that given the way units work on the domain level, the only real conscripts are levies, and these are mostly seperate from the regular units we're talking about. Army units in BR have seasonal maintenance costs, meaning they're regular standing armies: something foreign to most medieval kingdoms but definitely a norm in the BR setting. Perhaps this is one of the lasting legacies of the Empire - professional soldiers and armies.


True. While we do know some stuff about overland movement and marching
times, but we are painfully lacking information on the kind of thing we`re
talking about here. "Battlefield" performance is, of course, different
from marching soldiers from one place to another. Since what we`re talking
about here isn`t the amount of provinces a unit can travel through in a war
move but the actual battlefield movement and maneuvering the source
material is more difficult to come by. There`s good info from about a
century before Napoleon but then it gets pretty fuzzy.


Yep - which is right around the beginnings of modern military science.

[Osprey]

One of the things this discussion does put into relief is that Heroes can cover most any distance on the battlefield well within the space of a 5-10 minute battle turn. So we can probably drop the Hero Move table from the BRCS.

[geeman]

At 03:59 AM 3/24/2005 +0100, Osprey wrote:



>Except that given the way units work on the domain level, the only real

>conscripts are levies, and these are mostly seperate from the regular

>units we`re talking about. Army units in BR have seasonal maintenance

>costs, meaning they`re regular standing armies: something foreign to most

>medieval kingdoms but definitely a norm in the BR setting. Perhaps this is

>one of the lasting legacies of the Empire - professional soldiers and armies.



That`s true. We don`t even really know if levies are conscripts, per

se. They might very well be volunteers made up of former soldiers, the

local constabulary or a standing civilian militia all of whom answer the

call to battle out of loyalty to the state, a sense of adventure,

etc. Conversely, the "voluntary" nature of the more "regular" BR troops

might not be the most kindly process of enlistment. Both those things fall

within the scope of system`s range of generalization. After all, the same

stats represent the troops mustered from, say, Mhoried and those mustered

out of the Gorgon`s Crown, so who`s to say if one unit of infantry is

comprised entirely of volunteers vs those pressed into service? The point,

though, is that "professional" here is a bit of a relative term.



Gary