PDA

View Full Version : Battle based on Blanchetaque (was: Scouting Missions)



Rosstin
2014-01-24, 09:27 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/QAAlogo_polish1_400.png (facebook.com/queenatarms)

Designing/writing a battle for Queen At Arms (facebook.com/queenatarms) based on the Battle of Blanchetaque. I shelved the scouting aspect for now, although I may use it later. I'm aiming to have a nice game demo out before GDC2014.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/lineupColor400.png (facebook.com/queenatarms)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/9_350.png (facebook.com/queenatarms)


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/j.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/i.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/h.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/g.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/f.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/e.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/d.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/c.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/b.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/a.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/8.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/7.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/6.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/5.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/4.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/3.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/2.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/1.png


I'm designing a visual novel which features a good bit of late medieval fantasy warfare. I'm writing battles for the 2nd chapter (out of 4) and I want to do a scene where the protagonist and a handful of other characters are on a scouting mission and come across a village being attacked by bandits. Classic, right?

What I'm wondering is... what do people actually do in a scouting mission? Historically? Let's say late Medieval time period, how many men would go on a scouting mission? 1? 2? 5? 10? Would they be on foot or on horseback? I'd like to give the protagonist some soldiers to play with, but if I give her too many it's not really scouting anymore, eh?

Calen
2014-01-24, 09:37 PM
I would guess that any of those options would be valid based on terrain and army types.
Woods & mountains with a well trained army. A couple guys.
Open, maybe a more "normal" army. A squad of guys on horseback.
In a fantasy world write it however you want, just be internally consistent.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-24, 09:41 PM
What I'm wondering is... what do people actually do in a scouting mission?

Ride out with a very small number of horsemen, look for the enemy (or other important info), try to guess their numbers, don't fight them, and report back without losing men.

nedz
2014-01-24, 10:22 PM
If both armies have scouts out then you will get some skirmishing between them. Scouts should evade more powerful forces, but an active attempt to out scout the enemy will produce combat.

History is full of armies which failed to win the scouting war, they were usually the losers but medieval warfare was often quite amateur.

Anxe
2014-01-25, 01:32 AM
Alexander the Great had as few as 500 scouts and as many as several thousand depending on which numbers you believe and consider scouts. These scouts were on horseback. One part of a history on Alexander mentions a group of 40 scouts leaving. This is for an army of tens of thousands far from their established base, so it may not be the norm. Alexander also relied on information provided by locals, not just his own scouts.

While on a scouting mission, Alexander's scouts did just look and then return. However, if Alexander was with them, they attacked (often the main army was close enough to follow up or at least Alexander's enemies thought it was).

I know this isn't the late Medieval period, but I know way more about the Classical period. I don't think there were any technological advancements that would greatly change this aspect of warfare between the two time periods though.

EDIT: You could also try asking this question in the real world arms and armor thread. I'll bet a lot of the people there would also know how to answer this.

Rosstin
2014-01-25, 11:05 PM
Thanks guys! This has been really helpful.

I would ask in "real world arms+armor" but I thought b/c it's not about Arms and Armor... well...

I'm trying to bang out the numbers of the army now, which is pretty tough. I'm looking at the Ortheran Army being about 9000 men, and then I have to break up the ethnicities and roles of the various men too. A significant portion of the men in the army were born in the enemy country (Sylgard), but trained with Orthera, and their loyalty is... tenuous.

The enemy armies will mostly be smaller, I think, but you lose men as you get closer and closer to the enemy capital. It's usually pretty difficult to outright lose a battle, but if you mismanage things extremely badly you may end up at the capital without enough men to be a credible threat and lose the war. There won't be any no-win scenarios, but if you screw yourself over badly enough you won't be able to get some of the better endings.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/debriefing500_2.png

Mr. Mask
2014-01-25, 11:52 PM
Well, we have just finished extensively discussing the Milgram Experiment and On Killing in the Real Weapons and Armour Thread.... so yeah, I think we can make room for discussing scouts.

This goes without saying, but just because no one mentioned it, the scouts will be going in many different directions in different teams (some fiction doesn't seem to understand this, so I feel the need to point it out). They usually have specific targets to scout, such as villages, key terrain features, etc.. They're expected to report on findings of key terrain, villages, etc..

Their numbers vary a bit, scouts pretending to be civilians are likely to go alone (the line between scout and spy can get messy in some times and places). For a pure reconnaissance group, you're likely to have around five men per team, who might be mounted, or might be on foot if they're being more stealthy. If they're expected to engage enemy scouting teams, maybe something more to the order of ten to twenty riders per team.


I can't remember well on numbers for scouts, so my information could be very inaccurate (I work well with numbers, but remembering them isn't my strong suit). I hope that isn't the case, and that someone can confirm one way or the other for you.

Rosstin
2014-01-26, 03:20 AM
Their numbers vary a bit, scouts pretending to be civilians are likely to go alone (the line between scout and spy can get messy in some times and places). For a pure reconnaissance group, you're likely to have around five men per team, who might be mounted, or might be on foot if they're being more stealthy. If they're expected to engage enemy scouting teams, maybe something more to the order of ten to twenty riders per team.

Mr. Mask, this is really helpful! Thank you! This will be invaluable when I outline the battle tomorrow.

Unfortunately, I've had to insert another battle before the village battle. We haven't done enough to establish the supposed main enemy yet, so I decided we needed a skirmish with the 1000ish Sylgardian Noblemen/Knights/Archers who attacked in the first battle. A lot of this game revolves around the ambiguous politics and morality of the war, and I think I need to develop the Sylgardians before I throw the bandits into the equation and confuse the player.

The skirmish with the retreating Sylgardians may still involve some scouting. This small band of knights/noblemen and longbowmen launched a sneak attack on the Ortheran capital in the 1st chapter, and they have a 4-day head start on the Ortheran army. I have to figure out how the protagonists might engage them again... it seems to me that, under most circumstances, the Sylgardians would be able to make an effective retreat, especially given that they are a smaller and faster force moving through friendly territory. I need some way to delay them so I can develop them and create some action.

Maybe if the protagonists have some way of moving very quickly they can catch some of the stragglers... that could tie into the scouting somehow. The protagonist and a small group quickly ride out after the retreating enemy and catch up. But that sort of scenario sounds like something I'd want to make the player work for, not a predestined event.

Maybe some of the soldiers and noblemen from the Sylgardian force live in a village on Sylgard's border. It's their home. The protagonists track them down there, where for some reason the Sylgardians don't expect to be attacked. It's hidden, or fortified, or something. When the protagonists get close, the Sylgardians attack to defend it. Hmmmm...

Basically, there is an amazing amount of conflict between telling an effective story, and creating a semi-realistic fantasy war.

Brother Oni
2014-01-26, 04:42 AM
Basically, there is an amazing amount of conflict between telling an effective story, and creating a semi-realistic fantasy war.

Unless the protagonist is a general or other high ranking officer, you could have it that they simply don't know about what happens with the other other scouting teams.
They see them leave, but they don't have the clearance to see the reports.

For your specific scenario, a suggestion would be to have the protagonist as part of a small, swiftly moving advance force, who's racing ahead of the Sylgardian army to a critical ford/pass/chokepoint of some type.
Once there, they need to fortify it, then hold out until their main army arrives and traps the Sylgardians in a pincer.

Since a small group of men can move significantly faster than an army, the 4 day headstart isn't such a insurmountable obstacle.

I think that would make for quite an epic story - fifty men against a thousand, can they hold out for 4 days behind makeshift fortifications?

Mr. Mask
2014-01-26, 05:27 AM
Aster: Just Mask is fine.

I very much understand the complications of juggling realism with a good story. From my experience, it is possible to have both, just that it can take a lot of thought and understanding

For the encounter you describe... have the main characters burn or hold a bridge ahead of them? There are a number of questions as to why the main characters would get to do this.

A: The MCs are the most elite and skilled unit, entrusted the duty of cutting off the army's route of escape.
B: They're not sure where the enemy force is, and the MCs are just one group of scouts who find them and decide that they need to burn the bridge now.
C: The MCs were sent to that particular bridge, which turns out to be the one the enemy decided to take.

You of course need it to be so that the MCs can reach said bridge in time, if you chose that scenario. The bridge would probably already be being secured by the enemy's scouts, or might have been being secured before the raid on the capital took place, so the MCs would have to take the bridge from them. Taking strong points like bridges isn't easy, not something you usually do with a small scouting force, but I think it has happened. Since they need to hold off from the main enemy raiding force, it would make things easier and thus more plausible if they could surprise the enemy scouts, take the bridge, then use what fortifications were already set up (assuming they're not going to just burn it).

Oh, Oni beat me to that scenario.


A less exciting, more plausible scenario is to merely encounter enemy scouts or stragglers. Your idea with the village could work, depending on the anonymity of the attacking force (if they're rebels, they got to live somewhere). If they're rebels, it could even be a secret village up in the wilderness, one of many military camps possibly (rebel villages are pretty militant, as they prepare for government raids). The MCs could be a force sent to capture and hold the village till its men get back, using the people there as hostages to force the rebels into surrender or the like. If you want them to feel conflicted, having to hold women and babies hostage sounds pretty good for that.

Note that advance parties tend to be bigger for stuff like lightning attacks on military camps (how much bigger depends on how defensible they are--a full Legion can have trouble with a stupid hill). Even if the defences would be impossible to break normally, a lightning attack when they're unsuspecting can allow a small force to capture fortifications (not for all fortifications, mind, but for fortified villages it tends to work). It helps if nearly all the men are out, but the women can be very dangerous all the same.

Rosstin
2014-01-26, 03:23 PM
I like where this is going...

The border between Sylgard+Orthera is geographically split by a canyon, river, or mountain range, with a bridge or mountain pass leading into Sylgard. A fortified and hidden village, Wedgemore, is located nearby.

The enemy, Sylgard, has a set up an ambush for the Ortheran army (a mountain pass would be great for this, totally classic.) After devastating the Ortheran army with another sneak attack (poor heroes-- but I'm sure the MC can prevent heavy losses if she is clever), the Sylgardian mage and general confront the heroes and we have some hero/villain dialog.

The protagonist watches her brother lead in this battle, and begins to realize that he's totally incompetent at leading an army. He's a cavalier and warrior, not a leader or strategist. Furthermore, the troops of her army that were born in Sylgard are considering defecting. If the player has been building up her relationship with the rank-and-file soldiers in the army, she is able to wrest control from her brother and Commander and prevent a rout. If not, the player loses (and gets the hint that this chapter was about raising your reputation in the army-- if you weren't doing that the last few days, you've made a terrible mistake.)

I remember that there are a couple very famous historical battles involving canyons, asymmetry, and trickery. One involving some British king, and that one with the Spartans. I'm not above modeling the battle after one of those. I'll have to look into my notes and think about which battle I'm thinking of.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/dontrun500.png

Mr. Mask
2014-01-26, 03:44 PM
If the player has been building up her relationship with the rank-and-file soldiers in the army, she is able to wrest control from her brother and Commander and prevent a rout. If not, the player loses (and gets the hint that this chapter was about raising your reputation in the army-- if you weren't doing that the last few days, you've made a terrible mistake.) Wow. I don't usually have interest in visual novels. Since you're doing stuff like that where interactions and choices matter and have interesting results... I'll definitely look into it.

Rosstin
2014-01-26, 04:56 PM
Wow. I don't usually have interest in visual novels. Since you're doing stuff like that where interactions and choices matter and have interesting results... I'll definitely look into it.

Thanks Mask, I'm working really hard to try and have a good balance between narrative and choice. I believe in giving the player as many significant choices as possible, while still trying to keep a pretty tight narrative. It's hard!!

I think it was the Battle of Agincourt I was thinking of, although it's between 2 woods, not hills or canyons anything. There are some similarities, here. The MCs are invading Sylgard, and they start with a superior size force (maybe not in relation to everyone in Sylgard, but in relation to each of the armies they fight along the way.) They have most of the same military tech, too, although I'm probably going to allow the main character to have made a tech advancement in the last few days if she chooses to focus on that branch (they have a mechanical genius who may be able to within reason create advancements in the arms and armor available to her force).

I like the idea of introducing a disease... maybe even a magical disease, or a disease that the superstitious soldiers THINK is magical. I want to paint the Sylgardians at first as being underhanded and bad, but then later show that their motives are really to protect their sovereignty. Hey, another parallel to France. Maybe the disease only affects the native Ortheran soldiers-- Sylgardians are immune, like a chickenpox situation but less deadly and not nearly as communicable. Perhaps the enemy mage introduced the disease into the camp somehow, by disguising himself, sneaking in, and... doing... something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

Mr. Mask
2014-01-26, 05:21 PM
Choice and narrative are even harder than realism and narrative. It helps if there is a strong theme to base the story around (so it doesn't branch between Pride and Prejudice and God of War), which in your case seems to be the war between these two places. If you aren't already, I recommend watching a series called Extra Credits, which talks about game design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg8fVtKyYxY

We might be able to help with tech, if you're not sure what to use. Even if magical, I know what improvements in weapon and armour technology tend to be like so I can extrapolate.

Yeah, disease is a good area to cover in war. Honestly though, it will have to be pretty bad to be a concern to armies which regularly deal with horrible diseases, trench-foot, etc.. You could remove the usual trench-foot and etc. with magic, though it might reduce the immersion of being part of an army (magic reducing it wouldn't be a problem). You could consider stuff like the disease isn't magically treatable, and so it scares the soldiers who think it might be a sign that the gods are against them or something. You might consider them first identifying it as an already existing disease, so that it's a slight twist when you find out the disease is even more sinister (being able to mention real diseases can help increase the sense of place and reality).

Rosstin
2014-01-26, 05:31 PM
Yeah, I'm trying to minimize the use of magic as much as possible, especially in regards to medicine. Magical healing is a bit boring in my opinion, unless you design a complex magical system of healing... and I'd rather just do some medical tech stuff. This is the tent of the head cleric, to give you an idea.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/medic-tent600.png
(work of the peerless Meagan Trott (http://meagantrott.tumblr.com/))

You can sort of see the mish-mashing of various time periods here. The world's medical technology and culture is more advanced than their weapon technology. There are no guns, and I think cannons haven't really become popular yet either.

The Battle of Agincourt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt) looks like a perfect place to start for this battle.

I can create a river (like with the Somme) that divides the two nations. The protag's army needs to cross it. They meet resistance crossing the river. Then there's a mountain pass or a set of woods where they meet the Sylgardian army. That will nicely divide the battle up into two... you get a small breather between crossing the river and meeting the Fren- I mean Sylgardians, at the chokepoint.

OMG, beautiful. I've got this wonderful Battle of Blanchetaque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blanchetaque) right here. It's like history was written just for me, so I could make this game.

(I'm a big fan of Extra Credits, btw! Thanks!)

Mr. Mask
2014-01-26, 05:57 PM
That's a good philosophy for writing with magic.

I love your medical tent, particularly details like those illustrative charts, herbs, and the unclean knife. I'll have to look up your artists when they're not busy (will need illustrations for an TTRPG eventually).

Yeah, basing stuff off neat battles like Agincourt is a good idea. Even if it's a textbook example, if you have player choice for how you act in a familiar situation, it becomes an unfamiliar situation (problem being, if people know how X battle was won, it's hard to get them to do anything else--so twists are necessary, or even random elements). Taking bits and pieces from various battles is also a good idea.

Actually... haven't I seen you on the Extra Curricular forum before? Your avatar looked familiar.

Rosstin
2014-01-26, 06:24 PM
Actually... haven't I seen you on the Extra Curricular forum before? Your avatar looked familiar.

I actually don't think I've ever posted in Extra Curricular before. Should I? Professor Schell is always pointing me towards Extra Credits videos. He once gave me a talking-to, comparing my eccentricity of wearing a fedora with Portnow's personal style. (As I recall, he told me to stop dressing so distinctly so people in the game industry wouldn't think I was arrogant. I took it under advisement ^_^; )

Mr. Mask
2014-01-26, 06:39 PM
Must have imagined it.

I wouldn't recommend the Extra Curricular forum, unless you want to talk about politics a lot. The most talk of game design and mechanics I can recall is the massive thread arguing about ME3's ending (and that wasn't instructive so much as it was a headache).

My philosophy on appearance, is that so long as you act friendly and humble to subvert an appearance of arrogance, then a distinctive appearance is a great idea. But, I don't have such experience that you should just follow my advice on that.

Rosstin
2014-01-26, 06:52 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/IMG_0494.jpg


Forgive my sketch, thankfully I'm not one of the artists.

I'm starting to form a decent picture of the battle in my head now. The Ortheran Army marches south towards The Tears River (aka The Somme :smallwink:) which separates Orthera and Sylgard. As they march down the main road, they see that the farms and villages have been burned by the retreating Sylgardian army.

At the bridge there's a Battle of Blanchetaque scenario.

When the player wins there, they get a breather, and move on into Sylgardian territory. Then they get a Battle of Agincourt fight. If they win there, then they've beaten the 2nd Chapter and have repelled the Sylgardians for at least a few days.

I want to give the Sylgardian nobles and army a hidden, fortified village named Claustrum. This will be the place from where they launched their initial attack on Orthera. I'm thinking I can take this opportunity to build up one of the main antagonists, here, a noblewoman knight whose village was attacked by bandits in the pay of the Ortheran King.

I'm not sure that a forest is a good place to hide a village, though, that seems a bit too anime for me. I'll have to look at some history and see if there's anything on hidden villages... or I can settle for fortified, instead.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-26, 06:58 PM
Sounds good. After that it's just a matter of making the details seem right.

What sort of combat system are you going with, if any?

Rosstin
2014-01-26, 07:03 PM
No combat system. I know that's a bit crazy, but it's a visual novel and I personally feel like tacking on a wimpy combat system would be cheap. I want the player to focus on the story. I think that we'll probably have timed events, though, like in Telltale's Walking Dead. When you're in the heat of battle, you can't spend 5 minutes debating your next move.

My goal is to give the player the information they need, and then have them make a strategic decision based on that info. Hopefully I can have a good amount of better drawn maps and whatnot to inform the player.

You wouldn't believe how hard it is to write a swordfight into a visual novel, though!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/swordfight500.jpg

Mr. Mask
2014-01-26, 07:16 PM
Having choice-based combat isn't a bad idea. Tacking on a wimpy combat system can worse than cheapen your game.

But yeah, it is not easy to write a sword fight into a pick-a-path game... I guess you looked at Radical Dreamers? Not a perfect example, but the best which comes to mind.


Looking at the image you posted: How does the resolution work? If you throw your dagger, with you not be allowed to circle defensively? Is there any randomness? Is there a combat stat that effects things?

Rosstin
2014-01-26, 07:26 PM
My style is purely deterministic. Some events may seem random, but are actually the results of earlier decisions that you may not have been aware of. (For instance, you are attacked on Day 3 instead of Day 4. You may think it's random, but if you played the game enough, you might realize that you were attacked on day 3 because you had loose lips around a spy who fed that information back to the enemy.)

In this particular swordfight, events mostly flow chronologically, and your opportunity for performing a certain action may disappear if you don't take it. For instance, this is the next screen if you decide to throw the knife. (It doesn't work, by the way, your combat knife isn't weighted for throwing, what were you thinking?! :smallbiggrin: So the enemy soldier is nearly able to hit you, you barely dodge and he cuts your shirt.)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/threwknife500-1.png

By the way, you might want to check out Lake City Rumble II by Christine Love.

http://scoutshonour.com/lakecityrumble2/

She basically makes a rock-paper-scissors battle system that would work in a VN. I probably wouldn't use this for Queen At Arms because it's a bit too gamey for Queen, but it's very interesting.

My main writer, Serenity, wants me to put a truly random battle into the game. We discussed for instance a "French Foreign Legion" division of the Sylgardian force that is totally and completely lost. Every day they spin a twig and march in that direction. So whether or not they run into you really is completely out of your control and totally random. However, I oppose this on philosophical grounds. I just want to make a purely deterministic game, where everything that happens depends on the player.

Brother Oni
2014-01-26, 07:38 PM
Only comments would be that for the bridge to be strategically important, the river must be deep/wide/fast flowing enough to form a significant obstacle to logistics.
1000 men is a little on the large side for them to be able to feed themselves with just what the men can carry and forage - you'd need supplies wagons. If the wagons are loaded down with pillage from the raids, all the better - they'd have to use the bridge.

A question - since the river appears to be the border between the two countries, wouldn't the bridge be a fortified checkpoint on both sides? The free raiding would suggest that the bridge is under sole Sylgardian control, thus the first step of the plan would be to take the other end of the bridge and stop any messengers getting back to Ortheran.

The other comment would be instead of having Claustrum as a 'hidden village', make it a pre-existing lumberjack camp that's been co-opted into a forward staging area for the raids.
As more troops arrive, the settlement becomes larger to accommodate the needs of the troops (officers would get cabins, rank and file would camp out in the woods or cleared out glades). Since they're on a lumberjack camp, there's plenty of wood around for all the new buildings, along with freshly conscripted carpenters and lumberjacks to keep the base growing.

As for stealing from history, feel free - a lot of authors do this. GRRM of 'A Song of Ice and Fire' fame does it a fair bit.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-26, 07:43 PM
That sounds like a good way of doing it. Makes it harder for you, of course. Do try Radical Dreamers sometime, it is the best example of this kind of combat I know of.

Throwing knives isn't easy, definitely not so easy as movies make it look.

I recommend getting advice from people with knowledge of combat frequently.

In general: You'll have to choose scenarios which are easy enough to understand with fairly little amounts of dialogue. Your example with an enemy out of reach with the sun to his back, that's good. Most people who think about it can understand it and recognize it.

The options available will have to be carefully chosen. You don't want to leave out good tactics which people will want to use, normally, as that can annoy them. Making the options distinct enough is important, so as to be interesting and so that people can understand why some fail and some succeed. You'll also want enough variety between choices and encounters that it doesn't get too old--though, having one where you keep having to cut down enemies, to the point of monotony, could be interesting commentary (not to say you should, but it's worth consideration).

Rosstin
2014-01-26, 08:23 PM
Thanks Oni and Mask! I'm going to carefully read up on the whole Agincourt campaign when I get the chance. I know next to nothing about the military significance of bridges and fording rivers, so I'll have to get that sorted out. It sounds like a very interesting scenario, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Dreamers:_Nusumenai_H%C5%8Dseki

Thanks for pointing me towards Radical Dreamers. I'll play it as soon as I find out how.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-26, 08:44 PM
Not sure if it's possible to play it without an emulator, these days. There are a few lucky people with a working copy, probably. I don't think they've re-released it anywhere.

Good luck with your study. Go ahead and come back for help if you get stuck again.

Rosstin
2014-01-26, 08:57 PM
Sure! I'll post some screenshots of the battle later, too. It should be fully written by next Sunday at the latest.

I think I'm actually going to divide the battle into THREE parts-- in the very first one, I'll have the soldiers exploring a burned village for supplies (scorched earth from the Sylgardian knights' march home). They become terrified by the spectre of a huge monster of some kind (actually an illusion by the enemy mage). This will basically just be the loyalty test... you have to inspire the soldiers to fight the illusion somehow. If you've built up your relationship with them, they trust you and they discover it was an illusion. If you fail, the soldiers aren't significantly harmed (although you probably lose a few men who defect or flee permanently) and it's a big wake-up call that you need the men to trust you. That part I can write right away, too, as it doesn't depend on too much historical knowledge I don't have yet.

banthesun
2014-01-26, 10:40 PM
Woah, this looks a fair bit like Long Live the Queen and you've referenced Christine Love, you have my attention! :smallsmile:

I can't really help with historic info on scouting, but if you're having an issue of the bandits being disconnected from the main story, you could make them into deserters from either of the armies. As far as I understand, lots of deserters did become bandits, even if it meant pillaging from their own country.

Rosstin
2014-01-26, 10:52 PM
Woah, this looks a fair bit like Long Live the Queen and you've referenced Christine Love, you have my attention! :smallsmile:

I can't really help with historic info on scouting, but if you're having an issue of the bandits being disconnected from the main story, you could make them into deserters from either of the armies. As far as I understand, lots of deserters did become bandits, even if it meant pillaging from their own country.

Thanks! Actually, the bandits in question are in
the pay of the Ortheran King (YOUR King). They've been paid by him to ravage and pillage the Sylgardian countryside to weaken them. THAT'S the real reason the Sylgardians are attacking your kingdom. Of course, you don't know this unless you can extract that info from someone.

Basically, your King supplied the bandits with weapons. And they have an arrangement that they can fence their highest value goods to the Ortheran King. He has ways to sell those goods for their full price, whereas the bandits would be forced to sell for less than full value... so "everyone wins". Plus, the Sylgardian countryside is weakened. Unfortunately for the King, someone in Sylgard figured this out and they launched the sneak attack that happens in Chapter 1 and kicks off the bloodshed.

Now in writing the game, I have to be careful that the player doesn't get this information too easily. I don't want the Sylgardians to be sympathetic too early in the game... if you want to turn on your own side, your first chance to do that isn't going to be until Chapter 3 (the second to last chapter).

Anyway, that's why I realized that the bandit battle needs to be pushed back a bit. I figure the bit with the bandits can happen at the end of Chapter 2 (perhaps just a tragic [for the Sylgardians] revelation that the bandits destroyed the hidden village the Sylgardians were protecting) or somewhere earlyish in Chapter 3 (as a skirmish before the big siege battle). The revelation will be optional information, but as soon as something is possible for a player to find, someone will find it, so I have to be careful.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/readicon.png
Alright, let's study... the Battle of Blanchetaque!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blanchetaque
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

Good grief what a difficult to spell name.

Wow, Blanchetaque (1346) and Agincourt (1415) were REALLY far apart in time! Maybe I'll move the Agincourt-esque battle a few weeks later in the campaign rather than right after.

Brother Oni
2014-01-28, 02:32 PM
Thanks Oni and Mask! I'm going to carefully read up on the whole Agincourt campaign when I get the chance. I know next to nothing about the military significance of bridges and fording rivers, so I'll have to get that sorted out.

Generally bridges and fords are only of importance if the river is a sufficient obstacle for the body of men trying to cross it.

The average river isn't going to stop a couple of lightly armed and armoured men crossing (eg scouts and spies), but it is going to stop folks in plate harness getting across (unless they find a boat or something).

Likewise a couple of rowboats is sufficient to get some tens of people across, but it's not practical for an army of thousands.

A common saying is that an army marches on its stomach, so logistics is vital for keeping a coherent fighting force together, otherwise you'll start to suffer from non-battle casualties from fatigue and sickness or desertions.

Deserters can be quite a hassle to deal with, especially if they form bandit companies like banthesun mentioned. They're particularly insidious since they have the knowledge of your supply lines and know your protocols (eg sign/counter sign or just the correct colour uniforms), thus can get closer to the resupply caravans and ambush them.



Wow, Blanchetaque (1346) and Agincourt (1415) were REALLY far apart in time! Maybe I'll move the Agincourt-esque battle a few weeks later in the campaign rather than right after.


You could always use the Battle of Crecy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy) which was only two days after the Battle of Blanchetaque and took place in very similar terrain to Agincourt.

There are some suggestions that the English tactics learnt from Crecy led to the victory at Agincourt.

Rosstin
2014-01-28, 03:56 PM
There's way too much information, haha. If I don't focus I'll never get this done. I gotta focus on what I can use from a gamedev and puzzle-buiding perspective.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/IMG_0494.jpg


The Tears River has to be really huge, scary, and impossible to cross. Canyon river? Engorged from rain?

The Sylgardian Knightess and Head Mage are blocking the Goddess Bridge that spans The Tears river. They have a brief hostile parley with you (with many choices and options) and then attempt to destroy the bridge. How? What kind of bridge is it? The Goddess Bridge is probably a massive, beautiful stone construction, possibly even placed there by the divine hand of the departed goddess in ancient times, so I don't have to worry about how it was constructed. Maybe the bridge is destroyed by gunpowder-- the first significant use of gunpowder in this world. (And your Mechanist can reverse engineer it.)

How will the protagonists cross this river?
- James the Mechanist and his crew could build pontoon bridge
- Rubus the Archmagus could freeze a section and they could run across it (dangerous if the ice breaks for any reason, men could die)
- just ford it with cavalry (men die by being swept away)

You can use your longbowmen to support the fording and distract the sylgardian men-at-arms.

You, Assistant Commander Nicholas, or Commander Berin must lead the charge across the river. Otherwise, the men will not cross. If you send Commander Berin across, he will probably die; his senility is showing and no matter how good of a fighter he is there are just too many Sylgardians. Your brother Nicholas could probably survive, but would the MC let him go alone?

After crossing the river, the Sylgardians are waiting on the other side.

vicious battle an the sylgardian side of river, direct combat with the knightess, mage. The MC and her brother MUST lead this fording, or the men WILL NOT follow.

After the battle, in Ch3 the army is forced to loot food from the Sylgardian countryside in order to survive, horror of war. This village is the same village that many of the enemy Sylgardian knights and noblemen and men-at-arms came from. As you enter, you discover that it is already being attacked by bandits-- then this ties into the aforementioned bandit plot that explains some of the enemy Sylgardian motivation for war (aside from just a desire for sovereignty)

100 English knights and men-at-arms entered the ford under the leadership of Sir Reginald and the Earl of Northampton, experienced officers.
English longbowman launched arrows on the french lines to distract the defenders.

Genoese crossbowman in French service were unable to respond in kind and English reached the other side

Huge battle on the riverbank

French soldiers fled

entire english army crossed the river

looted food from french countryside


Looking at this time period, I think I can divide the forces into 3 main groups, yes?
- Longbowmen
- Men-at-arms
- Mounted knights

Mr. Mask
2014-01-28, 05:21 PM
Most periods can be separated into ranged units, melee guys, and cavalry. You get other types of troops all the same, like horse archers and elephants, but those are the bread and butter of most forces (nowadays its riflemen, close support, and tanks).


It's hard to say if the bridge is magical in nature. You might still be able to just deal with it the normal ways, but a dramatic explosion might be better.

With the different choices, you'll probably want the advocates of each idea to have good logic for why you want to choose their method over the others'. Sometimes a best solution is good, sometimes it's good if you have trade-offs and equal solutions (I know you already know this, it's just my habit to state the obvious).

Will there be choices in whether or how you use your ranged troops during the crossing?

I like being able to choose who leads what. Getting to know your commanders and assign them correctly, I love it.

You could consider having it so that sometimes, you can't not lose a character (and can lose more if you play it badly). That would make replays more interesting. Though, if you do decide to do that, I'd recommend keeping away from The Walking Dead and Mass Effect's tired examples, "character A and character B are going to die, you must choose between them (psst... aren't we dynamic and cutting-edge and awesome with our story!?!?)!"

Having the dangerous area of a mission that needs someone's leadership and overseeing, and you can choose from all your commanders for the position. Most of them would die if you send them (not necessarily on the battlefield, they could have last words and die from wounds) even if they succeed, but if you send someone who won't die then they aren't able to fill the other vital role, so whoever was in charge of that other vital role would die, etc..

This is purely a suggestion. It would only work for certain games and stories, and yours could easily not be of this type--really, don't include something like this if it goes against your game. I hope you take this as a sign that your game has interested and excited me, rather than as me attempting to push ideas on you (one sadly begets the other, more often than not).

One thing with your decisions during battle. Some decisions should have more time, sometimes a great deal of more time, in deciding. Just thought I should point that out, since it's easy to get into the mindset, "Combat decisions give you roughly X seconds to decide," with game design... I get trapped with that myself, despite the fact I know better.

When you say the nobles and knights came from it, do you mean they were raised there or that they had recently been at the village?

Rosstin
2014-01-28, 05:30 PM
SCHEDULE FOR CHAPTER 02

Day 01 - Mourning
Day 02 - Party with Prince, prepare camp to leave
Day 03 - Nick coronation, save Nick, march
Day 04 - command meeting with Spymaster Fox, Commander Bryce, Assistant Commander Nick, Aide Marcus. Final decision about Nick: flee or fight
Day 06 - Forced to pillage an razed Sylgardian village for food. Enemy mage creates an illusion to terrify your men. Wakeup call-- Nick is no leader. The men must trust YOU.
Day 07 - Free day-- choose what to do Morning, Noon, Evening. Player heavily suggested to raise troop morale. Some options raise troop morale and some don't.
Day 10 - Reach the Goddess Bridge that marks the border between Sylgard and Orthera. Battle. (Based on Blanchetaque)
ROUGH SCHEDULE FOR CHAPTER 03

Day 01 - recover from battle
Day 02 - find food or die; pillage the Sylgardian village that mounted the Ch2 attack, or find another solution
Day 05 - Free day
Day ## - ???!?!
Day 10 - siege of Sylgardian capital

Doug Lampert
2014-01-28, 05:30 PM
I'm designing a visual novel which features a good bit of late medieval fantasy warfare. I'm writing battles for the 2nd chapter (out of 4) and I want to do a scene where the protagonist and a handful of other characters are on a scouting mission and come across a village being attacked by bandits. Classic, right?

What I'm wondering is... what do people actually do in a scouting mission? Historically? Let's say late Medieval time period, how many men would go on a scouting mission? 1? 2? 5? 10? Would they be on foot or on horseback? I'd like to give the protagonist some soldiers to play with, but if I give her too many it's not really scouting anymore, eh?

Medieval and earlier warfare was normally woefully light on scouts by modern standards, and the scouts often stayed in sight of the main army (being in that case more a tripwire for ambushes in this case than actual scouts).

The problem is that if the army and scouts are both moving the scouts aren't that much faster than the army, and if they don't know where the army is going then they have to catch up and find it when they return.

The report can easily be obsolete prior to the scouts finding you to report it.

Note: you can tell your scouts your expected route of march, doing this is a major reason Lee lost at Antitem in the American Civil War (his movement orders were captured, they were thoroughly obsolete by the day of the battle, but having had them let McClellan set up the battle when he had a numerical edge); and it can still mislead the scouts if something, like another scout's report, makes you change your line of march. Similarly the confederate and much of the union cavalry missed Gettysburg because they were out hunting each other, and Mead and Lee had no way to recall them quickly.

Foot scouts using stealth especially have a tendancy to be SLOWER than the army they're attached to. Without radios or long continuous lines this is crippling for long range scouting. Your scouts should be mounted if they're getting far from their army. (And far in this case means about 4-6 hours easy ride over unfamiliar terrain, I'd guess we're talking maybe 15 miles or so.)

Mounted scouts are better, but probably got a lot more use trying to find sources of forage (which don't move), good fords (which don't move), and protect or attack supply collumns (which move very slowly) than in trying to find enemy armies. By the time you find an army, then find your own army to report, the enemy has moved. Scouting gives a sort of general idea at best.

The result is that mideval armies are sometimes described as more or less staggering into each other by accident and anchient armies would sometimes deliberately set up battles by mutual agreement.

Alexander was mentioned and did have scouts, but note that Darius spent three days preparing a battlefield at a known location and Alexander simply walked up to it with no effort by either side to evade or surprise the other. It was also mentioned that Alexander's scouts were often in range of army support, i.e. barely out of sight or hearing of the main body.

The best time to scout is when you KNOW you are going to stay somewhere for a day or more, say if you've stopped to rest or wait for another allied contingent to arrive, then you can send out scouts, and they can know were to come back at the end of the day. This is also when you don't want to be surprised. Another effective use is to scout your expected line of march, one group of scouts heading down the road you expect to use can give some warning of trouble, and they do know where to find you and you're moving toward them so they also aren't out of reach of help.

Rosstin
2014-01-28, 05:36 PM
Most periods can be separated into ranged units, melee guys, and cavalry. You get other types of troops all the same, like horse archers and elephants, but those are the bread and butter of most forces (nowadays its riflemen, close support, and tanks).


Just as I'd hoped!



It's hard to say if the bridge is magical in nature. You might still be able to just deal with it the normal ways, but a dramatic explosion might be better.


The actual bridge isn't magical, just a dramatic well-constructed fantasy stone bridge. But it's a mystery how it got there-- I won't worry about explaining why there is a well-constructed stone bridge crossing the river. It Has Always Been There.



With the different choices, you'll probably want the advocates of each idea to have good logic for why you want to choose their method over the others'. Sometimes a best solution is good, sometimes it's good if you have trade-offs and equal solutions (I know you already know this, it's just my habit to state the obvious).

Great idea!



Will there be choices in whether or how you use your ranged troops during the crossing?

Yes but I dunno what yet.



I like being able to choose who leads what. Getting to know your commanders and assign them correctly, I love it.

Thanks!



You could consider having it so that sometimes, you can't not lose a character (and can lose more if you play it badly). That would make replays more interesting. Though, if you do decide to do that, I'd recommend keeping away from The Walking Dead and Mass Effect's tired examples, "character A and character B are going to die, you must choose between them (psst... aren't we dynamic and cutting-edge and awesome with our story!?!?)!"

Having the dangerous area of a mission that needs someone's leadership and overseeing, and you can choose from all your commanders for the position. Most of them would die if you send them (not necessarily on the battlefield, they could have last words and die from wounds) even if they succeed, but if you send someone who won't die then they aren't able to fill the other vital role, so whoever was in charge of that other vital role would die, etc..

This is purely a suggestion. It would only work for certain games and stories, and yours could easily not be of this type--really, don't include something like this if it goes against your game. I hope you take this as a sign that your game has interested and excited me, rather than as me attempting to push ideas on you (one sadly begets the other, more often than not).

Yes, I'm actually planning a sacrifice event just like this for later in the game, in late Chapter 3 or in Chapter 4 (the last one).



One thing with your decisions during battle. Some decisions should have more time, sometimes a great deal of more time, in deciding. Just thought I should point that out, since it's easy to get into the mindset, "Combat decisions give you roughly X seconds to decide," with game design... I get trapped with that myself, despite the fact I know better.

Yeah, I'm going to carefully build the timed menus. Saving it for when the script is done, though. Although I'll probably do it for Chapter 1 so we can release the demo soon.



When you say the nobles and knights came from it, do you mean they were raised there or that they had recently been at the village?
Some of each-- some Men-At-Arms and Knights hail from the village and some were just using it as a stopping point.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-28, 05:57 PM
Gunpowder seems a fine solution to the bridge, either way. Faster than undermining it or smashing it with sledgehammers.


For the archers, you might have something along the lines of...

-Launch a diversionary attack against the enemy.
-Have them guard your troops as they cross.

Largely, the former option is better than the latter, but you could have arguments either way.

"The troops will feel more secure if they have ranged support."
"The troops will be more secure if they do without."
"The enemy will see through the diversion and race to block our path!"
"The enemy will surely see our men and block our path, without a diversion."
Etc.

Admittedly, the way you cross ought to effect that. If the enemy learns you're building a fancy bridge, they're more likely to be prepared for your crossing than if you suddenly forward the river with horses (which is where the arguments come in).


Though I talked down about Mass Effect and The Walking Dead, a direct sacrifice isn't a bad thing. You need someone to with a small number of troops to fight the enemy while the rest of you escape, risking capture or death? That happens. I do recommend not having just two potential commanders for the mission, just because choosing between two victims is tired (you could still do it well, even so--just something to watch out for).


Looking forward to the demo. Depending on how finished the game is by that point, I can point out anything I notice which you may wish to consider (I tend to point out more than is actually necessary for revision, so you needn't worry).


Having a lot of the soldiers come from a village that was regularly raided in the war makes sense. Just, nobles don't generally come from villages, lest one village, so I figured I should ask. Note that all nobles were knights in most systems (there are other options, of course--you could have a warrior class beneath the noble class).

veti
2014-01-28, 06:12 PM
Though I talked down about Mass Effect and The Walking Dead, a direct sacrifice isn't a bad thing. You need someone to with a small number of troops to fight the enemy while the rest of you escape, risking capture or death? That happens. I do recommend not having just two potential commanders for the mission, just because choosing between two victims is tired (you could still do it well, even so--just something to watch out for).


I beg to differ. A sacrifice may sometimes be justified, and it can potentially work miracles, but it should never be Plan A. A deliberate sacrifice is, in itself, always a bad thing, which should only be contemplated when you've run distinctly short of other options.

Quite apart from the direct cost, it's critically bad for morale. It's bad for the commander, to deliberately send people to die, and it's bad for everyone who reports to them, to know that their commander is the sort of person who would do that.

Rosstin
2014-01-28, 06:15 PM
Having a lot of the soldiers come from a village that was regularly raided in the war makes sense. Just, nobles don't generally come from villages, lest one village, so I figured I should ask. Note that all nobles were knights in most systems (there are other options, of course--you could have a warrior class beneath the noble class).

What would you call a village large enough to have its own nobles? Yeah, I'm going with the knight=noble paradigm.

The way I figure it, even 1 noble coming from the location would be enough plotwise. 2 or 3 could be better.


I beg to differ. A sacrifice may sometimes be justified, and it can potentially work miracles, but it should never be Plan A. A deliberate sacrifice is, in itself, always a bad thing, which should only be contemplated when you've run distinctly short of other options.

Quite apart from the direct cost, it's critically bad for morale. It's bad for the commander, to deliberately send people to die, and it's bad for everyone who reports to them, to know that their commander is the sort of person who would do that.

These are great points. Sending Commander Berin to die could be bad for morale.

Okay, here's a question... WHAT do you call gunpowder before guns? Black Powder, right? And how would you describe an explosion without using the word explosion?

Mr. Mask
2014-01-28, 06:58 PM
Veti: Well, Sun Tsu advocated the sacrifice spy as quite a good idea. A man whose purpose more often than not, was to be captured, tortured, and the information you gave him discovered by the enemy. Unbeknownst to the enemy and your spy, the information is false, and leads them into your trap.

For having a portion of your force hold off the enemy while you retreat, though, that's a sign of your plans having gone south, and you need to salvage the situation by having brave men sacrifice themselves so that not everyone will die.

Either way, sacrifices are usually good for the story.



Aster: Castles and cities are the main places of nobles, though major towns might house nobles. Esquires and the like might have a manor house in a large village.

You can also have higher nobles fleeing from evil uncles to villages until they grow old enough to claim their inheritance. Or you can have commoners become nobles through talent at arms.


Whoever you send to die will have an effect on your army and their morale. Sending someone they hate will make them happier (though if that guy was important to the functioning of your army, the benefit will be short-term only).

With spies, no one really knows or cares about your treatment of them, aside from spies and would-be spies.

Commanders are more visible, and there is more stigma for how you treat them. Same for your general soldiers.

With leaving people to fend off the enemy while you escape, you'd probably want the option to ask for volunteers. The person you were planning to send might volunteer. If they don't, you either have to pick someone who did, or go against the volunteer thing, which can be even worse (though, the troops mightn't find out about this, if it's among the commanders).

Rosstin
2014-01-28, 07:06 PM
More great ideas! Thank you, Mask!

Death Mechanics:
Here's an idea I'm toying with. Queen At Arms is a game where you die. A lot. I think if you were very careful and payed close attention, you would have maybe a 50% chance of never dying. We've been talking for awhile about how we're going to handle death. Currently you just have to save carefully.

One interesting thing about dying in this game: currently, when you die, you meet the Goddess Althea, she talks to you kindly, calming you, and then you dissolve into nothingness, becoming part of her.

I'm considering doing something instead, where she talks to you calmly, gives you advice about why you died and how to avoid it, and then sends you back to a point before your demise. What do you guys think of this? Too forgiving? Then the game can keep track of how many times you died and how (just for your own amusement.)

Mr. Mask
2014-01-28, 07:24 PM
Whether it's too forgiving depends on how good the advice is. And how many options stack up to your death.

Let's ay you want to do X. However, since you've been working to make you men hate you since day once, it gets you killed. To do X, you would have had to have played the game very differently from the get-go. Being given a hint that, "You know you could have survived... if you weren't such a jerkface," might be a good idea, so that the player realizes, "Oh, so that path wasn't an insta-kill. And I am a jerkface!"

If you had two choices, and you picked the one which killed you... you don't really need advice to pick the right one there.

Sending you back to the point of demise might be the best idea, depending. Having to save constantly annoys some people, and it really doesn't have any gameplay effect whether you get to reload an auto-save from the point of death, or save one conversation back--except the former is faster, more efficient, and less annoying.

However, you might want to control these checkpoints. Say, you die in combat. Rather than coming back to life in the middle of the combat where you made the wrong choice, you would want the player to come to life at the start of that combat.

This is true of any situation where your recent choices had an effect on the outcome. Say, right after the bridge blows up, you're deciding how to cross, then who to send, then what to do with your archers, then how to fight the battle--all those choices are probably connected, and will effect your success.

Even so, make sure not to send people too far back with these checkpoints, especially be careful of sending them back so that they need to repeat something tedious (most things become tedious when you need to repeat them).

Rosstin
2014-01-28, 07:45 PM
Hmm.... good advice.

I'm working on the bridge crossing choices now.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/howtocross600.png

I'm putting more energy into getting the structure of the battle right than writing good dialog right now. I'll have to make a second pass tomorrow. If I'm lucky, we'll get another snow day and I can skip work tomorrow, finish this thing.




bry "We must cross that river!"
mc "With the bridge out, there's no way."
r "Really? I can think of several."
j "For one thing, we can build a pontoon bridge. It will take several hours and it will be obvious to the enemy what we are doing, though."
r "I can freeze the river and make a bridge out of ice. That would take up all of my energy, though. I'm afraid I would have to sit out the rest of combat."
n "We don't need any of that. We can just ford the river now."
r "With respect, Assistant Commander Nicholas, the current is too strong. Men would be swept away. Only the mounted men would be able to cross."
n "So? The mounted men will be all we need. Besides, if your ice bridge wasn't strong enough to take the weight of the men..."
menu:
mc "Should we ford the river with our knights, build a pontoon bridge, or freeze a portion of the river with magic?"
"Ask Assistant Commander Nick about fording the river with his knights.":
jump c02b03_n
"Ask James the Mechanist about creating a pontoon bridge.":
jump c02b03_j
"Ask Archmagus Rubus about creating an ice bridge.":
jump c02b03_r
return

Mr. Mask
2014-01-28, 08:05 PM
This is looking good.

Will just point it out before either of us forget, you may wish to change, "it will be obvious that we're building the bridge," to, "we'll try to conceal this, but the enemy could easily guess," or something to those lines. A minor thing, but I thought I should mention.

And yeah definitely a good idea to focus on the structure then the story, or viceversa. Humans aren't that great at multi-tasking.

Looking forward to future updates. Don't feel you have to reply constantly, though. Only reply when it suits you (talking about the game might help motivate you, depending).

Rosstin
2014-01-28, 08:23 PM
Will just point it out before either of us forget, you may wish to change, "it will be obvious that we're building the bridge," to, "we'll try to conceal this, but the enemy could easily guess," or something to those lines. A minor thing, but I thought I should mention.


Done!



Looking forward to future updates. Don't feel you have to reply constantly, though. Only reply when it suits you (talking about the game might help motivate you, depending).

Thanks Mask, no worries! Don't worry, I'm replying for my own benefit. :-)
This has been very helpful.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-28, 08:25 PM
I'm glad. Will keep checking back inbetween working on the TTRPG. Might need to consider starting my own thread soon.

Rosstin
2014-01-28, 10:44 PM
I'm at the point where someone has to cross, now. This is definitely tricky, I have to figure out what kind of consequences each choice will have.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/charge600.jpg


You will have to go through a battle sequence and you may get injured.
Commander Bryce will die if you choose him, and this will hurt morale.
Nick might get hurt if he goes, but he probably won't die.
If the soldiers go alone, it's a rout and you lose the game. Might add that it's possible for them to lead themselves if their morale is extremely high.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-28, 10:59 PM
If you lead and succeed, you're likely to improve your standing with the men.

If Nick leads and succeeds he'll improve his standing--which would be a problem if you later need to get the soldiers to turn against him. If he does a poor job, morale will drop some, and Nick's standing may go down.

Those are my immediate thoughts.

Rosstin
2014-01-28, 11:05 PM
If you lead and succeed, you're likely to improve your standing with the men.

If Nick leads and succeeds he'll improve his standing--which would be a problem if you later need to get the soldiers to turn against him. If he does a poor job, morale will drop some, and Nick's standing may go down.

Those are my immediate thoughts.

Yes, I have similar thoughts.

Each character's crossing needs to be written separately, and the actions of the archers matters, and the type of bridge matters. My first little combinatorial explosion!

It should be manageable, though. I've had worse.

I've basically brought the game up to the point of crossing the river, now. I just have to write the battle on the river bank now. I think I'll save it for tomorrow. Thank the Goddess Althea, we have another snow day and I don't have to go to work.

Nick is the protag's brother and she might not be ruthless enough to let her cross without him, which would make his scene more interesting than just watching him splash across the river. But we'll see.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-28, 11:15 PM
This is going to be interesting.

Good luck with the scenario. I'll keep checking back.

Rosstin
2014-01-29, 07:45 AM
Hmm, okay. The protagonists get to the other side of the river and start fighting on the riverbank... then what? The actual Battle of Blanchetaque doesn't really have anything interesting happen after that... I'll have to make up some of my own action.

It feels like this would be the right time to put the protagonist in some kind of sword fight. Those are very difficult to make interesting. Maybe I can put her in a sparring match with some of the villains. I'm planning to build up 3 recurring villains for the game, and 1 mastermind.


Rogue's Gallery

Knightess Lorimette, a noblewoman whose village was raided by bandits in the pay of the King of Orthera. Commander of this branch of the Sylgard force.
Archmagus Adamus, a traitorous mage who specializes in illusions.
Mechanist Eregant, a brilliant engineer who pioneers the use of black powder in warfare.
Queen Charlotte, an extremely intelligent and proud ruler who is willing to die for the sovereignty of Sylgard. She was always one step ahead of King Kendrick until the protagonist took charge of the army.


I've toyed with the idea of putting Queen Charlotte somewhere before Chapter 3, when you parley with her outside the Capital of Sylgard. It seems a tad unrealistic for her to parade around with her army, which is why I have Knightess Lorimette, but perhaps it's not that crazy. Medieval Kings pranced around on the battlefield all the time.

One of the themes of this game is honorable vs dishonorable warfare. The protagonist's army, especially the original Commander and Assistant, believed that war was a game with very clearcut rules to be followed. Queen Charlotte has a different perspective-- she is fighting for the survival of her country, and all bets are off. She'll sneak attack, she'll use disguises, she'll poison your food, she'll blow up a sacred bridge-- anything to protect Sylgard.

Unbeknownst to you, the King you serve, Mad King Kendrick, isn't exactly a nice person himself. His assault on Sylgardian sovereignty is what really started this conflict.

Which brings me back to the battle on the riverbank. Most of the strategic decisions have been made at this point, it seems. There's no commanding or strategizing left, just a huge scrum. As cliche as it is, it seems most sensible if the protagonist cuts through some mooks, pairs off with one of the villains and then has a sword fight + conversation. Assuming success, the Sylgardians are driven off and the battle is won.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-29, 09:43 AM
Well, there are tactics during a battle itself. Decisions like what you do with your cavalry, infantry and archers. You're likely to be short on archers due to the diversionary action.

Brother Oni
2014-01-29, 12:43 PM
Which brings me back to the battle on the riverbank. Most of the strategic decisions have been made at this point, it seems. There's no commanding or strategizing left, just a huge scrum.

Don't mistake strategy for tactics. All the strategy has already been done, but all the tactical work is still to do.

I agree there comes a point when tactics no longer applicable but by that point, the battle is usually just reduced to 'kill guy in front of you then move onto the next one'.


One other comment on the bridge crossing - while I agree that rivers could only be forded by cavalry, but only because the men are dismounting and are swimming across the river with their horses helping against the current or a simple flotation device.
It's perfectly possible for both horse and rider to be washed away and if the idiots are trying to ride across a river that deep, they deserve to drown.

Some rivers are fordable while riding, but typically they don't form a significant barrier to troops, since it's shallow enough to float a wagon across.

Rosstin
2014-01-29, 01:47 PM
Don't mistake strategy for tactics. All the strategy has already been done, but all the tactical work is still to do.

I agree there comes a point when tactics no longer applicable but by that point, the battle is usually just reduced to 'kill guy in front of you then move onto the next one'.


One other comment on the bridge crossing - while I agree that rivers could only be forded by cavalry, but only because the men are dismounting and are swimming across the river with their horses helping against the current or a simple flotation device.
It's perfectly possible for both horse and rider to be washed away and if the idiots are trying to ride across a river that deep, they deserve to drown.

Some rivers are fordable while riding, but typically they don't form a significant barrier to troops, since it's shallow enough to float a wagon across.

Thank you, I didn't know this! I could make the river wide enough and scary enough that fording it without any aid is impossible or deadly. I could make this obvious in the text and artwork and give the player a death end if they tried to ford the river. Then there would only be two possibilities instead of three (ice bridge and pontoon bridge.) I'll have to think about that.

Rosstin
2014-01-29, 04:40 PM
AH, another important plot thread in writing the battle on the riverbank:
I can put the Protagonist's generals (Lucius the Head Cleric, Rubus the Archmagus, James the Mechanist, Spymaster Fox, and Sir Nick) fighting alongside her on the riverbank, and she can direct them and get various outcomes from how they fight.

For example, we have a plot thread where Rubus the Archmagus can convert the traitorous mage to the player side, but this is only possible if you didn't have him use his full power in creating the Ice Bridge.

There's also the Sylgardian rebellion from within the ranks of the protagonist's soldiers that I still have to get in there.

POSSIBLE BATTLE OUTCOMES:
# Berin dead or alive
# Nick injured or not injured
# Protagonist Marcus injured or not injured
# Enemy mage converted or not converted
# Sylgarian rebels within your army: Deserted, betrayed you (instant death-- no Ch3 consequence), agreed to spy on Sylgard for you, or agreed to fight on your side permanently (either because you convinced them that Sylgard is evil, or because they know that you as a native-born Sylgardian will somehow betray your army at a crucial point)

veti
2014-01-29, 04:46 PM
Hmm, okay. The protagonists get to the other side of the river and start fighting on the riverbank... then what? The actual Battle of Blanchetaque doesn't really have anything interesting happen after that... I'll have to make up some of my own action.

In the actual battle, the attackers were expecting only light resistance and were surprised at the strength of the enemy they ran into. There must have been several moments of doubt/indecision as to whether to press on. Only the commander knows they don't really have a choice - it's now or never, they have to get through here or the campaign and the army will be lost - so he commits more troops to strengthen anyone wavering at the front.

Rosstin
2014-01-29, 05:01 PM
In the actual battle, the attackers were expecting only light resistance and were surprised at the strength of the enemy they ran into. There must have been several moments of doubt/indecision as to whether to press on. Only the commander knows they don't really have a choice - it's now or never, they have to get through here or the campaign and the army will be lost - so he commits more troops to strengthen anyone wavering at the front.

That's insightful, thank you! A moment-of-faith angle. Many times in warfare, if you retreat, it's a rout and you die. Especially in this battle. There's an ice or pontoon bridge, or the men are tired from fording the river. Retreating is something the protags might consider but is only a guarantee of death.

I just scripted a "stub" of the Sylgardian conflict. (That means it's not the final script, just the logic so I can refer to it later.)

One of the plot threads in this game is that the Sylgardians have been under the thumb of Orthera for years. This arrangement hasn't always been bad for them, either. Think Britain/USA or USA/Islands or China/Taiwan+HK+Tibet. There are both advantages and disadvantages. In any case, now that the conflict has turned violent, the Ortheran Army is in the awkward position of employing a large contingent of troops who were born in Sylgard (the country they are at war with.) I haven't decided exactly how many. There are about 9000 troops in the Ortheran army, and I'm imagining that there are between 100-1000 Sylgardian-born troops within that 9000.



menu:
"You should fight for Orthera because it's super great. Uhhh... you don't look convinced. Where are you going? Don't leave!":
$c02_sylgardiansDeserted = True
mc "Don't leave meeeee."
sol12 "Sorry, that argument just sucked."
"Traitors! We will slay you! (death end)":
$c02_sylgardiansBetrayal = True
sol12 "Diieeeeee!!!"
mc "nooo my life"
pass
"Queen Charlotte is the real villain. Infilitrate the Sylgardian capitol and feed us intelligence about her, and I promise to save Sylgard.":
$c02_sylgardiansBecomeSpies = True
sol12 "Your words are persuasive. We will spy for you."
"You just need to trust me. I will take care of you if you remain with the army.":
if(soldierRespect >= 80):
sol12 "...You truly care about your men. We trust you. We will stay with you and fight on your side."
$c02_sylgardiansFightForYou = True
else:
sol12 "Who are you to promise that? We don't trust you. We're leaving."
$c02_sylgardiansDeserted = True
mc "Come baaaaack!"
"I'm a Sylgardian myself. Trust me and we'll betray Orthera at the right time. For now, this is the best place we could possibly be.":
$c02_sylgardiansFightForYou = True
sol12 "You're right. You and Nick are Sylgardians too. We know that you would never betray the country you grew up in."

Brother Oni
2014-01-29, 06:43 PM
Thank you, I didn't know this! I could make the river wide enough and scary enough that fording it without any aid is impossible or deadly. I could make this obvious in the text and artwork and give the player a death end if they tried to ford the river. Then there would only be two possibilities instead of three (ice bridge and pontoon bridge.) I'll have to think about that.

Maybe also ram the point home by giving the player a chance to try fording it solo to inspire the men, then give them a warning when they're waist deep that the current is faster than it looks. At that point, there's a further option to carry on (death) or retreat back to the bank (loss of standing).

Perhaps give another option to cross the river en-mass, sacrificing safety for speed, or just send a few men at a time and sacrifice speed for safety.
To make it more interesting, warn the player that taking things slow may run the risk of either the diversion failing or an enemy patrol discovering your crossing attempt, but taking things fast may cause the bridge to fail.

I leave which is the better choice up to you.



One of the plot threads in this game is that the Sylgardians have been under the thumb of Orthera for years. This arrangement hasn't always been bad for them, either. Think Britain/USA or USA/Islands or China/Taiwan+HK+Tibet. There are both advantages and disadvantages.

At risk of politics, but what?

Assuming you meant the Revolutionary war by Britain/USA (colony rebelling against its parent country), that's a vastly different scenario to China (civil war holdover/colonialism legacy/very very complicated).

I don't know what you mean by USA/Islands.

While I think I get the gist of what you mean, may I suggest that more care be taken in choosing your examples as it may confuse the issue.

Rosstin
2014-01-29, 06:55 PM
Sorry, I don't mean to be confusing with the real world examples. I'm typing on-the-run a bit.

Orthera has had a healthy alliance with Sylgard in the past. They're allies against other common enemies, to the point where the Ortheran Army conscripts Sylgardian-born troops.

Recently, their relationship has festered. Behind the scenes, Orthera has been provoking Sylgard into war and plans to take their sovereignty. Sylgard's ruler Queen Charlotte was aware of the intentions of Orthera's ruler, King Kendrick, and she launched a sneak attack against Orthera. She knew that Orthera had greater numbers and could win a straight war, but she thought if she was able to gain the advantage with a surprise offensive, and wage a total war, then she could defeat the Ortheran Army and Sylgard could retain its independence.

There's an awkward situation in the Ortheran army where, at the point at which war breaks out, there are Sylgard-born troops as members of the army.

This is where the conflict arises-- over the first days of the conflict, the Sylgard-born troops struggle with who the real enemy is and what is going on, and may decide to return to Sylgard and desert the Ortheran army. This is complicated by the presence of some high-ranking Sylgard-born people in the Ortheran army, such as Sir Nick who eventually becomes Assistant Commander (he's your brother.) As well as you. So the Sylgard-born troops in the Ortheran army won't keep fighting for the Ortheran side if you can't sway them in some manner.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-29, 07:56 PM
River fording: I really don't think the commander should be the one to test this. The other officers wouldn't be likely to allow it. You'd be better to send one skilled man to try, get his opinion if he comes back alive.

Fording a river more slowly doesn't usually have any benefit. It might depending on the river, but it wouldn't be so common that you need that option.

Come to think of it, you should probably have a choice for how quickly you attack the enemy when fording the river. You could in theory ferry all your men across, in between giving the horses a break from repeated trips. But, the main reason to ford a river with horses is the speed of it, so attacking the enemy before they know what's going on is important too. Would make it an interesting balancing act between the enemy's preparedness and your number of troops (take too long ,and they'll get YOU with a surprise attack).

I didn't note it before, but when fording a river, you tend to set up flotation devices, and ropes between the two sides, to help men and horses get across. It's a pretty interesting process, might be worth describing.


Where to Cross: I forgot to ask. Are you crossing anywhere in particular? Generally, you cross a river at the most optimal points, like a lake. You might cross in rougher places to surprise your enemy, like crossing the Alps.

Some rivers have areas nearly impossible to cross by boat, some with very strong whirlpool that make it hard for boats. This one evidently has areas available that are possible to cross.


Outcomes of Battle: Sounds good.


Treacherous troops: Really, it is a very bad idea to be fighting with men who aren't loyal to you. So, you'll want a reason for why they're there, which you probably have. Some miscommunication, where your orders are to fight with the troops you have because they don't understand that your Slygardian men may turn.

It is also likely you have reason to believe they're unlikely to turn, at least at first. The other force seems more like a terrorist group than a legitimate representative of Slygardian government, until you find out the Queen is among them or the like.

These guys did volunteer to serve in your army, for one reason or another, so it's not as though they should be against you to start with--they just aren't very loyal to start with.

There's the question of how they are organized compared to your other troops. Are they in segregated units? If so, one very wise option if you can't send them away, is to intermix the units, preferable with more of your own guys per unit than Slygardians. That's how you handle prisoners of war who are willing to fight for you.

Actually, since it's possible to have your troops desert and the story to continue, you could give the player the option of sending their Slygardian troops away, to somewhere they can't betray you, when it becomes clear they may become a problem. If you do that, you'll have harder fighting on your hands since you have less men (but that is also true if they deserted), which can mean more losses and more morale loss. You can decide to keep them, on the grounds you can still paint the enemy as terrorists rather than legitimate rulers, and that your Slygardian heritage will be able to sway them in your favour.

Note that the Slygardians under you are probably considered complete traitors for serving you (if their own country isn't a vassal state, and they are serving your side during a war, they are pretty much traitors--so it's a matter of whether they decide they like being traitors or not). That isn't to say they wouldn't be accepted into the war effort--but that offence to them may be able to be used to your advantage. Plus, they mightn't be sure that their own side would welcome them.


Retreat: Because of the bridge, an organized retreat might work. Depends on a variety of factors. Might be game over regardless.

Rosstin
2014-01-30, 01:39 AM
Note that the Slygardians under you are probably considered complete traitors for serving you (if their own country isn't a vassal state, and they are serving your side during a war, they are pretty much traitors--so it's a matter of whether they decide they like being traitors or not). That isn't to say they wouldn't be accepted into the war effort--but that offence to them may be able to be used to your advantage. Plus, they mightn't be sure that their own side would welcome them.


Retreat: Because of the bridge, an organized retreat might work. Depends on a variety of factors. Might be game over regardless.

Thanks again, Mask. Excellent info! You can see why this is so difficult. The whole conflict with all of its political complications makes for a hefty (and slightly boring) backstory. I have to meter it out slowly over time to the player. Give it to them too fast and it's an infodump. Give it to them too slowly and they'll wonder "Why didn't I know that? That was important!"

On top of that, I'm only the battle writer, not the main writer. Yes, I'm also the producer and boss, but I still have to trust the main writer to build the framework of the story. That's what I hired her for. It's a very delicate and complex thing for us to write together. She writes a complex story that has emotional impact, I try to make logical sense out of the logistics of the warfare. What a tangled web we weave...

That's why I value the input of historians like yourselves so much. There's just way too much info out there for me to absorb.

I have way more sympathy for the writers of Fire Emblem now. The whole time I was playing Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance I was like *snooooooze what's going on who is the bad guy just tell me, god*. Now I really empathize with the writers.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-30, 01:57 AM
Metering out information is the challenge of having a rich world. One trick in games, is that the player can ask questions. I've spent tons of time in RPG just investigating every dialogue choice and asking every question.


I recommend getting her to this thread. Battles aren't secluded affairs, they tend to have a ton of effects and dependencies on other elements of the story. You working as an intermediary isn't a bad thing, just that it does leave room for miscommunication, and she mightn't get to voice concerns and ideas and facts which could be helpful to our helping you.

Rosstin
2014-01-30, 02:11 AM
Serenity is aware of the existence of this thread. But honestly I don't want to distract her too much, she needs to sit her butt down and get writing! Serenity, if you're reading this, keep writing! <3


Metering out information is the challenge of having a rich world. One trick in games, is that the player can ask questions. I've spent tons of time in RPG just investigating every dialogue choice and asking every question.


I recommend getting her to this thread. Battles aren't secluded affairs, they tend to have a ton of effects and dependencies on other elements of the story. You working as an intermediary isn't a bad thing, just that it does leave room for miscommunication, and she mightn't get to voice concerns and ideas and facts which could be helpful to our helping you.

Right now there's a lot of linearity, especially in the conversations. That's something I'm going to take a pass at tomorrow, in the first chapter. I'd like to make conversations more radiant, but I don't want to reduce the consistency of Serenity's work either. Very tricky.

Don't worry, Serenity and I are in constant communication over the effects of the battles. She reads over them very carefully to make sure that the characters stay consistent, just as I carefully go over her work to make sure it's the best it can be.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-30, 02:19 AM
That puts my concerns about communications to rest. If Serenity ever has any questions of her own, even if not combat related, feel free to post them.


I can't really comment on how many questions you should have. I wanted to point out that technique, since some VNs forget they can make use of it, but what use you make of it really depends on the story and style. You can get the answer from your play testers, and can experiment with questions to see what seems the best mix.

((Clarifying: Do you mean anything in particular with making conversations, "radiant"?))

Rosstin
2014-01-30, 02:25 AM
That's a slang that may be confusing-- "radiant" means containing branches, options. I like that word because it's easier to say than "nonlinear", which doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, and sounds more positive. But it's sort of crazy visual novel lingo that nobody else understands.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-30, 02:29 AM
Cool. I'll remember that lingo so I can confuse people with it.


Anyway, I'll keep an eye on the thread. Post if you have any new questions or if you're having problems with stuff I suggested (there are a lot of exceptions in history, sociology and psychology, so you can normally work around given problems).

veti
2014-01-30, 06:38 AM
Note that the Slygardians under you are probably considered complete traitors for serving you (if their own country isn't a vassal state, and they are serving your side during a war, they are pretty much traitors--so it's a matter of whether they decide they like being traitors or not).

Umm... This is a cultural question. For this to be true, your culture has to have embraced the concept of "nationalism" - the idea that your first and highest political loyalty is to something abstract called a "country", rather than to a feudal liege-lord or other individual.

That's an idea that appeared in medieval Europe, probably towards the end of the Hundred Years' War (George Bernard Shaw attributes Joan of Arc as its inventor, which is probably an exaggeration, but not by much). Before nationalism - under feudalism - you were expected to fight for your lord, not your country - in fact, the very idea that "you" belonged to something called a "country", just because of where you were born and what language you spoke, would have seemed alien. (In a feudal system, for a peasant, or common man-at-arms, or even a knight, that sort of loyalty is not yours to give; it's your lord who tells you what king - or challenger - you'll side with in any given conflict.)

Edit: Note that the feudal organisation also makes it pretty well impossible to break units up and assign their members to other units. The huge bulk of your army (mercenaries excepted) will fight only under their own lord - you can't simply say "OK, you Folkestone man, you're officially from Gloucester now, go join the Duke's men". After all, the Folkestone man knows that (the best thing that can possibly happen is that) he'll one day go back to his home in Folkestone, and it'll be the Viscount of Folkestone who'll be giving out rewards, not the Duke of some larger town half-way across the country.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-30, 02:59 PM
Treatment of the men who serve the traitor lord could vary between cultures--but it was normally very bad.

If the Slygardian troops have a lord or lords who have mustered them specifically, the politics of controlling them changes.

Brother Oni
2014-01-31, 03:13 AM
River fording: I really don't think the commander should be the one to test this. The other officers wouldn't be likely to allow it. You'd be better to send one skilled man to try, get his opinion if he comes back alive.

Except that exact situation was engineered to get the commander to prove his worth to the men - the whole 'leading from the front, never ask a man to do something that you wouldn't do yourself' style of leadership. Besides, you need to get an officer across the river anyway, so it's good for morale for him to cross first and to prove that it can be done (it can't in this case).

It's just an example of letting your ideals over-ride your common sense which is fairly common in heroic stories. I'm just injecting a little bit more realism into it.



Fording a river more slowly doesn't usually have any benefit. It might depending on the river, but it wouldn't be so common that you need that option.

Except that fording the river wasn't an option, just the speed at which you use the pontoon or ice bridge.
Forcing more men across the bridge at a time could potentially cause the bridge to fail under the extra weight.


Treatment of the men who serve the traitor lord could vary between cultures--but it was normally very bad.

As veti said, it depends very much on the culture. During the Three Kingdoms, captured soldiers from a losing army were typically either subsumed into the victorious army's forces or demobilised and sent home and this was with a much stronger sense of nationalism than in western Medieval times (you were a man of a country/city state rather than serving a lord).

Depending on how the Sylgardians under the protagonist's control got into the army in the first place affects their perception by other Sylgardians. I find it hard to fault them if they were conscripted or otherwise subsumed into the Ortheran army against their will - if they were volunteers, then I would agree with them.
As for how badly they were treated, it depends entirely on the lord in question and his prejudices against Sylgardians, irrespective of the actual political situation.

One point of note is that if Sylgardia is under Ortheran control in the first place, the Sylgardian army that's been running around are rebels/traitors or freedom fighters depending on your point of view, making this into a revolutionary war.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-31, 03:59 AM
Treatment of prisoners is separate from treatment of traitors.

If the Slygardians were subsumed against their will, the MC is in serious trouble. That scenario can only go downhill.

Did Aster say that Slygardians are apparently not treated very well under the MC's kingdom, hence their small loyalty?

I believe Aster said that Slygardia is still its own nation?


River fording: I see what you mean about testing the player's common sense, giving them a lesson on what's inspiring and what's dumb. Just, I think this example doesn't fit, since the officers and possibly the men wouldn't allow it.


Speed of crossing: I don't feel a decision of speed should be placed on bridge/ice crossing either. The differences in crossing order are too subtle and hard to judge for a VN.

Brother Oni
2014-01-31, 07:37 AM
Treatment of prisoners is separate from treatment of traitors.

You're missing the point - the Sylgardians wouldn't be considered traitors as the idea of nationalism wouldn't be present in the first place.

About the only way you could swing it, is if the Sylgardians are racially (and obviously) different, which changes the dynamic.



Did Aster say that Slygardians are apparently not treated very well under the MC's kingdom, hence their small loyalty?


It's unclear. He mentioned the US/GB revolutionary war and the current PROC/ROC/HK/Tibet situation in the same example, which confused me.

Making the assumption that the Sylgardians are treated as second class citizens and generally under the thumb of the Ortherans, why on earth do they still have a standing military capable of opposing the Ortherans?

If they were recently conquered, then a rebellion of all the disenfranchised soldiers would be reasonable, but Aster said they had been under the thumb for a while. I guess it depends on what exactly is meant by 'under the thumb' and the level of undue influence the Ortherans have on Sylgardian politics.



I believe Aster said that Slygardia is still its own nation?


There's a difference between being a puppet state and being an semi autonomous sovereignty. Since they still have a standing military, I'm inclined to think the latter (unless the Ortherans never got round to demobilising them or it's beyond the scope of the story), subject to my comments above.



River fording: I see what you mean about testing the player's common sense, giving them a lesson on what's inspiring and what's dumb. Just, I think this example doesn't fit, since the officers and possibly the men wouldn't allow it.

I'm inclined to agree, but if the protagonist's relationship with the overall commander is that bad, then that commander could order him to do it.

It's just a suggestion anyway.



Speed of crossing: I don't feel a decision of speed should be placed on bridge/ice crossing either. The differences in crossing order are too subtle and hard to judge for a VN.

Your men are crossing the bridge safely in small groups. Your fellow commander, Wossname, comes up to you. "This is taking too long - an enemy patrol could come across us at any time!"

Do you:

Agree - "Yes, this is taking too long. Lieutenant Thingamajig, get the men to cross in larger groups."
Disagree - "No, the bridge is too unstable to risk the men's safety. We'll carry on in small groups."
Tell him to bugger off - "These are my men and I'll decide the best way to cross. Now shut up and let me get on with it. Sir."

Rosstin
2014-01-31, 10:51 AM
Your men are crossing the bridge safely in small groups. Your fellow commander, Wossname, comes up to you. "This is taking too long - an enemy patrol could come across us at any time!"

Do you:

Agree - "Yes, this is taking too long. Lieutenant Thingamajig, get the men to cross in larger groups."
Disagree - "No, the bridge is too unstable to risk the men's safety. We'll carry on in small groups."
Tell him to bugger off - "These are my men and I'll decide the best way to cross. Now shut up and let me get on with it. Sir."


I like this situation! I might use this. I'm going to have to give the two of you a place in the special thanks for sure.

Honestly, the Sylgard/Orthera thing is something I'm confused by as well. Serenity has her own view of the situation but I think I'm going to have to reinterpret it and nail it down. She wrote the initial story outline, and now she's in charge of the emotional/character-content/dialog whereas I'm in charge of the military angle and overall game structure.

Basically, I need to retroactively construct whichever scenario makes the most sense with the current story.

The way Serenity explained it to me: Sylgard and Orthera are very good allies. They have common enemies to the North, to the South, and across the seas, as well as the harsh elements to contend with. They rely on eachother. Historically, they have been allies for a very long time.

Sylgard and Orthera have some kind of relationship where Sylgard is totally OK with having Orthera train their troops. Most of the time the troops are even allowed to return home to Sylgard after a few years, with the understanding that in a time of war they will return to the army to help fight against a common enemy. There may be some resentment about this situation, but it's under-the-surface. It has been this way for a long time.

What changed, is the conflict. The revelation that Sylgard launched a sneak attack (secretly what the King of Orthera wanted) has justified a war of subjugation. The King of Orthera is somehow eloquent enough to convince the Sylgardian troops that they should continue to fight for him. This all seems very sudden, but if we go back a few years in history there were some other events that made this seem less surprising-- trouble has been brewing for a few years but most people (especially the Sylgard-born soldiers in the Ortheran army) haven't been aware of it.

Currently, I'm imagining that the King of Orthera's real agenda is to make Sylgard into some kind of vassal or proxy state against their will. Essentially, Sylgard is currently ruled by Queen Charlotte, and he doesn't want her in the picture anymore. He'll probably instill someone in power over Sylgard, but it certainly won't be a Queen. It will be someone he controls... his son Prince Alastor for instance.

Inside, the Sylgardian troops are very confused and suspicious. There is a lot of mumbling and talking amongst themselves.

A Sylgardian-born man, your brother Sir Nick, is appointed as Assistant Commander of the army. An Ortheran soldier tries to assassinate him, but the Commander slays the assassin in front of everyone. There is uproar.

When it reaches the point of the first, actual conflict (and the Sylgard-born troops are close enough to the border to actually possibly return to Sylgard) they start to consider breaking ranks with the army. There is a breaking point during the first battle of the march, and only quick eloquent words or an appeal to your reputation or the relationship you've built with them can save things.

Brother Oni
2014-01-31, 12:26 PM
I like this situation! I might use this. I'm going to have to give the two of you a place in the special thanks for sure.


Thank you, but I feel it's only fair to also mention the others in this thread who have contributed.

You may want to change my suggested names though. :smalltongue:



[Snip Sylgard/Orthera political situation]


That sounds perfectly viable - an alliance turning sour, resulting into a war between the former members.
If the Ortheran king paints the Sylgardian army and queen as the belligerent for an unprovoked attack, he may be able to sway the loyalty of the existing Sylgardian troops under Ortheran command.

Personally I'd have all Sylgardians within Ortheran borders detained initially then the soldiers asked to prove their loyalty to peace and the alliance, while their families in Orthera are kept in camps 'for their own safety', much like what happened to the Japanese-Americans during WW2: Nisei regiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-American_service_in_World_War_II) and Japanese-American internment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment).

Only other comment I would have is that a false flag operation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag) (Ortherans disguised as Sylgardians raiding Ortheran villages) would be both more controllable and provide better propaganda than Ortherans disguised as bandits provoking a real Sylgardian reaction.

Edit: one detail I forgot to ask - are the Sylgardians and Ortherans visibly racially different?

Rosstin
2014-01-31, 12:41 PM
Edit: one detail I forgot to ask - are the Sylgardians and Ortherans visibly racially different?

This is another important point. We've been talking a lot about this in the team. There are a lot of triggers here (even though it's a fantasy world) and we also have to worry about streamlining the art pipeline. However, I am ultimately in charge of this aspect.

My decision is that: All the Sylgardians we show will have red hair and the same skin tone (although it's not a very special skin tone, just a regular white-person tone.) If we have enough time, we'll also give them some kind of cultural ornament, like a type of hair ornamentation or something. I'm open to ideas on that front-- it has to be something that would make sense as a cultural affectation and it also needs to be easy for us to work into the character sprites on a second pass (if we get a second pass-- we may not.)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/dontrun500.png

Here's a screenshot of the two Sylgard-born characters we have art for: The protagonist (default name: Marcus, in the lower left) and her brother Nick, on-screen.

Brother Oni
2014-01-31, 02:50 PM
How about the Ortherans? Are they capable of a similar-ish red hair and pale skin?

Out of curiosity, why such a typically male name as default for the female protagonist, or is that something we discover?

Edit: Finally got round to looking at the facebbok page and noticed this post:


What would you call a female knight named, say, Lorimette?

Dame Lorimette?
Sir Lorimette?
Knightess Lorimette?
Knight Lorimette?
???

The correct form of address is 'Dame'. 'Lady' is used for all females up to Duke (Duchess) and anybody higher is royalty: link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_address_in_the_United_Kingdom).

Given that the wife of a knight is referred to as 'Lady', it could theoretically be an insulting form of address to a female knight, implying that she didn't earn the right to the title in her own right and instead married into it, with all the sexual connotations implied ('earned it on her knees/back' etc).

Mr. Mask
2014-01-31, 03:24 PM
Aster: That's very kind of you. I'm glad we can be of help.

That situation seems to work with the stuff you want. You could sometimes recruit captured enemy troops, so recruiting the guys with mixed loyalties to begin with who have been training (and fighting?) with your other soldiers could take your side. It's still a risky a plan, but not to a bad extent for the story.

If you plan to make racism a part of the story, I'd be happy to help with that aspect.


Brother: Well, I was hoping it would be unnecessary to call this outright wrong. People don't need nations to be considered traitors. Tribes, races (much more in modern day), guilds, smokers, any sort of group affiliation would work. What you're suggesting is they have specific culture that makes them not see traitors badly.

River fording: Yeah, I see your point.

Crossing: You could have a decision like that. It's essentially a character-based decision rather than one about the bridge. Do you trust this character's judgement? Do you get annoyed and rebuke them harshly? Etc..

Slygardian camps: In the Slygardians' case, where they are genuinely likely to join the other side because they weren't raised and bred in Ortheria and don't consider themselves primarily to be Ortheren citizens, then detaining them in camps does seem to make sense, in their case.

If you can get their families, that deals with the biggest problem of getting them to fight for you and turns it into an advantage.



Facebook Question: I'd go with Knightess for the aesthetic of the word. Calling them, "knight," the same as any other knight male or female, could be a sign of the culture that men and women are considered no different (at least, when it comes to being knights). But you could still do that with the title Knightess.

I rather like the idea of warrior Ladies as well. I don't think it would be insulting--wives of knights wouldn't get to be warriors unless they became such by their own talent.

Rosstin
2014-01-31, 03:26 PM
How about the Ortherans? Are they capable of a similar-ish red hair and pale skin?
Probably not, for contrast.

Obviously if I had thought this out better ahead of time, I would have brainstormed more intelligent, distinct differences. But deadlines deadlines deadlines. The colorist is very prompt and very close to me, so I may still have her do something with the characters' skin tones. We're working really hard right now and cutting some corners because we want to get a demo of Chapter 1 by Feb 16th.


Out of curiosity, why such a typically male name as default for the female protagonist, or is that something we discover?


She has disguised herself as a man for the greater portion of her life, to hide from assassins. She's just used to dressing as a boy at this point; her disguise is part of her.

Brother Oni
2014-01-31, 03:54 PM
Brother: Well, I was hoping it would be unnecessary to call this outright wrong. People don't need nations to be considered traitors. Tribes, races (much more in modern day), guilds, smokers, any sort of group affiliation would work. What you're suggesting is they have specific culture that makes them not see traitors badly.


While I see your point, to be a traitor, you have to betray something - what exactly are the Sylgardian troops betraying? Their country? Nationalism isn't common yet (unless Aster rules otherwise).
Their Sylgardian commander? Their 2IC is Sylgardian born, according to Aster (Nicholas).
Their people? Sylgardians are not significantly racially different (at least not so far).
Their culture? How are they betraying their culture unless there are some specific prohibitions that they're violating (eg eating pork or something).

About the only possible traitorous action I can see is betraying their Queen by fighting other Sylgardian troops, but given that they've been painted as traitors themselves, it becomes very muddy.

I've already pointed historically that loyalty (at least for the rank and file) was solely to whoever was keeping you fed and during the Three Kingdoms at least, it wasn't that much different for the officers.

Even in the modern era, captured troops were often re-purposed to provide cannon fodder, just far away from their original side. For example, take the case of Yang Kyoungjong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Kyoungjong) and his three fellow countrymen, Korean conscripts for the IJA, captured by the Russians and sent to fight the Germans, then captured by the Germans and sent to guard Normandy only to be finally captured by the Allies on D-Day.



I rather like the idea of warrior Ladies as well. I don't think it would be insulting--wives of knights wouldn't get to be warriors unless they became such by their own talent.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding this sentence.

If the wife of a knight is a capable warrior in her own right and earned the title in her own merit, she would be called a Dame. Using the address Lady, means she earned it by virtue of her gender and not by her efforts.

I'm not sure about you, but I would find that insulting.

I agree with you that using the same title for both genders would help enforce gender equality, but I feel it loses a bit of flavour. I have no complaints about Knight/Knightess with the oral forms of the address as Sir/Lady - my earlier comments were solely on the correct British form of address.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-31, 04:07 PM
Well, if they're a feudal system with a Queen, that calls the conglomeration Slygardia, then they do have nationalism. The nationalism isn't going to be as strong as Rome's, people under Baron Fred won't care much if someone under Lord Teddy was murdered. But, if you threaten Slygardia... you're threatening the people under Baron Fred and Lord Teddy, so they will feel threatened, and hate you for threatening them. And people who should have been fighting for you, who are fighting your enemy who is trying to destroy you instead... man, those guys are jerks!

As for traitors, it is a point worth bringing up that say the Slygardian troops had been raised in the lands under Baron Fred. The people of Baron Fred's lands would consider them traitors more strongly than people of other lands (they also have a larger chance of sympathizing with them, ironically).

How the people see their own country's actions also makes a big difference. If no one in Slygardia wants to fight... well, they're going to see their enemies and traitors in a much more positive light.


Aster: That's an interesting point to consider. Your actions could effect general Slygardian opinion. If you perform atrocities, they could get mad. If you behave well, they'll wonder why they're fighting their old ally who seems to be winning.

Brother Oni
2014-01-31, 04:28 PM
Well, if they're a feudal system with a Queen, that calls the conglomeration Slygardia, then they do have nationalism.

There was a country which had a feudal system with a monarchy and they didn't have nationalism in a recognisable form for over 400 years after its unification.

It's called England. :smalltongue:

Nevertheless I concede the point. The threat isn't to the country, it's to the the people and their neighbours. If your friendly neighbours are under attack, you band together because after them, you're probably next.

Mr. Mask
2014-01-31, 04:31 PM
Sorry to continue, just curious about what period of Britain's history you mean. I think I know, but I'm uncertain.

Rosstin
2014-01-31, 04:42 PM
I'm thinking that, for the sake of making it easy on the players, the concept of nationalism will exist in this world. We have late-medieval war tech, but the culture is a bit more modern I think.

Serenity and I put the physical/racial differences between the various characters on our agenda. I have to make a decision about that soon because we'll be finalizing the character art in only a few weeks.

Unrelated, but... left or right?
This character, Lucius the Head Cleric, is essentially the head medic. He's in charge of triage, administering medical attention, etcetera. This world's medical tech is way ahead of its war tech-- they have some concept of cleanliness and surgery. Lucius's appearance is said to be similar to the appearance of the Goddess Althea. People base this on popular depictions of the Goddess, which are in-turn based off a huge statue of the Goddess Althea on the border of Sylgard/Orthera. Lucius is not actually a particularly religious man and hates this comparison.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/2luc.png

Brother Oni
2014-01-31, 04:44 PM
Sorry to continue, just curious about what period of Britain's history you mean. I think I know, but I'm uncertain.

From Edgar the Peaceful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_of_England) and the first real consolidation of England (England specifically, not including Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland) to round about the 100 Years War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_years_war) where an English identity and culture was firmly in place: English Nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_nationalism).



Unrelated, but... left or right?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/2luc.png

Personally left as right looks like a bad reverse dye job (no offence intended).

Mr. Mask
2014-01-31, 04:47 PM
Aster: I think I like the one on the right better, personally.


Brother: Umm... that isn't the origin of English nationalism, that's the origin of the nationalism of England. Actually, that's probably what you meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-01, 03:45 AM
Hello, I've been keeping up with the thread, but wasn't terribly confident in making a profile to make commentary. Anyway, since there's been some questions about the relationship between Sylgard and Orthera I'm going to pop in and do my best to explain it.

Orthera used to be run by King Pharamond, who helped Sylgard break free of Montechrest (their neighbors to the west) so that they could become their own nation. They'd been warring with Montechrest for nearly a decade before Orthera (the big powerful neighbors to their north) came in to help them.

As Sylgard was recovering from their massive war scars Orthera stepped in to help them financially, educationally, and kept soldiers around to help keep Montechrest from trying to retake them until they were strong enough to defend themselves.

King Pharamond really opened his arms for the Sylgardians. Encouraging their able bodied men to come to Othera to benifit from their resources and gain an education that they could take back to Sylgard. For Orthera is was a good strategy because it not only solidified a new ally for them, but the Sylgardian's managed to gain some of the most fertile land from Montechrest allowing them to grow more food and harbor more animals. Something Orthera was on the breach of being too overdeveloped to do for themselves.

Sylgard was established as a puppet nation, but was never treated like one by King Pharamond. He had every intention of helping this new country prosper and stand on its own feet over time. It was just unfortunate that Prince Kendrick (youngest son in the line of nine to the King of Montechrest) cut Pharamond's life short.

Prince Kendrick wanted his father's crown, and devised a way to get it that wouldn't have to involve murdering his family one by one. Orthera always had the soldiers and means to absorb Montechrest, but Pharamond was (in his opinion) too weak a leader to take advantage of this. So he set into motion a chain of events that managed to kill Pharamond and his family and took Orthera's crown for himself.

The crown of Orthera is an old artifact (rumored to have belonged to their goddess Althea when she was still a mortal general) and it is a well known fact that any man who did not have the wisdom to lead Orthera would be struck down by the crown the moment it was placed upon their head. When this didn't happen to Kendrick he was made King. He then absorbed Montechrest as he'd intended to, and since he was a favorite of his father's sons to those of Montechrest, and his father was growing senile and vicious, the majority willingly followed. [The dissenters were cast out, forced to either leave for Panservoy (a country across the ocean) or gain assistance from the Sylgardians.]

The newly accepted King Kendrick, however, was not happy with just gaining Orthera and his father's crown. He also wanted to finish his father's work, which was to unify their continent (something he lost sight of due to his senility in his last years as King). He worked with Sylgard and their Queen for some time. Keeping up the front of being the "good son" and not wishing their to be war over his gaining Orthera. He constructed the story about King Pharamond being more shady than he had appeared, claiming that if he'd ever truly planned on giving Sylgard it's freedom he would never have made it a puppet nation. Kendrick promised Queen Charlotte that he would give them true freedom, but Charlotte was either too smart or too paranoid to believe him. So Kendrick decided he would need to force his plans into motion with war.

He started by fabricating a brewing war with Panservoy. Claiming he would need all able bodied men to aid him in this and started to draft the ones in Sylgard. Because Sylgard was still so dependent on Orthera Charlotte couldn't put up too much fight over this. Plus she couldn't risk the threat of Panservoy attacking being real and not helping push any oncoming forces of theirs back before they could reach her shores. Once he had her good fighting men (he didn't draft women, a good faith measure for Charlotte in that he was leaving her some who could fight if they needed to, and not really a misogynistic cherry picking of her best, though it certainly looks that way which Charlotte will be taking advantage of) he claimed that Charlotte, in her paranoia, had decided to cut her losses and attack Orthera and that she claimed that all the men who went to Orthera to fight were traitors who would not be welcome back.

The Sylgardian men were not given much choice but to follow Kendrick. Kendrick's soldiers, who came to collect them, were rumored to murder those who refused to come with them. While some men did get killed, they were also thieves or murders themselves. Kendrick just let the rumor that you'd be gutted in the street for refusing perpetuate because fear could be a good drafting tool. (Plus he knew that Charlotte would find ways to demonize him the second war actually began, so there was no point in not taking advantage of growing rumors that could benefit him, even if they made him look bad.)


The Sylgardian men in Orthera's army were never mistreated or looked down on. King Kendrick himself always encouraged his Ortheran's to treat the Sylgardian's among their ranks as brothers, and even after Sylgard attacked them he continued to insist on this. He's promised the Sylgardian men that he will do everything he can to talk sense into their Queen, but they first have to get to her capital. And there is no way she will allow that without bloodshed. For the Sylgardian men under him, they've seen him do nothing but be both reasonable and honest. Though there is of course lingering anger, hate, paranoia, and fear amongst some Sylgardians, (not to mention the same from the Ortherans that lost brothers and friends during the Sylgardian's first attack) that is something the MC will need to deal with to keep as many men alive as possible during the march to Sylgard's gates.


Hopefully that'll clarify the relationship between Sylgard and Orthera (and isn't a total cluster**** of words and abstract ideas that only make sense to me.) Please keep in mind that all that info wouldn't be dumped into the story at once like I had to do here. The MC will be learning this as she learns more about her heritage as the only surviving heir to Orthera's throne. Something she is, as of yet in the writing progression of the story, unaware of.

I'm open to suggestions and questions. I adore group discussion, and always manage to do my best work when I can bounce ideas off of others.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-01, 04:49 AM
I like it!

Two questions:

First: You say Kendrick is the son of the King of Montechrest, and yet is eligible for the Orthera crown. This makes it seem that the Montechrest and Orthera families are closely tied, as many royal families were in Europe. Which I find great, as that aspect is very rarely covered in stories, even though it is so interesting. I just want to clarify if that is the case.

Second: You mention that from Slygardia, they draft men but not women, and that while this was not cherry picking, the Queen will use it as propaganda against Orthera. This sounds great! I am curious though, as to why they picked only the men?



There is also one thing I would like to discuss. The queen branding those who were drafted by Orthera as traitors.

What do you want to accomplish with this element of the story?

I can think of a reason she might try this. If her fear is that her soldiers won't be willing to fight Orthera which has many Slygardians fighting under them, then to demonize the people who joined Orthera might be a good way to increase her soldiers' fighting spirit. However, the drawbacks might be too severe.

The drawback is, you're cutting off chances for men within the enemy's workings to betray your enemy, or to desert and help you. You're also pushing them into a corner, so the only choice they seem to have is to fight. If you offered amnesty to those Slygardians who surrendered or turned back to their homeland, then at the very least they would be quicker to surrender than the Ortherans.

If you want to give more reason as to why the Slygardians are working for Orthera instead of their homeland, there may be ways more preferable. For example, during the attack on the Ortheran capital, if Slygardians had been killed as well (particularly those related to the soldiers under Orthera), that'd make the terrorists' actions seem less forgiveable to the Slygardians (even when they find out their queen was involved). If general opinion is that Orthera will win this war because of its size, then that's another factor that would effect the soldiers' chance of turncoating.

I feel the balance of factors you have is already very good for a power struggle over the loyalty of your Slygardian troops, if that has been a concern.

If instead the story element is to make the Queen paranoid, a bit mad, then it would also imply she has a very firm position of power, where she can make decisions which her advisers and generals would likely have been against. Alternatively, it might have been advised to her by someone(s) whose status combined with hers allowed the decision to be pushed through.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-01, 05:37 AM
Oh, one important thing I forgot.

If you need it for the story that the queen is apparently branding Slygardians who were taken to Orthera traitors and won't accept them back, it could easily be Orthera propaganda.

Rosstin
2014-02-01, 02:17 PM
Thanks Mask, more good ideas!


First: You say Kendrick is the son of the King of Montechrest, and yet is eligible for the Orthera crown. This makes it seem that the Montechrest and Orthera families are closely tied, as many royal families were in Europe. Which I find great, as that aspect is very rarely covered in stories, even though it is so interesting. I just want to clarify if that is the case.

Serenity will have to answer this one, the Orthera/Montecrest thing is complicated...


Second: You mention that from Slygardia, they draft men but not women, and that while this was not cherry picking, the Queen will use it as propaganda against Orthera. This sounds great! I am curious though, as to why they picked only the men?

I think that Ortherans are basically super-sexist. Which makes me a little uncomfortable, but I think we did it that way in order to have an all-male army with lots of hot guys. (Yes, there's a ton of war in this game, but it's also a dating sim, although that aspect of the game is less cheesy and in-your-face than in most of the genre.) We've been picking up a little flak for this but I think we have to just work with it.


There is also one thing I would like to discuss. The queen branding those who were drafted by Orthera as traitors.

What do you want to accomplish with this element of the story?

I can think of a reason she might try this. If her fear is that her soldiers won't be willing to fight Orthera which has many Slygardians fighting under them, then to demonize the people who joined Orthera might be a good way to increase her soldiers' fighting spirit. However, the drawbacks might be too severe.

The drawback is, you're cutting off chances for men within the enemy's workings to betray your enemy, or to desert and help you. You're also pushing them into a corner, so the only choice they seem to have is to fight. If you offered amnesty to those Slygardians who surrendered or turned back to their homeland, then at the very least they would be quicker to surrender than the Ortherans.

If you want to give more reason as to why the Slygardians are working for Orthera instead of their homeland, there may be ways more preferable. For example, during the attack on the Ortheran capital, if Slygardians had been killed as well (particularly those related to the soldiers under Orthera), that'd make the terrorists' actions seem less forgiveable to the Slygardians (even when they find out their queen was involved). If general opinion is that Orthera will win this war because of its size, then that's another factor that would effect the soldiers' chance of turncoating.

I like these ideas. The allegiances of the various nationalities is so complicated...


If instead the story element is to make the Queen paranoid, a bit mad, then it would also imply she has a very firm position of power, where she can make decisions which her advisers and generals would likely have been against. Alternatively, it might have been advised to her by someone(s) whose status combined with hers allowed the decision to be pushed through.
We already have one Mad King, "Mad" King Kendrick. So I think we'll avoid painting Queen Charlotte as mad... just... passionately nationalistic, cunning, and ruthless. She loves her people and doesn't care who needs to be killed to protect them. I think that her competence is what makes Sylgard such a force to be reckoned with. No one would have predicted that Sylgard would mount such a deadly attack.

Rosstin
2014-02-01, 02:18 PM
Unrelated to this discussion, but I'm considering hiring Andrew Morgan Smith as our music guy. His portfolio is here. What do you think?

https://soundcloud.com/andrew-morgan-smith

Mr. Mask
2014-02-01, 04:10 PM
I think you have a good musician. There are some very lovely pieces there. Will probably keep listening to them for a while.



I'm glad if these ideas are helpful to you. If I ever work on my own VN, maybe you can give me advise.


An interesting point with Orthera being super sexist, is their ideals has potential of spreading a sort of superstitious worry. "That big, conqueror kingdom takes only men....? Does--does that mean a pure-male army is plain better? ...Is our army objectively worse....?"

It would depend on how much experience the remaining soldiers have and cultural outlook (as in, how strongly they believe in the equality of the sexes). If they've been on campaign with the men, they aren't likely to put weight into this notion. "Meh... I remember John from the fourteenth battalion--he seemed really tough when we were back home. Soon as the fighting started: He was a total pushover."

If super sexism is common among the populace, then you can expect the men to be overconfident when they know they're facing women soldiers--which could either be positive in the form of a morale boost, or could lead to downfall. Depending on their culture, it's possible they'll fight harder and be less likely to surrender when up against women (this is particular true of a misogynist culture).


Oh, one neat thing to consider is soldiers of the two sides being related. So, if you have a Slygardian-heavy unit advancing on your enemy: "Hey guys, look, it's Sally from our hometown! Oh goddess... she's on the front rank!"
"My sister! My sister is there!"
"Bob, Harry, our brother Mitch is on the other side! And I think he's seen us too!"
"My wife!? No... what will happen to our boys? We don't have any other family!"
"It's Joe! I always hated that guy! Remember when he kicked that cat? Throw the javelins in his direction!"
"Jim, Harry, look: It's mother! Our mother is there in the third rank!!"

With the same thing going on with the other side. I think that happened in one of the Roman civil wars, where both sides came to a halt without fighting.

You don't have to do this. Just that it's quite an opportunity.


Complicated allegiances are indeed nuanced. They're also very interesting when formed correctly--which has made this game very interesting.


Queen and winning: Would you be able to tell us a little about Slygard's chances? So far, it seems like Pearl Harbour. A surprise attack that will lead to inevitable defeat.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-01, 06:31 PM
I like it!
Thanks! You are absolutely loaded with helpful ideas too. You've made me consider some things I hadn't originally.


You say Kendrick is the son of the King of Montechrest, and yet is eligible for the Orthera crown. This makes it seem that the Montechrest and Orthera families are closely tied, as many royal families were in Europe. Which I find great, as that aspect is very rarely covered in stories, even though it is so interesting. I just want to clarify if that is the case.
I hadn't considered them being related by blood. My original plan was to just have it be a law that the crown could choose who would succeed because magic, but I like this idea a lot. It really isn't something that you see a lot (and you should as it was pretty common), and it ties up a lot of niggly loose ends on how Kendrick could have legally taken that crown.


You mention that from Slygardia, they draft men but not women, and that while this was not cherry picking, the Queen will use it as propaganda against Orthera. This sounds great! I am curious though, as to why they picked only the men?
He chose men because he knew that Charlotte would want to demonize him. So he gave her things to demonize that he could easily defend. His choosing men was a sign of good faith for Charlotte. Leaving her with a means of still having good soldiers, etc. In reality, however, he chose men because he felt that an army of strong men could still beat an army of strong women. Taking her men, to Kendrick, was also giving him an edge.


What do you want to accomplish with this element of the story? (That the Queen is branding her soldiers traitors.)
The Queen hasn't actually branded her soldiers traitors. That's a lie that Kendrick is telling his men to make them question leaving his ranks. It is a lie, however, that isn't so far out of the realm of possibility that no one would believe it. Queen Charlotte is strong willed and powerful, but also has a terrible temper. She's been known to make harsh laws on whims before.


...during the attack on the Ortheran capital, if Slygardians had been killed as well (particularly those related to the soldiers under Orthera), that'd make the terrorists' actions seem less forgiveable to the Slygardians (even when they find out their queen was involved). If general opinion is that Orthera will win this war because of its size, then that's another factor that would effect the soldiers' chance of turncoating.
Yes, Sylgardians were also killed in the first attack. This might not have been the original intent, but it was too difficult to tell who was who in the bad weather. The physical differences between Sylgardians and Ortherans is there, but not prominent enough to be noticed through slurries of rushing ice. The Sylgardians attacking could only really make out an enemy uniform, which was the same problem for the men on the Ortheran side.


If instead the story element is to make the Queen paranoid, a bit mad, then it would also imply she has a very firm position of power, where she can make decisions which her advisers and generals would likely have been against. Alternatively, it might have been advised to her by someone(s) whose status combined with hers allowed the decision to be pushed through.
The royal families of Lusk (the name of the continent we're on) hold strong positions of power over their lands. While they have a religious advisers, and sometimes a magical one (and archmagus), it is by the wisdom of Althea that they actually listen to them. The decisions are placed upon the one who wears the crown. Maybe this is something the MC will want to change if the player decides to take back the throne.


If I ever work on my own VN, maybe you can give me advise.
I can give you some right now, they're a lot more work than they look. Most VN's I've seen get started fall into that the trap of "this looks like it wouldn't take too long to make!". If you've ever written a novel before, though, you have an idea of the effort you gotta put into them. It's about twice that if you don't want it to be linear. d:


If super sexism is common among the populace...
It isn't in Sylgard, but there are elements of it in Orthera. The Ortherans view women in much the same way as the Romans did but with some minor differences (mostly due to their goddess being both female and a famous general before she achieved godhood.)

The Montechrest mindset for women in war was that they possessed wisdom but not brute strength, so fighting was best done by men and thinking best done by women. You would often see women in positions of power with Montechrest armies, but they did not fight and were usually guarded and protected (often unable to actually defend themselves if attacked directly.)

The Sylgardian's took advantage of this by using women in theirs while they tried to break away from Montechrest. Women hold a more equal position in their society as a result, but the influence from Orthera is still a strong one for them.

In Orthera women are thought of as educators. They hold a massive amount of respect as education is incredibly important in their culture. However, when it comes to fighting, while women are not discouraged, it is thought of as unseemly to want to handle something with brute force instead of words. (This holds to the men as well.) When Kendrick became King this changed some, but because he held the Montechrest mindset towards women, women were never encouraged to pick up a sword and join his men in battle. The men were, however, also reluctant, and the Ortherans who did join were looked down on as a willingness to fight showed a lack of intelligence or a nature only suitable for to committing violent crimes. (Soldiers aren't even allowed in the capital of the country they're fighting for without escort. Though don't take this to mean they don't have guards, those are men defending and while it's still assumed they're not bright enough to hold a different job, it's still a respectable one.)


Queen and winning: Would you be able to tell us a little about Slygard's chances? So far, it seems like Pearl Harbour. A surprise attack that will lead to inevitable defeat.
Sylgard has a chance of winning if they're smart. King Kendrick is doing a good job at tactics so far, but the crown is slowly poisoning his mind. It really was actually owned and blessed by their goddess and it holds a special power. A power that does corrupt and destroy those who are not fit to wield it. Kendrick is proving himself to be more unfit as the war rages on, which will make him a less effective leader (and help him really earn his nickname of the Mad King in front of his men) due to the crown itself slowly killing him.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-01, 07:29 PM
I'm glad my ideas are helpful to you. Don't feel you have to implement an idea of mine, even if it is good--even good ideas won't necessarily fit.


An interesting idea is if the crown's effect wasn't a linear progression, reacting to Kendrick's actions. So, if he started doing some outrageous things, the effects could escalate. Depends what you want to do with the story.


Gender choice: The reasoning sounds reasonable to me for his choice of soldiers.


Traitors: Yeah, that sounds good. It's hard to accuse your enemy of torturing babies since the men are from that nation, but propaganda of that nature is still good to go, "She won't take you back, you're all traitors in her eyes! Even though you have done nothing wrong, she unjustly punishes you! Do not listen to her when she lies saying, 'Come back, all is forgiven!' for what is there even to forgive that you have done? She sees you as criminals, and wishes to lure you back so you may be treated like criminals! Fight, reclaim your homes from this mad woman who forces her people into an unwanted war against soldier and civilian!" kind of thing.


Slygardians killed: Sounds perfect. War is confusing enough before you throw in bad weather or the like. If they're setting fire to cities, poisoning the water and whatever, there isn't a lot of distinction they can make.


Power of the royal families: I will mention that this system of government usually comes with a strongly religious culture, and the ruler being seen both as a material ruler and a religious ruler (Pharaohs, Chinese Emperors, etc.).


I have worked with novels, and done some work with VNs and pick a path. Enough to drive you up the wall, over it, and into the nearest hard object (about two feet in). The main advantage isn't so much a lack of work, as it is the ability to perform it with less staff (one programmer is usually enough, the number of artists, writers and musicians depending on the project).

It would be interesting to discuss the idea I have for such a project, at some point, but I don't want to presume to do it in your game's thread (not like I'll get to it any time soon. I haven't gotten the testing started with the table top RPG yet).


Sexism: I think you have it down logically and interestingly. I feel you'll handle the subject well (if you haven't already, Extra Credits has some good episodes on the subject). Will still comment if I can be helpful.


Slygard winning: So, their victory relies on them lasting until Kendrick goes mad? This raises a few questions.

If a the queen knows about the crown, then her plan is to last until Kendrick does something that allows her to win politically or militarily. However, if she knows about the crown poisoning him, why start a war now? Depending on how the crown works, this may escalate the process, so it might be that--escalating the process before Kendrick can take over in his right mind. It might instead be that this state of war allows Slygardia to survive longer than the state of peace, so that eventually Orthera will collapse under the king's madness and Slygardia will be saved.

If the queen doesn't know about the crown.... Well, either she has ways of, "winning," without its help, or she has launched a losing war out of desperation or misjudgement.

On winning, I would like to point out that her goal here isn't to conquer Othera (supposedly), but to survive. So, doing enough damage and dragging on the conflict till a truce is called would count as winning for her. A weaker nation has means to defeat a much stronger one, politically and at war. So she is likely to have plans which have a chance of resulting in victory.


Let me know if you need more ideas on how a smaller nation can defeat a larger one.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-01, 09:10 PM
The Queen's goal here is to survive. She's trying to go the truce route. She isn't sure if Panservoy is even a real enemy and so one of her tricks is to try and get their aid on the sly. Queen Charlotte will do anything, by any means, to keep her people safe. She might even make a deal with the remaining Montechrest rebels.

As for discussing your ideas. If you wanna make your own topic and get the link to me I'll probably participate in your forum discussion a bit. Though probably not as extensively as you do ours, I'm afraid I'm a little too preoccupied with making this game to sincerely help someone else with theirs. Even if it'd be quite a long while from now when it might be getting made. d:

Vaguely on the topic of music. What kinds of instruments are common in the sort of environment we've set up for ourselves with Orthera? How do you think their religion would be reflected in the kinds of music they played? I'd love for our soundtrack to be the sort of music you'd actually hear there if you lived in Orthera. We may not be able to do it, but even if we can't, it's still good to consider their music. It's such an important part of the flavor of any culture.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-01, 11:19 PM
Sounds good for the Queen. You can do some interesting stuff with such a character, which I look forward to seeing.


Don't feel bad about not being able to spend a lot of time with me. I'm usually the same... but stuff like this sometimes helps me to relax between work. For now, I'll focus on the Tabletop RPG. Though, if I may ask a question about the process on odd occasions, I hope that'd be OK.


Hmm... musical instruments... It's a little hard to say, since the setting's technology isn't crystal clear. They'll have trumpets for military use by now, but I'm not certain what kind. If they're advanced enough, the trumpets could be French horns, which at some point were used for general music.

String instruments are definitely there, harps, lyres, lutes, etc., but I'm not familiar enough with the evolution to say what the most advanced types would be.

Flutes come to mind.

Depending on the culture, you could make use of stuff like drums and other percussion instruments. Depends on the religion too (some religions loved their drums).

Sorry if I'm not very helpful. Musical instruments aren't my speciality, and I don't know enough details about the culture and technology.

Rosstin
2014-02-02, 12:21 AM
It's difficult to nail it down, yes. We've been focusing on the narrative from a character perspective, and we've made certain assumptions about the technology that are hard to back out of:

- Eyeglasses
- Nice clothes
- Military uniforms
- References to disinfectant

I've basically made the assumption that their military technology is late medieval. I feel comfortable with this because I believe that advancements are made by necessity, and I don't think it's necessarily true that there has been enough long conflict to create huge advancements in military tech recently. Their military tech may not have changed for a hundred years or more at this point, simply because there hasn't been a predictable source of constant warfare on their continent.

If you think too hard about things, you might wonder "Why does Sylgard suddenly start experimenting with black powder as an explosive?" Maybe no one has thought to use this militarily yet. "Why does the Ortheran army suddenly have many opportunities to advance in military technology?" Presence of strong, intelligent protagonists such as the genius mechanist James. Story power, I guess. Cool things happen if you are a protagonist.

I imagine that all of their machine technology is pre-industrial revolution. If I find out that I've committed gross violations in terms of including post-industrial revolution tech, then I'll have to work on that, though. It's hard to prevent anachronisms... I've considered that other continents in this world may have a totally different tech level from our continent, and that's one possible source of advanced tech.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-02, 01:03 AM
Disinfectant is a funny one. It wasn't till much later I think when it was accepted that germs were harmful (they had microscopes long before this).

At the same time, you get uses of disinfectant for removing bad smell and religious purposes way, way, way back.

Just food for thoughts.


Since their cultural stuff is so far ahead of their military, you can go pretty far I'd say. All of the musical instruments of Beethoven's symphonies are probably fair game (that might be a bit generous, but it seems to fit). You might be interested in more archaic musical instruments and style, of course.


One other consideration for weapons technology, is that they might start bringing in military technology from more warlike continents. Or simply, your genius mechanics have been studying the weapons of the warlike foreigners, and are able to produce imitations of the designs now that they're allocated more resources for the war.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-02, 05:42 AM
Ooo, I like the disinfectants to remove bad smells angle. The clerics are a religious order. Our head cleric even has access to some divine magic (which is part of the reason he and the Archmagus are good friends). Plus disinfectant helps, and if they've discovered that, the reason why it works doesn't quite matter. It could be pretty fun to have a grossly wrong but ultimately accepted assumption about why disinfectant works.


And I don't mind answering questions now and again. You can't get better if you don't ask, and sometimes even answering makes you learn more about what you're doing.

Rosstin
2014-02-02, 10:41 AM
Hmm... I'll have to think about it.

One of the things I have to do is develop little medical puzzles for the battle, where you have to pick the right herbs and perform the right surgical procedures if you choose to help Lucius the Head Cleric with those things. I'm not sure how I feel about using too much "wrong medicine" in those puzzles. That's one of the reasons I put their medical tech ahead of their war tech. There is not a lot of very useful primary sources on ancient medicine.

If I can get away with disinfectants having been discovered already (or have them get discovered during the game?) then I probably will go for it.

Brother Oni
2014-02-02, 11:45 AM
Some comments on the line of succession - if the protagonist is in line to the throne, then surely her older brother takes precedence, being both older and male?
So for her to become King of Ortheran (which is going to be a hard sell since you've mentioned that the society is male dominated, but not impossible - take a look at England's monarchy), all higher precedence candidates would have to be eliminated either by death or abdication and she would need strong political and military support to be put forth as a candidate over other eligible ones.

Edit: Out of interest, how is this gender separation of roles related to the female Knight title question posed on the Facebook page? If the knight in question is Ortheran, then it doesn't make sense for a war-like title to be permitted to a female except in extreme circumstances. If she were Sylgardian however, it makes perfect sense.

Other comment on the Sylgardians winning the war by the mad King making increasingly erratic decisions would be the speed of communications and the autonomy of the invading Ortheran army leadership.
If it takes days for fresh orders to reach the army, then that's a delay in which the army leadership can exploit, not to mention simple mis-interpretation or the orders being 'misplaced' or outright lost (the messenger getting ambushed either by hostile or friendly forces).

In medieval times, typically the leadership of an army was very loyal to the ruler due to the independence required to conduct a war back then. Not having this independence was generally extremely detrimental to the war effort since speed of reaction was crippled.



If you think too hard about things, you might wonder "Why does Sylgard suddenly start experimenting with black powder as an explosive?" Maybe no one has thought to use this militarily yet. "Why does the Ortheran army suddenly have many opportunities to advance in military technology?"

It could be as simple as they can't find an uncontaminated source of materials required to make black powder. Methods to refine high quality saltpetre (potassium or sodium nitrate) were a closely guarded secret and I see no reason why the Sylgardians/Ortherans simply haven't stumbled over the secret of it yet.

Only comment I will have is that without gunpowder spurring the advancement of armour, you aren't going to have the iconic late Middle Ages heavy duty full gothic armour (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D 0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%85.jp g) and are probably capped out with a coat of plates over mail (http://www.armstreet.com/ebay/art/sashacuaikner07.jpg).


Since their cultural stuff is so far ahead of their military, you can go pretty far I'd say. All of the musical instruments of Beethoven's symphonies are probably fair game (that might be a bit generous, but it seems to fit). You might be interested in more archaic musical instruments and style, of course.

I'd be careful about mixing themes. Early medieval music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tme4c-p6IM0)sounds different to Renaissance and Middle Ages (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-tCTMfVmfA) music and very different to Classical/Romantic music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-fFHeTX70Q).

From the look of the art and the technology mentioned by Aster, I'd personally say the Classical/Romantic era is more fitting.
My personal preference would be Neo-Medieval (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QWS1xUkUaA), but it isn't in keeping with your project. :smalltongue:



If I can get away with disinfectants having been discovered already (or have them get discovered during the game?) then I probably will go for it.

I think there's been a bit of a misconception here.

Specialised disinfectants (so almost everything listed on the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinfectant) except for alcohol) are a fairly modern invention.
The re-purposing of other materials as a disinfectant has been long known - I believe its mentioned in the Bible in Gospel of Luke (the parable of the Good Samaritan uses wine (ethanol) and oil) which is dated to the 1st Century.

The problem is, that western medical technology regressed somewhat during the medieval era with all sort of quack cures (by modern standards) emerging, for example bleeding.

The 'bad smells' theory of disease is better known as 'Miasma theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory)' and a quick check indicates that while it originated with the Greeks back in the 4th Century BC (it was called 'bad air' rather than miasma though), the earliest record I can find referring to it is from the 14th Century from pamphlets and the children's rhyme 'Ring a ring o' roses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_a_Ring_o%27_Roses)'.

With regard to making it work in practice, I see no reason why the doctors couldn't still use medicinal wine for cleaning wounds (it also ties in with the herbs puzzle) with the miasma theory prevalent for actually stopping the spread of disease.
Finding something that works without knowing the reason why has a great deal of historical precedent - Vitamin C curing scurvy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scurvy#History) is the best example of this.

Rosstin
2014-02-02, 02:17 PM
Thank you, Brother Oni, that's extremely helpful. Constructing a fantasy world is full of tightropes. But I still want to create an internally consistent world.

Brother Oni
2014-02-02, 02:39 PM
Thank you, Brother Oni, that's extremely helpful. Constructing a fantasy world is full of tightropes. But I still want to create an internally consistent world.

No problem. However, may I suggest that you may want to draw a line somewhere in making an internally consistent world for the sake of meeting your deadline.

I believe a favoured authorial trick is fleshing out the world just enough to hint at additional complexity and exploring/developing such details in sequels or in supplementary materials when time constraints aren't so pressing.

Edit: Something that I forgot to say regarding the music - while music for art's sake would be fairly common, on the battlefield drums and pipes would be used as a means of signalling and issuing commands (18th Century example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7wEUlpaYjY) of a marching song). Trumpets in the form of bugles were also common signalling aids.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-02, 04:11 PM
Serenity: Well, one question I have, is how you keep notes on all the different paths and the like? Do you use one of the fancy softwares, like OneNote?


Disinfectant/Medical: It depends on how you're going to present the mini games. How the players are expected to work out the answers and so forth.


Music: Good finds and points.

Rosstin
2014-02-02, 05:41 PM
Mask-- I'm mostly in charge of branching. Serenity does the first draft with all the good dialog and character stuff. I add the action bits, and add branching paths in places that feel slow.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-02, 06:06 PM
In Q@A, yes, Ross does most of the branching. It's pretty nice as this is the first VN job I've had where I can write linear.

I'm kinda plain with how I do my notes, actually. I'm also not terribly consistent with the format. I've done loose one line notes just to remind me of where the plot should be on a given in-game day. Sometimes I make a bullet outline of what I'm about to write before I do it. I've use color coding to connect the bullets quicker mentally, but really it's just me writing up summaries and adding bullets (or letters and numbers if I plan on branching a lot. Choice A branches into choices A1 and A2, etc.)

Other times I've skipped the bullets entirely and used paragraph spacing to indicate when I planned out a choice. But the consistent thing is the outline and summaries of what I'm going to write.

I tend to use googledocs for it too. While I have microsoft word, I'm usually making the outlines to show to my producer so that they can approve the story path I've worked up. Having it on a googledoc makes it easy to share and they can put notes on it.

I'd give you examples from other projects I've worked on, but Ross is the first person I've done writing for that didn't have me sign a non-disclose. d:


NOW! Back on topic. I also want to do my best to keep things internally consistent. To me, a fantasy setting has more punch and is easier to grasp when you can logically map it out. Especially when we're going to be making the players conduct a war in that setting. Also, seeing as this is a VN, we have less time to introduce the players to the world than a book or show would. Even a platformer can immerse the player more easily with graphics alone.

For us, immersion will be better done with music and sound. While backgrounds and sprites are a heavy draw for VN's, they're limited in what they can convey. (And because they're time consuming to make we're limited in how many places we can take the story.) We're pretty lucky right now that we've been attracting the attention of really talented people. Our artists are wonderful and we maybe be getting a absolutely lovely composer as well. Fingers crossed on that one.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-03, 01:16 AM
Well, so far the art is appealing, and the music guy has good music (so as long as he doesn't get lazy with your game its music should be appealing).


Sorry for asking another question, but I am curious: Do either of you know much about VNs making use of random events and free-roaming elements? Also, would you say your VN software would be suitable for such a style of game (assuming your using software specifically for VNs)?

SerenityFrost
2014-02-03, 02:50 AM
We're using Ren'Py which uses python. For the most part it's pretty comprehensive if you're willing to dip your hands into python code. That isn't my strong point though, so Ross does all the coding. I usually code just enough to write up the dialogue and set up sprites in scenes.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by free-roaming elements, but I am pretty familiar with random events being done with Ren'Py. A band sim game I worked on did that with the romance scenes, and it worked out pretty well. Again, I didn't do any coding there, but the lady who was coding managed to get it to work fine. She also worked out entire mini-games and the like as well. The biggest draw to ren'py, however, is that anything you make on the engine you can sell.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-03, 03:37 AM
Wondered if you were using Ren'py. It probably will be my engine of choice for the reasons you point out.

With free-roaming elements, I just mean the ability to wander about the game's map. There probably isn't much to say about it, but I thought I should give some context for the random events.

Brother Oni
2014-02-03, 03:40 AM
Especially when we're going to be making the players conduct a war in that setting.

That reminds me - one good way of showing the King going bananas is the Ortheran Army receiving orders to start pursuing a total war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war) doctrine and start deliberately killing civilians.

This is obviously going to spark off a full scale mutiny by the Sylgardians troops with the protagonist which may make the decision to not follow the orders a no-brainer.
However given that the Sylgardians are following a scorched earth policy according to Aster, not going after Sylgardian villages may upset the Ortheran troops who want revenge for their own destroyed villages and people.

I think it would make a fairly interesting choice of either keeping the high moral ground and only go after valid military targets, or sinking down to the enemies' level in a tit-for-tat.

I know that the Sylgardian tactics is due to the sponsored banditry, but officially, the Ortherans have done nothing to warrant such an attack and until a 'bandit' with sufficient knowledge is captured and successfully interrogated, there's no proof.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-03, 03:53 AM
There are a lot of possibilities for a mad king. At first, it might be nice to build him up as a meddling monarch. Sun Tsu said an amount on the problems of a monarch interfering with his generals' plans.

If you need to wait, but you're told to attack now, or to wait when you need to attack, this can cause all sorts of problems. People far away in the capital at home won't fully understand the situation, the lay of the land and the weather, and the state of the troops and enemy, and what the general's plan is. When they give you orders you mustn't follow, it confuses the situation, and the men will be demoralized if they have to follow orders of such a kind.

Brother Oni
2014-02-03, 07:48 AM
There are a lot of possibilities for a mad king. At first, it might be nice to build him up as a meddling monarch. Sun Tsu said an amount on the problems of a monarch interfering with his generals' plans.

As the famous story goes (http://journeyeast.tripod.com/suntzu.html), it was actually against the law for a monarch to interfere with a general's command of troops in the field, especially when military law and discipline was being enforced.

If the commander has an ounce of sense but is still loyal to the country, then orders will start being creatively interpreted, delayed or just plain lost.

A less flexible and unimaginative commander would just throw his troops into battle regardless, but then we're heading into the classic depiction of WW1 generals (http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110105182322/blackadder/images/1/1a/Gen_Melchett.jpg) and their meatgrinder tactics.

Rosstin
2014-02-03, 07:12 PM
New screenshots, if that's interesting to y'all:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/9.png




New screenshots!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/j.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/i.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/h.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/g.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/f.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/e.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/d.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/c.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/b.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/a.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/8.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/7.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/6.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/5.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/4.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/3.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/2.pnghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/1.png

Mr. Mask
2014-02-03, 07:43 PM
Darn, looking at it makes me impatient for the demo.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-03, 11:15 PM
That reminds me - one good way of showing the King going bananas is the Ortheran Army receiving orders to start pursuing a total war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war) doctrine and start deliberately killing civilians.

Ooo, that's a good idea. You guys keep this up and we'll have to put your names in the game credits.


And yeah, I can't get over how pretty this game is. I've never worked with such talented artists before and it's really a treat. They're all pretty cool ladies too.

Brother Oni
2014-02-04, 03:20 AM
And yeah, I can't get over how pretty this game is. I've never worked with such talented artists before and it's really a treat. They're all pretty cool ladies too.

It does look very pretty.

Out of curiosity, is 'Head Cleric' his formal title or a placeholder? It just seems a little unwieldy and generic to me - High Cleric or Arch Cleric has a bit more flavour in my opinion, without it heading into overly specific terminology like Bishop.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-04, 05:48 AM
It's his title. Couldn't think of anything better at the time. We already have an Archmagus so I didn't wanna have name repetition.

Brother Oni
2014-02-04, 07:40 AM
It's his title. Couldn't think of anything better at the time. We already have an Archmagus so I didn't wanna have name repetition.

If I may make some suggestions from this list: Clergyman ranks (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus-category/british/People-in-authority-in-the-Christian-church).

I like Prelate or High Canon myself.

Legate is another option, but may have issues with confusion with Roman culture. Another one I like relates to the fact that a chapter refers to a group of priests serving a cathedral, so the head of those priests would be the Chapter Master (http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110331232259/warhammer40k/images/0/02/Great_Wolf_Logan_Grimnar.jpg). :smalltongue:

I do have some other ideas, but I need more information about the worship of Althea. Given that she was a mortal general before ascendance to godhood, I would think that her church would be very martially themed, so a merging of ranks might be an idea, e.g. Vicar-Private, Deacon-Sergeant, Bishop-Captain, Cardinal-Major, Chapter Master-General etc.

If you wanted to go the whole hog, you could have specialisations in their title like USMC MOS, eg: Bishop-Captain Bob, Inquisitor or Deacon-Sergeant Fred, Crusader. Discussion on real life religion is prohibited on this board, but I suggest looking at other martial religions such as Sikhism and their 5 Ks for inspiration.

Rosstin
2014-02-04, 10:37 AM
If I may make some suggestions from this list: Clergyman ranks (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus-category/british/People-in-authority-in-the-Christian-church).

I like Prelate or High Canon myself.


Brother Oni, I've actually been struggling with a related naming issue. I've been looking for a title I can use to encompass all the 6 boys (or as many of them as possible) under one single word. IE, this way I can have the main character say something like "I can only bring one ______ with me on this mission. Who should I take?"

I've been considering words like Expert, Lieutenant, General, etcetera, but none of them seem to encompass the variety of roles. There are 4 male characters here who specifically lead a small unit of experts within the army:
Head Cleric Lucius - Medicine (commands 10-50 medics)
Archmagus Rubus- Magic (commands 2-5 apprentices)
James the Mechanist - Tech (commands 10-50 mechanists)
Spymaster Fox - Espionage (commands 2-5 spies)

Then there are some other boys who might not fit so easily under a single title:
Prince Alastor - Being a prince
Sir Nicholas - Highly skilled knight, your bro, promoted to Assistant-Commander in Ch2
Aide Marcus - You, the protagonist, a leader by necessity. You can become Commander in Ch3 or continue leading from the shadows.

I've also been looking for good army structures to base their ranking and naming conventions on.

At first I was going to go for realism and have Commander Bryce and Assistant-Commander Berin be just one aspect of army leadership, but the story is just smoother and more natural if they command the 9000-man army, with the 6 boys heading various squads of men when appropriate, and various unnamed Sergeant characters can lead other squads. (I'm hoping I can keep the tiers of leadership to a minimum for story reasons; I don't want to be forced to introduce a huge number of minor characters just to be realistic.) Each of the 6 boys would be able to lead a unit of 10-50+ men if the situation called for it; IE the soldiers were in a maneuver directly related to his expertise. Technically King Kendrick and Prince Alastor outrank the Commander, but I'm liking the idea of having a "you command the country but I command the army" moment. I think this is a moment we'll probably give the protagonist, actually, especially if she chooses to take the title of Commander for herself rather than continuing to operate in the shadows as "Aide".

There may still be other armies owned by Orthera; I think it would be a cool plot twist to have Mad King Kendrick bring another army into the fray, perhaps his bandits.

Anyway, I need the titles to make sense somehow, regardless... What do you guys think of Commander and Assistant-Commander as titles for men who lead a group of 9,000 men (including longbowman, men-at-arms, knights, and some assorted mechanists, medics, and spies.)

And what do you think you would call the boys, as a blanket title?

Brother Oni
2014-02-04, 01:47 PM
I've been looking for a title I can use to encompass all the 6 boys (or as many of them as possible) under one single word. IE, this way I can have the main character say something like "I can only bring one ______ with me on this mission. Who should I take?"

Given that this game has dating sim elements, wouldn't the standard word be 'harem'? :smalltongue:

On a more serious note, how about 'officers' or 'leaders'?



I've also been looking for good army structures to base their ranking and naming conventions on.

Spoilered for length.




A more medieval army would have a fairly informal structure, with the lords commanding their knights, and the knights having their own groups of men with an internal pecking order.


Using the English Civil War era as the basis for a more modern structure, a full strength infantry regiment would consist of 10 companies, each of 100 men. 7 companies would be commanded by a captain, with the regiment's major, lieutenant colonel and colonel having a regiment each.

A captain would be assisted by an ensign (the most junior officer, who held the standard) a chaplain, 2 sergeants and 2 drummers. The men themselves would be separated into either musketeer or pikemen and at the start of the War, this was in the ratio of 1:2, but as the war dragged on, this shifted to a 2:1 ratio instead.

Organisationally it was usually two blocks of musketeers flanking a central pike block, with a drummers usually situated on either side of the pikes, sergeants outside the musketeer blocks, the captain going wherever he liked and the ensign either flourishing the standard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oXVoeHjiBss#t=92) or keeping the hell out of the way.

Note that due to the style of warfare back in the day, individual actions were uncommon and having a very good officer corp (take a look at the number of ranks in a modern army in comparison (https://www.army.mod.uk/structure/32321.aspx)) wasn't necessary.



If you like, you could go for an even more modern structure (although slimmed down for sanity):


Private - common soldier
Corporal - Junior NCO, in charge of ~5 men
Sergeant - Senior NCO, in charge of ~10 men (1 squad)
Lieutenant - junior officer, in charge of a platoon (2-3 squads)
Captain - Senior officer, in charge of a company (2-3 platoons)
Colonel - Officer in charge of a regiment (2-3 companies)
General - In charge of however many regiments required for that army


Add in as many officers of the next lower rank as required for aide.




Each of the 6 boys would be able to lead a unit of 10-50+ men if the situation called for it; IE the soldiers were in a maneuver directly related to his expertise.

Either by accident or design, 10-50 men is approximately platoon strength, which is the right responsibility for a junior officer to lead an independent action. :smallbiggrin:



Technically King Kendrick and Prince Alastor outrank the Commander, but I'm liking the idea of having a "you command the country but I command the army" moment. I think this is a moment we'll probably give the protagonist, actually, especially if she chooses to take the title of Commander for herself rather than continuing to operate in the shadows as "Aide".


In order to prevent a military usurpation, I'd place the Prince in charge as the nominal (figurehead) commander with General Bryce and his second in command, Colonel Berin, as the real leaders. Note that outside of the navy, 'commander' is a job description and not a rank.

It also ties in nicely that if the protagonist develops her relationship with the Prince, she could be promoted to General, replacing Bryce, and if she has raised her relationship with the men (and Bryce has serious messed up or is just plain hated), Bryce won't have the support or physical manpower to contest it.



Anyway, I need the titles to make sense somehow, regardless... What do you guys think of Commander and Assistant-Commander as titles for men who lead a group of 9,000 men (including longbowman, men-at-arms, knights, and some assorted mechanists, medics, and spies.)


Tying it in with the suggested organisation, that would be about 5-6 infantry regiments of archers and men at arms, lead by Knight-Captain (they'd be called Captain Sir Lancelot), 1-2 cavalry regiments (who would probably have a higher proportion of knights in the officer positions, if not the common soldiery) with about 2000 logisitics (medics, chaplains, wagon drivers, blacksmiths, fletchers and camp followers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_follower) of all stripes).

I'm not overly fond of the titles 'Commander' and 'Assistant Commander' for reasons stated above (job description).



And what do you think you would call the boys, as a blanket title?

My vote is still for harem, or 'the lads'. :smalltongue:

Rosstin
2014-02-04, 01:58 PM
I like the suggestion of calling them Officers. That's simple and elegant.

The 17th-century example of title organization makes a lot of sense to me. I might go with that.

Brother Oni
2014-02-04, 05:42 PM
Crunching some numbers, my proposed structure gives a tooth to tail ratio (number of armed fighters to support staff) of 7:2, which is a bit high. A Roman Legion, with its streamlined structure and professional disciplined nature, had a 4:1 ratio (8 legionaries for every 2 non-combatants), while medieval armies tended to be about a 1:1 ratio, so having 9,000 fighting men (just increase the number of infantry and specialist regiments) would entail having a support force of at least 9,000 camp followers.

Note that Lucian and possibly James, Rubus and Fox (depends on whether James is a mechanic or a sapper, whether Rubus' apprentices are integrated into the army at a tactical level and Fox's spies not be included at all) would be a camp followers.

If the T3R sounds too high, bear in mind that most modern military forces are about the 1:10 ratio (yes, that's the right way round) with the US military being about 1:11 or higher depending on which branch you're looking at (the USAF especially).

You could theoretically get away with the higher ratio of 4:1 (so only ~2,300 followers) if you had the army set up as a rapid reaction force which was sent off as soon as the raids happened, but it would be critically short on food, water, ammunition and other supplies nearly all the time.

Edit: Just noticed for the numbers to work, the army the protagonist is attached to should be just one of the armies of Orthera.
If it was the army, the numbers are far too small - the largest battle of the English Civil War had ~40,000 total combatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marston_Moor), while the earlier international Thirty Years' War had ~60,000 combatants in the same battle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_N%C3%B6rdlingen_%281634%29).

Also for bandits to be a major threat to a combined force of 18,000 men, they either need to selectively pick their fights (only go after the camp followers) or have such numbers to stop being a bandit nusiance and actually be an army in their own right.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-04, 05:54 PM
Excellent stuff from Oni. I have nothing to add.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-04, 06:54 PM
Oni, you're the best.

Also, I like Prelate too. I think I'll go with that.

Brother Oni
2014-02-05, 03:08 AM
You're both welcome. :smallbiggrin:

Awww, you didn't like my Chapter Master General Lucius suggestion. :smalltongue:
I had a short snippet of dialogue all planned as well:

Protagonist: You're not what I was expecting when I heard Chapter Master General.
Lucius: Yes, the title does conjure up the image of an eight foot giant clad in armour, with the righteous fury of Althea burning in his eyes. We've toned it down over the years as it scares the common folk.
Protagonist: That's good to hear.
Lucius: I only wear the armour on holy days now.

Edit: I've been bouncing some other ideas around regarding the Althea Church (very) Militant and the bandit army and was wondering if you were interested?

Rosstin
2014-02-05, 09:20 AM
You're both welcome. :smallbiggrin:

Awww, you didn't like my Chapter Master General Lucius suggestion. :smalltongue:
I had a short snippet of dialogue all planned as well:

Protagonist: You're not what I was expecting when I heard Chapter Master General.
Lucius: Yes, the title does conjure up the image of an eight foot giant clad in armour, with the righteous fury of Althea burning in his eyes. We've toned it down over the years as it scares the common folk.
Protagonist: That's good to hear.
Lucius: I only wear the armour on holy days now.

Edit: I've been bouncing some other ideas around regarding the Althea Church (very) Militant and the bandit army and was wondering if you were interested?

Hahaha...

Sure, go ahead. I'm interested in hearing any theories about the bandit army you might have.

Rosstin
2014-02-05, 02:27 PM
Lineup of all our boys just finished by Lilin. We had the art before but now it has been resized and reproportioned so that everyone matches. See if you can figure out who is who?

Full resolution:

http://queenatarms.com/images/lineup-fixed_crop_tight.png


Smaller preview:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/lineup-fixed_800.png

Brother Oni
2014-02-05, 04:17 PM
Sure, go ahead. I'm interested in hearing any theories about the bandit army you might have.


If you're planning to bring the bandits in as a credible threat to the army mentioned, they're going to need massive numbers.

The problem is, most bandits gangs are small groups, held together by the force of personality of the bandit leader. This means that the leader only has a couple men he trusts, who in turn only have a couple of men they trust, and so on, which tends to limit the size of organisation to a few hundred men at most, especially since they don't have an overall goal to unite them beyond 'satiate our desires'.

Contrast to a terrorist organisation which has a single unifying goal (e.g. the unification of their country or rights for the people) which holds the group together, even if each cell is held together by the leader's personality.

On a separate aspect, I believe you've set up traders to buy the loot that the bandits steal? How exactly are the bandits going to spend that money and on what? The chances are they're probably wanted men, so can't really wander into the nearest town to spend their ill gotten gains, so the raw loot they get, like food, clothing, slaves, farming tools, etc is actually more useful to them than cash.
If you put bandits into the direct pay of the Ortherans, then the chances are they'd probably take the money and run - there is no honour among thieves after all.

My suggestion would be two part - the bandits are in actuality loyalist remnants of the Montechrest army. This way they have no compunction against raiding Sylgardian or Ortheran villages and they could be paid directly in money through the guise of intermediaries who allegedly want to free Montechrest by funding a rebellion (in actuality, it's King Kendrick).
The reason why they'd want the gold is to hire mercenaries or obtain more weapons, armour and supplies to rebuild the troops required for the rebellion and raiding the villages is a good way to both gain experience and additional supplies.

The soldiers would form the backbone of the raiders and their numbers would be supplemented by deserters, thugs, mercenaries and other scum, but the central leadership would be trained disciplined soldiers in disguise.

This could be hinted at by the protagonist encountering a village under attack:
The option of helping the villagers would result in a battle, where the bandits rapidly realise they're under attack and put up some brief resistance before they spot the heavy cavalry advancing into charging range, at which point they rout comprehensively.

One the lads (Prince Alastor is the best candidate as he's probably got the least experience) mocks the bandits for being snivelling cowards at which Nicholas points out that a small cluster of dead bandits on the main road fought to the last man in a rearguard action to let them escape, which is decidedly NOT the actions of a group of uncoordinated bandits.

Nicholas' suspicions are undermined by the fact that the surviving bandit prisoners are universally deserters and thugs, because the mercenary and soldier bandits focused on plunder and got the hell out as soon as the cavalry was spotted in comparison to the less disciplined lot who decided to have some fun and did the whole rape, pillage and burn method of sacking the village.

This way, you have a third army with both the capability and motive to pose a legitimate threat to both the Sylgardians and Ortheran armies.

Of course now you're going to tell me you have other plans for the Montechrestians and this idea doesn't work. :smallsigh:



Lineup of all our boys just finished by Lilin. We had the art before but now it has been resized and reproportioned so that everyone matches. See if you can figure out who is who?


From left to right, Rubus, Lucius, Fox, Alastor, Nicholas, James and Marcus?

Edit: forgot to ask, I assume they have family/last names? With the exception of Prince Alastor and Fox (which is probably a pseudonym), typically the family/surname would be used with titles.

Rosstin
2014-02-05, 04:36 PM
You got it!! :D

They do have last names, I haven't mentioned them a lot because I'm trying to avoid confusing everyone. The artists have a hard enough time keeping the characters straight as it is, 7 main characters is quite a lot.

Honestly sometimes I think it would be easier for everyone to keep them straight if they ONLY had titles XD

Mr. Mask
2014-02-05, 04:47 PM
Very nice drawings and character designs. I recognize all the characters except that tall first one. I guess he's your wizard?

Are all of those characters romanceable (excluding yourself of cour--.... actually, is MarcusxMarcus shippable?)?


Another Ren'py question if it's all right: Does everything in a Ren'py game need to be coded with Python? For example, if I wanted to have sections of gameplay like Advanced Wars inbetween, would I be able to code Advanced Wars with C# or JavaScript?



Bandits: Bandits could honestly be very large and organized groups. The Vikings were bandits, and would sometimes get together to take over Britain rather than simply raid it.

Like pirates, bandits are usually very democratic, and the leader will be replaced if the group feels he's under performing. What keeps them together is usually each other. Often, they know each other from when they deserted together, or from growing up together in their poor village or whichever. If they need more men, they can probably start recruiting vagabonds, thieves, deserters, etc., who will come to have some loyalty to each other. Still, bandits usually aren't very loyal (but they could be).


Pirate ports and bandit towns are where ill gotten gain is normally spent. Places which let the outlaws in and have plenty of the stuff they want. They could just send some people to towns to buy stuff, though, pawn the hotter items in seedy parts of a city. It's harder if you require everyone to have papers. If many of them are known, they'll get someone who isn't to join their gang.

That being said, large amounts of hot items being traded for enough food for two hundred men which you cart up into the hidden mountain base... that's very suspicious. As the group ges larger, its activities will draw more attention and it will want to keep further from places of power. Bandit towns aren't always available either, so some groups really did have to start stealing their own rice.


As for taking the money and running... they would be unlikely to do that. Bandits are professionals, career criminals, they understand you don't get paid till you've done what is asked. If all that is asked is to prey upon one side and not the other, and they'll be able to have somewhere to hang out and get paid for doing what they normally would, few would refuse that. That's basically an offer to be land privateers with less restrictions, all a bandit could ask for.

Making them up largely of remnants of Montechrest is still a strong possibility. That makes them more interesting than generic thieves. If some of them are loyalists, that'll mean they're loyal to Kendrick, which will make it easier to change them into an army.


Either way, it depends strongly on what sort of bandits Serenity and Ross want. How organized, how selfish, how loyal, how army-worthy, etc..

Brother Oni
2014-02-05, 05:19 PM
They do have last names, I haven't mentioned them a lot because I'm trying to avoid confusing everyone. The artists have a hard enough time keeping the characters straight as it is, 7 main characters is quite a lot.

Try reading The Water Margin (108 protagonists) or The Romance of the Three Kingdoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_people_of_the_Three_Kingdoms) (List 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_of_the_Three_Kingdoms)).

7 two-part names aren't going to even remotely phase me. :smalltongue:



Are all of those characters romanceable (excluding yourself of cour--.... actually, is MarcusxMarcus shippable?)?

MarcusxMarcus is much like Number 2 in Austin Powers - if it's with yourself, it not really cheating. :smalltongue:

I'm more worried about MarcusxNicholas as that's heading well into one of those dating sims...



Bandits: Bandits could honestly be very large and organized groups. The Vikings were bandits, and would sometimes get together to take over Britain rather than simply raid it.


I think we're running into a terminology difference here as we're using the term 'bandits' to mean slightly different things.

The small raiding parties of vikings that raided monasteries and villages being bandits, I agree. When you're sending over a raiding party of 3-4 thousand vikings under the command of a viking king (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maldon), they stop being bandits and more an organised army.



Like pirates, bandits are usually very democratic, and the leader will be replaced if the group feels he's under performing.

However on a ship, the crew can't go anywhere, so the discipline had to be strong to stop them from killing each other. Bandits dissatisfied with their leader but not strong enough to oppose him could always find a way to sneak off.



Pirate ports and bandit towns are where ill gotten gain is normally spent. Places which let the outlaws in and have plenty of the stuff they want.

Except that these bandit/pirate towns would have to be on Ortheran or Sylgardian territory and since they were nominally at peace before this outbreak of war, consolidating your power by removing any independent towns is one of the first things to do.

For an example, take a look at how vigorously the British pursued ending the slave trade (of which piracy was heavily involved with) after the Napoleonic War: Bomardment of Algiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Algiers_%281816%29).

I don't think there would be enough dodgy places for a large group of bandits to flog their loot without arousing suspicion by flooding the black market.



As for taking the money and running... they would be unlikely to do that. Bandits are professionals, career criminals, they understand you don't get paid till you've done what is asked. If all that is asked is to prey upon one side and not the other, and they'll be able to have somewhere to hang out and get paid for doing what they normally would, few would refuse that. That's basically an offer to be land privateers with less restrictions, all a bandit could ask for.

I would agree that it would depend on the character of the bandits, but in general pirates and bandits like easy prey. Raiding a few lightly defended villages is one thing, getting involved in a set piece battle against a professional army is another.



Making them up largely of remnants of Montechrest is still a strong possibility. That makes them more interesting than generic thieves. If some of them are loyalists, that'll mean they're loyal to Kendrick, which will make it easier to change them into an army.

Oops, forgot that Kendrick was the proper heir to the Montechrest throne. Loyal to the other successor then and/or people opposed to the Montechrest/Orthera union?

Edit: Thinking about it some more, you've hit upon a very logical way of King Kendrick of having a corp of fanatically loyal deniable assets that are willing to do all the underhanded skullduggery that typically goes on in a war. Since they're likely to be vilified for selling out their country to Orthera, service to King Kendrick is their own really viable option and given that he was quite a good king before he got hold of the crown, they have no real reason to doubt his loyalty to them.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-05, 05:28 PM
Ha ha, yes they're all romancable except the last one, which is the protag. Though, I suppose technically, the protag is romanceable as she can be in a romance with the rest of the guys. d:


Yeah, it's gotta be python. Now it does have something that lets you use pygame via a framework, but I haven't a clue how it works and just assume it also uses python.

http://www.renpy.org/wiki/renpy/Frameworks

There's you a starting point on all that if you want to look into it yourself. Coding isn't really my forte, however. So I could be wrong on my python assumption.

Brother Oni
2014-02-05, 05:47 PM
Ha ha, yes they're all romancable except the last one, which is the protag.

Even Nicholas? :smallyuk:

Well I suppose royalty only marrying other royalty was the done thing and thus cousins were acceptable, but brother is well into House Targaryen level of incest.


Though, I suppose technically, the protag is romanceable as she can be in a romance with the rest of the guys. d:

Including all of them at once? :smalltongue:

Mr. Mask
2014-02-05, 07:14 PM
Brother: I'm hoping Nicholas isn't a blood brother.



The thing with the Vikings is they're the same group of people--they don't change who they are when they're acting as bandits from when they're acting as an army. If the Vikings are brave and loyal to each other when they're fighting a war, you can bet the same when they're fighting a raid.


I'm afraid the point about ships and discipline went over my head.


Bandit towns depends on the exact geography and political situation, but yes they don't tend to be popular with the powers that be (in this specific case, the king will arrange a couple of bandit towns). Generally, powers are less willing to bomb places under their own jurisdiction as it can be a political incident, some places are too hard to fight so that it's easier to pick off the bandits than to fight the town, etc.. So you might get bandit towns in Orthera and Slygard, or you might have none--depends on precise factors.


It is a very good question as to whether they'll be willing to play mercenary and solider. Most people do get into that life because they don't like hard fighting. It's not impossible to get thugs to play soldier--but you need to convince them of very high gains for very little resistance, and/or business needs to be bad enough that they're willing to play mercenary. It depends a lot on the particular bandits, whether they're a warrior culture or just thieves, and what they think of you, as well.


Kendrick might have some fanatics who betrayed their country, it depends on how exactly he did it. Whether these traitors are despised depends on how they're perceived (if no one is the wiser, you can't hate them for what you don't know), and opinions of both the previous ruler and the current ruler. You'd figure a lot of the most loyal Montechrest soldiers would act as personal guards and soldiers for the King, in case anything should go awry with his power base in Ortheran. The bandits might still be primarily Montechrestans(Montechrestees? Montechrestos?), just depending on who Kendrick was able to recruit the most soldiers from and who is left and most willing to become bandits.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-05, 10:17 PM
Ha ha, no, Nick isn't your brother by blood. You were adopted. He's older than you by a couple years, and while the MC considers him her brother, he doesn't really see her that way.

Also, there are no current plans for a harem ending.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-05, 10:37 PM
Thought that was probably how it'd be. That's a good way of handling it.

Suggestion: Would be neat to have a variant Nicholas ending, where you strengthen your sibling bond rather than a romantic one. Could only be a few lines different.

Feel free to disregard that. I'm not sure how you're handling the story or their characters, so it might be unsuitable or be too hard to implement.


A harem ending would be pretty difficult when the romance options are such high ranking individuals. It could work if there are precedents within the setting, similar to how some of the generals of China were wives of the emperor--but unless that's already the way the culture works you're unlikely to be able to get away with it even if you are Queen (if you had a really strong position you can do basically anything you want--but your position isn't likely to very strong).


EDIT: Oops... I got too enthralled talking about bandits, and forgot to thank Serenity for answering my question. Sorry about that. Thanks for the link, Serenity, it's very helpful. Will have to consider how python will work with such a project.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-06, 01:23 AM
The stronger sibling tie is one of the ending options, yeah. Also, you're welcome! There are other engines out there you could make a VN on. Ren'Py is just the one I'm familiar with.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-06, 01:29 AM
Thought you may have considered the option. Will be fun to get different endings.


I'm not very familiar with Python code. I'll try it out later, and see what I think. For now, I've nearly finished off combat ranges for the tabletop RPG.

Brother Oni
2014-02-06, 08:00 AM
The thing with the Vikings is they're the same group of people--they don't change who they are when they're acting as bandits from when they're acting as an army. If the Vikings are brave and loyal to each other when they're fighting a war, you can bet the same when they're fighting a raid.


Which is why I don't really think of them as bandits even when they're engaging in banditry, due to their external bonds and chain of command.

Checking up some descriptions of bandits, one phrase that comes up is 'proscribed or outlawed'. Vikings didn't belong to any of the saxon kingdoms, thus aren't really outlaws - they're just plain raiders and foreign warriors.



I'm afraid the point about ships and discipline went over my head.


Pirate crews have strict discipline because it's the only way to function in an enclosed environment like a ship without descending into complete anarchy over unresolved grudges.
Pirates were democratic because their own code said they were: pirate code examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_code). This freedom to vote was probably intentional to lure men away from military service for national powers.

Bandits on the other hand have considerably more space to roam when they get fed up of each other, so discipline didn't need to be as strict - at least I can't find any examples of a large bandit gang's code of conduct.

Vikings and other raiders had their own culture, with their own system of laws to enforce order and discipline, thus why I don't think of them as bandits.

I'm of the opinion that for a large bandit gang (more than a few hundred members) to survive without fracturing into lots of smaller gangs, there needs to be a code of conduct or some other unifying cause to hold them all together.
Whether that evolves organically or is in place already doesn't really matter, but when it does, are they really bandits any more or are they something more akin to freedom fighters/rebels?


Ha ha, no, Nick isn't your brother by blood. You were adopted. He's older than you by a couple years, and while the MC considers him her brother, he doesn't really see her that way.

Oh good, that means I can play this game in front of my children without them asking awkward questions. :smalltongue:



A harem ending would be pretty difficult when the romance options are such high ranking individuals. It could work if there are precedents within the setting, similar to how some of the generals of China were wives of the emperor--but unless that's already the way the culture works you're unlikely to be able to get away with it even if you are Queen (if you had a really strong position you can do basically anything you want--but your position isn't likely to very strong).


It depends on how Marcus has a claim to the throne, the strength of it and whether she is able or willing to usurp it from King Kendrick's line.

Assuming that she's also not related to Alastor (and we're back to the squick), Orthera becoming a Queendom like Sylgardia might help to smooth over relations.
Depending on how Orthera views polygamy, as Queen, Marcus could choose to take any number of Prince Consorts.

Edit: Ooo, sneaky backhanded political trick:
As part of the negotiation, King Kendrick would abdicate and his successors would swear fealty to Sylgardia.
Played correctly, that's a massive concession that could net some very nice ones back from Sylgardia. After the treaty is signed, King Alastor abdicates suddenly with no heirs, thus an alternate line must be found... who is Marcus.

Since the treaty was for King Kendrick's line only, it's no longer valid for Marcus, who now rules Orthera.

Whether Marcus knows about this plan is entirely optional.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-06, 09:01 AM
The line between bandits, pirates, freedom fighters, rebels, Vikings, mercenaries and soldiers is a thin and blurry one. All types can and have raped, looted, pillaged, burned, and pointlessly tortured (obviously, not everyone who becomes one of these things is a looting raping pillaging burning pointlessly torturing psychosociopath, but any group under one of those titles is capable of performing these activities with consistency).

So, it depends on what kind of violent men Serenity and Ross want for their bandits. Ex-soldiers, soldiers hired to play bandit, raider culture, fanatics, etc..


Pirates weren't democratic due to strictness but due to laxness. If they liked strictness, they'd have stuck with the navy or privateer life.

Historically, a lot of raider/bandit groups have been democratic in nature. The less organized and structured such a group, the more likely they are to be democratic. It really depends on the specifics of this group.

It is indeed true that the bigger the group gets, the more structured they'll need to get. They can get away with looser structure if they're a conglomeration of smaller groups, but it still needs to increase. They may well also give themselves a more impressive titles, and may play to politics by presenting themselves as freedom fighters or rebels (when their behaviour does not change even slightly).

Rosstin
2014-02-06, 11:37 AM
Not Really Your Brother:
When Serenity pitched this game to me and mentioned this "brother" character I was like "noooooooooo!"

But everyone else on the team was like "yessss!" As the only straight male on the team, I felt that I should probably just shut up and go with it. The "not really your brother" character must be some kind of appealing archetype that I just don't understand.

He's already really popular with the players. Most of the players mention him as one of their favorite characters. There's a complex dynamic between him and the protagonist that even I think is very interesting. She remembers him as a very different person than he is now, and their pre-existing relationship makes their scenes feel very intimate but also a bit sad and wistful.

Mask's Game:
Mask, this really could go either way for you. I would figure out whether the core of your game was the "novel" aspect or the "game" aspect. If the game aspect is core and you're an experienced coder, don't build in Ren'Py. Just build the visual novel engine into your game engine of choice.

If the visual novel aspect is core, build it first and then build the game aspect as a simple thing in Python.

Although I think my best advice is to start reaaaaally simple. Build a game that's smaller and simpler than you think you want to make. I'd even cut one of those aspects: the game or the VN. Just focus on one and see what happens before you build the other.

That's why I decided not to make a war minigame for Queen At Arms. I wanted to focus on one core aspect of gameplay to the exclusion of all else. Even with that restriction, Queen is still bigger and more complex than I would have liked.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-06, 06:44 PM
That's a pretty funny story.

One thing to watch out for, is that the not your blood sibling arc has been covered before. I have reason to believe you've done a good job and it will add to your story.


Very good advise, I follow design philosophies much like you describe.

Currently, I'm not sure how big the game aspect will be since I haven't worked out the mechanics, but it would be an RPG style combat system. The main challenge with it will probably be design, as I might be trying for something impossible with that project (for now, I better finish my current impossible project).

Rosstin
2014-02-06, 08:19 PM
Hm.. in that case my instincts say definitely just pick one thing, and stick with it. Try the simplest thing first, and do that.

My first complete games were very simple, devastatingly simple. Incredibly simple. Even then, there were huge unforeseen problems at every turn and I barely got them out.

I think that success breeds success. It feels a lot better to make a very simple project, complete it, and then say "Wow, look at that! I did it! Even though it's silly and simple, it's done :smallbiggrin:" than to look at an ambitious half-done project, and think "I'll never be able to finish this :smallfrown: "

Making all those silly little games built my confidence a lot, and gave me the courage to push through the dark times you see in big projects like Queen At Arms. And believe me, there are bad days. The schedule gets pushed back, you get a bad review from someone you thought you could rely on, someone completely misunderstands a deliverable and you have to redo it, a hard drive gets totalled and you have to redo work. Without experience, I would have despaired and quit. With experience, you realize: "Yes, it will take 10+ hours of work to overcome this setback. But, I've already put 400 hours of work into the project. My teammates are relying on me. People expect this to come out. I have to succeed no matter what." And you face these kinds of crises all the time... it's part of game development.

I have a few favorite examples of minimal games...
Love Letter: http://axcho.deviantart.com/art/The-Love-Letter-289182364
You Have To Burn The Rope: http://www.kongregate.com/games/mazapan/you-have-to-burn-the-rope

On my end, my most successful minimal game was Queer Catboy. And that still took months. @_@
We got a script done in only a few weeks, and got most of the art, then the artist quit, destroying the project. It was awful.
But I got a coder friend and a new artist to join me for a game jam, and wham-bam we fixed it and put it out.
http://rosstin.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/kitty-love-3/
It's a silly game, really. It's extremely short and kind of weird. But damn, it made some people very happy. And I got to read all these forum "let's plays" of the game and whatnot. This ridiculous game is one of the big experiences for me as a game producer, where my work was appreciated. And it really drove home "make it simple, complete it, get it out" for me.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-06, 08:39 PM
Yeah, I very much agree with that. Half-finished works have plagued me for some time..

This tabletop game ended up being bigger than I originally planned, but I seem to be capable of finishing it. If I do finish it, it will be good design practice and good confidence building for my next projects.

Hey... I've played those two games! I actually enjoyed them quite thoroughly (the song at the end of burn the rope was excellent). Haven't heard of that cat one.

Rosstin
2014-02-06, 09:13 PM
Oh, I didn't make the two minimal games I linked, only the cat one. But both those games were made on the time scale of a week/long-weekend

Mr. Mask
2014-02-07, 02:49 AM
Misread that. Will have to try a weeklong project sometime.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-09, 08:08 PM
Week long projects can be fun, but you gotta be careful about over planning. I've had ideas that were meant to be simple week longs and they always end up developing into something that can't be finished in a week. d:

Mr. Mask
2014-02-09, 08:21 PM
Most of my projects are like that. End up making them bigger than the original design.

Rosstin
2014-02-11, 09:33 AM
OK, so I'm trying to wrap up dependencies to the battle, and I have one more big point that I have to work out.

Right before the Battle based on Blanchetaque in Chapter 2, you have a free day. There are 6 available events, and you can pick 3 to do. We've got most of them figured out:

* Hang out with the Prince (raises relationship with Prince)
* Cheer up Sir Nick (raises relationship with Nick)
* Go hunting with the soldiers to raise their morale (most directly raises soldier relationship)
* Study Ice Magic with Archmagus Rubus (helps you raise the ice bridge)
* Treat Wounded Soldiers with Head Cleric Lucius
* Upgrade soldier equipment with James the Mechanist

These last, two, I'm trying to figure something clever that will have an effect on the battle. I've tried to provide a mix of events that purely raise relationships and have very little effect on troop morale (spending time with the Prince-- he basically takes you on a little picnic that has no interaction with the men) and events that are very focused on raising troop morale (going hunting with the soldiers, no interaction with boys) and events focused on upgrading your military capacity (studying ice magic with the Archmagus, no positive effect on morale but gives you a great benefit during the battle.)

For both Head Cleric Lucius and James's event, I'm thinking troop morale will also be raised, but I also want to provide some strategic benefit for the battle. I can't make it super obviously connected directly with the bridge blowing out, because no one knows that will happen. So I have to think of some kind of logical equipment upgrade that they could work on that would have a clever interaction with the battle, and some kind of medical advance that could prevent loss of life during the river battle.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-11, 09:54 AM
I'm rather curious about the effects of helping with the ice bridge. Fewer soldier casualties?

Onto the topic you want help with...


Treating Wounded: This should raise morale. It won't necessarily raise morale as much for the army as a whole as if you went hunting with soldiers. But, those who take notice of your actions, lowering yourself to suck the puss from their ulcers so that they live--some of those men will die for you gladly. There was a woman who mourned when she heard a general had sucked the puss from an abscess her son suffered from--because the general had done the same for her husband, and he fought until he died for that general.

This could be a mixture of a morale bonus and a combat bonus. You could also have a minor increase in your number of soldiers--not because of medical skill on your part having a noticeable effect; but because seeing you attending to them made some of the soldiers decide they weren't so injured they couldn't help.


Upgrade Equipment: There are a number of ways equipment can be improved. The changes can be small or large, and small and large changes alike can have small or extreme effects. What sort of change you want depends on what equipment and tactics they currently have. Able to give details on that?

Brother Oni
2014-02-11, 01:56 PM
For a battle based benefit for treating the wounded, have an increased number of reserves, since you'd have more walking wounded available to fight.

With regard to the equipment, why not simple repairs? There's not really much you can do in a day except hammer out dents and resharpen swords.
This would give a minor bonus to damage and defence.
Alternately they can manufacture more specialist ammunition for the artillery/archers.


There was a woman who mourned when she heard a general had sucked the puss from an abscess her son suffered from--because the general had done the same for her husband, and he fought until he died for that general.

Do you have a source for that? The story I heard didn't involve the son and was an anecdotal story to support Sun Tzu's maxim of "Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death."

Sucking pus out of wounds by mouth sounds ridiculous. Removal of purulent material was done either by leech or by incision and use of an animal bladder to provide suction.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-11, 07:22 PM
Oni: If it was based off your medical skill, you'll be lucky to have twenty guys recover due to your efforts in time for the battle--which is almost nothing to an army unless they're very impressive individuals (which would be a little convenient).

The commander hammering out dents and sharpening a few swords won't raise an army's attack and defence power... If the soldiers weren't keeping proper care of their weapons and you acted to make them decide to start keeping them, that could have an effect.


He didn't necessarily suck it with his mouth. I don't think the account actually said how he did it. The story is attributed to Wu Qi: http://suntzusaid.com/book/10/25/

Brother Oni
2014-02-12, 07:37 AM
Oni: If it was based off your medical skill, you'll be lucky to have twenty guys recover due to your efforts in time for the battle--which is almost nothing to an army unless they're very impressive individuals (which would be a little convenient).

If you're assessing effectiveness purely on numbers returned to active service, I'd think it would depend on their role, rather than their individual abilities.
For example, cannon/artillery crew: 20 men is enough to crew about 5 ECW-era pieces or about enough to man a single trebuchet.

I'm thinking more in terms of getting men available to do stuff rather than full active service - they could ferry ammunition to the archers, run messages/commands to the various companies/regiments, help out in logistics, etc, hence my suggested walking wounded/reserves role.

With regard to their injuries, for example a man with a broken arm is incapable of doing much. With that arm properly splinted and strapped, he now can do light duties. A man with an amputated leg (if fit enough to do anything), could help out as a spotter for a crew served weapon.

In terms of your role input, basic first aid, like limb immobilisation, can be extremely helpful especially with soldiers not potentially knowing any real first aid. It could also help preventing soldiers' conditions deteriorating, for example stopping a wound becoming infected would prevent a lightly injured but capable soldier becoming a casualty.

Alternatively you could aid Lucius with triage - assess all the soldiers and sort them out in urgency of requiring treatment or which ones can be put back onto the field as walking wounded.
This triage role would be even more vital if Lucius is capable of a limited amount of healing magic like in D&D and able to directly return men to full active service.

All the above is in addition to raising the men's morale - the question was regarding to getting a mechanical benefit.



The commander hammering out dents and sharpening a few swords won't raise an army's attack and defence power... If the soldiers weren't keeping proper care of their weapons and you acted to make them decide to start keeping them, that could have an effect.


You've highlighted the problem of how could helping the mechanist give a tangible effect on the battlefield and I was trying to stay away from the somewhat overused 'secret weapon' equipment upgrade innovation.

Since these are professional soldiers, they would take good care of their arms and armour already, it's just giving them the facilities and opportunity to do so and some professionals for the really knackered stuff.



He didn't necessarily suck it with his mouth. I don't think the account actually said how he did it. The story is attributed to Wu Qi: http://suntzusaid.com/book/10/25/

Argh, the Wade Giles! It burns! :smalltongue:

It looks like we had the same story, just slightly different versions of it.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 08:02 AM
Your medical team will already focus on important specialists who are likely to be able to be brought back into service. The number of men you could personally help isn't going to make an impact on your logistics.

A combination of triage and personally seeing to men should bolster the morale and result in some more of them getting better.


The question with the mechanist is how your presence changes things. Needs your permission so he can hand out a new weapon he has been experimenting on, or needs unwilling manpower to achieve something.

Brother Oni
2014-02-13, 07:58 AM
Your medical team will already focus on important specialists who are likely to be able to be brought back into service. The number of men you could personally help isn't going to make an impact on your logistics.

You do realise that of an artillery piece, there's only one or two actual specialists (the guys who mix the powder and calculate trajectories) and the rest can be trained in a few hours or done on the job?

You seem to keep on missing the point that I'm trying to make - these are all in addition to a morale boost.
Assuming good espirit de corps, helping injured soldiers out isn't going to magically make the less injured soldiers decide to want to fight again.

How many men do you think the protagonist could personally help in a day and how many additional men, in your opinion, would be required to make a significant impact on logistics?



The question with the mechanist is how your presence changes things. Needs your permission so he can hand out a new weapon he has been experimenting on, or needs unwilling manpower to achieve something.

Ordering unwilling men to help out on a potentially dangerous procedure would result in a drop in morale rather than a raise.

Deploying an experimental weapon that hasn't been properly field tested to rank and file soldiers is a recipe for disaster. If the weapons have been properly field tested, are suitable for the average grunt to use and are effective, then why does James need your permission and not the army commander?

While there is the possibility of the commander being prejudiced against James' "newfangled piece of junk", for the protagonist to be able to give permission for their use, she would have to have command of her own men outside of a regimental command structure (assuming that the ECW structure is in place).
If she was a regimental officer, then she would need the assent of all the officers above her in the CoC up to the regimental commander and even he would have to fight the decision to countermand the general's orders.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-13, 09:43 AM
"You do realise that of an artillery piece, there's only one or two actual specialists (the guys who mix the powder and calculate trajectories) and the rest can be trained in a few hours or done on the job?"
I don't understand the relevance of this point. Your medical staff are already focusing on the key personnel who can't easily be replaced, who hopefully there aren't many of in the medical ward.

With good morale, there aren't likely to be many soldiers faking/exaggerating injuries. So, you'd either have to go with the act being inspiring to the extent where they fight well as an example to the others, and/or that the inspiration spreads throughout the camp. It might just be unreasonable to have any game benefit.

The effect on logistics depends on how good the logistics situation is to start with. If it's truly terrible, you really do like to have even a few extra men (even though they don't impact the end result). I'm not sure how many precisely you want to impact the army's logistics (how many troops do you command again?), but for it to not only have an effect on logistics but the battle you're fighting the next day, you'll need to be desperate for men, and need to add over a hundred to your logistics division. The number of men you can bring up to fight the next day is highly variable... most wounded men can't just get up after treatment.


Mechanist: I was figuring the morale drop would come from if you decided to give them a new weapon they didn't understand nor trust. If you just force some volunteers, it's still better for morale than making your men fight.

I'm a bit confused as to who the commander here is. Since you're making all the decisions as to whether you use ice or bridges, I figured you'd have the final say on whether experimental weapons can be issued.

It's a bit different if you're the Russian army during its attack on Finland--they had political advisers all over the place, and the army had to get permission from them before they could do a lot of stuff. While this world is pretty developed, I don't see the structure as so rigid that you couldn't push in a new experimental weapon (if it went wrong, you would be held accountable). During the American Civil War, many units and generals brought their own guns without approval, including repeating rifles and gatling guns.

Rosstin
2014-02-13, 11:29 AM
Thanks for all the thoughts! At this point in the story, the Commander is nominally in charge but in actuality everyone is looking to you (or your brother, the Assistant Commander.) You can probably get away with whatever you want, and you'll be able to make the Commander go with it.

During Chapter 3, it may come to pass that you ascend to being the actual Commander, or continue pulling the strings not-so-secretly from behind the curtain.

Brother Oni
2014-02-13, 12:31 PM
"You do realise that of an artillery piece, there's only one or two actual specialists (the guys who mix the powder and calculate trajectories) and the rest can be trained in a few hours or done on the job?"
I don't understand the relevance of this point. Your medical staff are already focusing on the key personnel who can't easily be replaced, who hopefully there aren't many of in the medical ward.

It's to do with me refuting your original point that a single person couldn't treat sufficient people to make a difference.

Crew served weapons tend not to need too many people, so restoring 20 people is enough to put a piece back into action.
My point you quoted is referring to the fact that you need more bodies than specialists to crew such weapons.
A single specialist couldn't run an artillery piece with any real efficiency (and certainly wouldn't be able to aim it), so you need people, any people, to just help move it.

Given the choice between taking a fully fit soldier off the front line to help run the artillery piece or an injured soldier, not capable of fighting but can still heft stuff around, which would you choose to operate a weapon not intended to get anywhere near the real fighting?


It might just be unreasonable to have any game benefit.

Except that's specifically what Aster asked for, for which I'm offering suggestions for.



The effect on logistics depends on how good the logistics situation is to start with. If it's truly terrible, you really do like to have even a few extra men (even though they don't impact the end result). I'm not sure how many precisely you want to impact the army's logistics (how many troops do you command again?), but for it to not only have an effect on logistics but the battle you're fighting the next day, you'll need to be desperate for men, and need to add over a hundred to your logistics division. The number of men you can bring up to fight the next day is highly variable... most wounded men can't just get up after treatment.

It's just making use of the available resources - if you have men that's able to help with only a small amount of treatment, that's more fit men you don't have to call up and use, thus allowing them to rest.

The reason why I'm asking you for numbers is that you seem to have an unrealistic idea of how many injured could be treated by a single person and how many people are required to significantly aid logistics.



Mechanist: I was figuring the morale drop would come from if you decided to give them a new weapon they didn't understand nor trust. If you just force some volunteers, it's still better for morale than making your men fight.


"Hey, did you hear what happened to Bob?"
"No, what?"
"He got killed testing this new weapon."
"That was the mission the Commander forced him on?!"
"Yeah. I'm never trusting that Sylgardian [redacted] again."
"I wondered why she only picked Ortherans... [redacted] Sylgardians."
{System Message: Your army's morale has dropped!}



I'm a bit confused as to who the commander here is. Since you're making all the decisions as to whether you use ice or bridges, I figured you'd have the final say on whether experimental weapons can be issued.


Previously to Aster's clarification, I was under the impression that you got given orders (get across the river to flank the enemy) and how you accomplished that was up to you.

That's somewhat different to "Why are you using those weapons I specifically ordered not to be used?". Since Aster's post however, you can pretty much do anything you like as long as you can justify it to the officers.

Speaking of which, Mr Mask has raised a good point - how many men does the protagonist have under her direct control and what is her position in the CoC?
I was under the impression that she was a fairly minor officer (Captain level) and gets a number of formal/informal field promotions up to at least Colonel level based on her actions.

Basically I want to try and shoehorn the line "Captain, do shoot that man." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vR0-wbVHgM) into it. :smallbiggrin:


Thanks for all the thoughts! At this point in the story, the Commander is nominally in charge but in actuality everyone is looking to you (or your brother, the Assistant Commander.)

So your brother's full name is Nicholas Berin (you mentioned Commander Bryce and his 2IC Assistant Commander Berin earlier?) and yours is Marcus Cordale?

Given that you're adopted, wouldn't you both have the same family name?
Unless there's something I missed, this could be a way of hinting at your lineage since as the succession goes through your birth mother, you would take/keep her name.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-13, 02:36 PM
Your brother has his father's name Nicholas Cordale. You may be confusing him with Assistant-Commander Berin. He dies and your brother is promoted to his rank.

Also, I approve of the dry witted "{i}Do{/i} shoot him." Might have to have the Commander say that. He's the sort.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-13, 02:48 PM
Ross: Glad if it is helpful. If you need ideas on what the mechanist's upgrade for the troops is, we'd need some details on the usual equipment (doesn't need to be too specific, but specifics help).


Serenity: Not sure it will be so fun if it isn't in James Blunt's voice.


"Given the choice between taking a fully fit soldier off the front line to help run the artillery piece or an injured soldier, not capable of fighting but can still heft stuff around, which would you choose to operate a weapon not intended to get anywhere near the real fighting?"

Artillery generally inflicts the heaviest casualties in war... so I would put the fit soldiers into it so as to get the fastest reloading, maintenance, and adjustment of aim possible. You're still unlikely to be using your best fighters, as preferably you're using those drilled to load and manage the weapon.


Logistics and medicine: How many people can a person treat? When some of them have their legs blown off, and others are blinded, and others need surgery, whereas others only need a patch up job, when others are crumpled on the floor crying... Some of them require constant treatment over the course of a week, others only need one treatment and then bed rest, others are untreatable and you're just doing your best to ease their suffering. And how many of them are going to be able to stand the next day and do something? Not many. Especially if you're only giving part of your day to the process.

This area isn't so simple, I'm afraid. If you want a really good analysis of it, ask AMFV and Mike G. They both were medics for a time, if I recall correctly. Without knowing what the soldiers had been through, or information of the specific cases, I'm not sure they'll be able to answer either.

Logistics normally have an effect over an extended period. For the logistical support to have an effect over the course of a battle which is tomorrow, it would need to be a very significant change.


"-Conversation snippet-"

Could be worse. They could be testing nuclear radiation on them.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-13, 03:16 PM
Not sure it will be so fun if it isn't in James Blunt's voice.
Well obviously we need to hire James Blunt to voice the Commander. Get on that, Ross.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-13, 03:19 PM
James Blunt will be voicing the game? I'll let the fanbase know. I'm sure they'll be very excited.

Brother Oni
2014-02-13, 06:01 PM
Serenity: Not sure it will be so fun if it isn't in James Blunt's voice.

Alternately any middle to upper class soft English accent should do the trick.

I'd volunteer but I don't sound posh enough. :smalltongue:


Artillery generally inflicts the heaviest casualties in war... so I would put the fit soldiers into it so as to get the fastest reloading, maintenance, and adjustment of aim possible. You're still unlikely to be using your best fighters, as preferably you're using those drilled to load and manage the weapon.

You're confusing modern artillery with exploding shells with ECW era cannon which primarily fired solid shot.
ECW cannon were of limited use against infantry (unless they used grapeshot) and more used to assault fortifications. Even grapeshot was sparingly used as the cone of effect could easily result in friendly fire casualties.

Any crew served weapon from about the WW1 era onwards would all be considered specialists of some sort as the weapons have become considerably more complex.



Logistics and medicine: How many people can a person treat? When some of them have their legs blown off, and others are blinded, and others need surgery, whereas others only need a patch up job, when others are crumpled on the floor crying... Some of them require constant treatment over the course of a week, others only need one treatment and then bed rest, others are untreatable and you're just doing your best to ease their suffering. And how many of them are going to be able to stand the next day and do something? Not many. Especially if you're only giving part of your day to the process.

This area isn't so simple, I'm afraid. If you want a really good analysis of it, ask AMFV and Mike G. They both were medics for a time, if I recall correctly. Without knowing what the soldiers had been through, or information of the specific cases, I'm not sure they'll be able to answer either.


Since you're still not committing to giving an answer beyond a vague 'not many', I'll drop the point as we're not getting anywhere.

I know Mike G is a medic post EAS, but I wasn't aware of AMFV's MOS.



Logistics normally have an effect over an extended period. For the logistical support to have an effect over the course of a battle which is tomorrow, it would need to be a very significant change.


Was the battle tomorrow? I was under the impression that they had a free day (possibly waiting for scout reports to come back) then more marching on the following day.

As for logistics having an immediate effect, never underestimate the benefit of having a hot meal.
For a more concrete bonus, have weapons or ammunition arrive and they need people to distribute it to all the troops.


Your brother has his father's name Nicholas Cordale. You may be confusing him with Assistant-Commander Berin. He dies and your brother is promoted to his rank.

Well less confused and more incorrectly filling in the blanks based on what limited information you've given us.:smalltongue:

Mr. Mask
2014-02-13, 10:21 PM
Whatever the battlefield artillery, you should invest in it first if there is any.


Medic: That is the best answer I can give without lying. I don't think even a medical professional can tell you better with such vague details. If you like, you can make your own estimate.


Logistics: If a few hours in the medical tent would accomplish much, then you'd be better to add a couple of men to assist the doctors.


I understand you want there to be an in game bonus for Ross' benefit, but our job isn't to make stuff up. Our job is to tell him facts, and then to allow him to make stuff up. That is to say, for him to get to a conclusion from information.

Brother Oni
2014-02-14, 07:50 AM
Medic: That is the best answer I can give without lying. I don't think even a medical professional can tell you better with such vague details. If you like, you can make your own estimate.


I'm not asking you to lie, I'm just asking for more concrete values based on reasonable speculation.

At this level of abstraction, things like Lanchester's laws actually become useful for building a model, so here's my attempt:
Suppose the army has taken a statistically significant number of casualties (5%), so of an army of 9,000 men, 450 are casualties.
Suppose the injuries are normally distributed along a theoretical scale of fitness where 0% is dead and 100% is fully combat fit (not fully healthy).
Suppose then at the protagonist's level of ability, she can only help the top 15% of soldiers, which is ~68 men.

Assume that through a combination of triage and treatment, she averages about 5 minutes per patient (some would be a 30 second job of a plaster or refer to a professional, while others would take longer like setting a limb or replacing bandages).
Assuming an 8 hour workday (in reality this would be longer as they wouldn't 'clock off' as 5pm rolled around), that's 96 people she could either help or assess, which is more than the ~68 men within her capabilities.

68 men is a bit over half a company returned to active service, which on a numerical scale isn't much (0.7%) but it is enough for a separate mission.

Now there are numerous flaws and assumptions in this proposal, which I freely admit, but I feel it's more useful to give Aster an idea of what is capable compared to a more vague answer.



Logistics: If a few hours in the medical tent would accomplish much, then you'd be better to add a couple of men to assist the doctors.


I'm already assuming that the physicians/clerics have assistants but if you want to take into account that the protagonist is an officer in charge of her own company, then with careful shift work (say 20 men on two hour rotating shifts), it would allow her to accomplish even more (she can direct the men as porters or let the more competent ones do basic first aid while she carries on with triage) and still let her men rest.



I understand you want there to be an in game bonus for Ross' benefit, but our job isn't to make stuff up. Our job is to tell him facts, and then to allow him to make stuff up. That is to say, for him to get to a conclusion from information.

I want there to be an in game mechanical bonus as that's what Aster asked for. Providing pure information, especially when it's more of a rolling debate between you and me rather than a concise report, isn't as useful for him, particularly when their deadline is looming.

Taking my model for example - he might completely ignore it, or he may decide 'that's good enough' and use it with tweaks to the percentages - I'm fine with either. While I concede it's making things up a bit, I feel it's still a reasonable interpretation of the available information, just in a more accessible form.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-14, 08:36 AM
Without knowing exactly the kinds of injuries they sustained, I can't say how accurate 68 men is. But, the way injuries work, not many of those treated are going to be in a serviceable state You're looking at closer to 10 or 20.

Come to think of it, something you could have in the medical tent is you find the Slygardians are being made to wait longer than they should, the Ortheran troops being given unfair priority. That way, the bonus could be that you can take charge of triage and do what's efficient, saving some Slygardian lives and increasing their loyalty.


Logistics: I agree that her power as an administrator would have more effect, especially if the medical system has become messed up in the camp.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-14, 10:01 AM
Something that I'm not sure has been mentioned to you, but Prelate Lucius can cast minor healing magic. Along the lines of lay on hands or cure light wounds, but with a touch more versatility. His clerics can't cast, but they could learn if the MC decides to focus on teaching them. The thing is, though, that the Prelate doesn't really use his casting talents all that often. This is due to personal reasons that you can help him through if you follow his character arc.

Everyone can learn magic in this setting, but they have to work through arcane illness which causes a lot of nausea and discomfort. It also takes some people much longer than others to even understand the arcane tongue. (It comes off as inconsistent gibberish without repeated hearing.) When it can take months just to be able to hear the magic words you're supposed to spout, and you're guaranteed to throw up every time you try to cast (sometimes for years), it's enough to sincerely put off most beginners.

The opportunity to force the clerics to learn healing magic doesn't present itself until chapter 3 when you become the commander. As you can imagine that would come with some benefits and detriments thanks to arcane illness. You just have to decide if it's worth having your clerics not be at their best for the chance of having a boost in healing later.

Two men on the continent can properly cast magic (both foreigners from Alabaster, which is absolutely steeped in mystery and myths due to no one ever being able to find the place) and only one of them is on your side. You can, potentially, capture the other man who is casting for the enemy and convince him work for you, but it's more likely that you end up having to kill him or let him go. It's also possible for the MC to learn magic herself if she decides to follow the Archamagus' character arc.

Magic isn't necessarily a new thing on the continent, but it is a lost art. If not for the magus' from Alabaster their probably wouldn't be any magic involved in the war at all.

There's some other stuff related to magic, but I dunno if you wanna hear all of it since none of it is really relevant to the game's mechanics. More than happy to delve into it though if you all want to read me rant about world development stuff.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-14, 10:12 AM
I'm interested in hearing more. Some settings are a chore to read through, but this one has been pretty fun to hear about.


With what you describe of the magic, the MC can be a real game changer in the number of troops who are available after taking casualties.

It works out pretty well for the decision before the battle. The MC can look through the wounded and find the people who can aid in the coming battle most. They can then convince Lucius of their importance and being worthy of him using his magic on them. Coming from the commander, who Lucius may be on good terms with, and given a sound argument for their importance, will heal them.

The people you heal will certainly be happy, especially if they would have otherwise been crippled, and the magic may even have positive effects where they feel healthier than before (speculation there). Those you heal would have very high morale personally, and would improve your units' combat efficiency as you picked them out as being key warriors and specialists (who are going to fight harder due to their high morale).

Brother Oni
2014-02-14, 11:44 AM
Without knowing exactly the kinds of injuries they sustained, I can't say how accurate 68 men is. But, the way injuries work, not many of those treated are going to be in a serviceable state You're looking at closer to 10 or 20.

The type of injury isn't that important (abstraction is good! :smallbiggrin:), but how impaired they are with regard to fitness to rejoin their company. I've stated what the cut off point is: 85% or higher combat eligibility.

Assuming that a broken arm is ~75% eligibility (they still have mobility, but can't do the same amount of work), then you can get an approximate idea how badly injured the treated men are (not very).

We can play around with the injury type to %combat eligibility conversion if you like, but I still haven't seen why you think only 10-20 people could be treated in a day by a single person.



Come to think of it, something you could have in the medical tent is you find the Slygardians are being made to wait longer than they should, the Ortheran troops being given unfair priority. That way, the bonus could be that you can take charge of triage and do what's efficient, saving some Slygardian lives and increasing their loyalty.


At the cost of reducing Ortheran loyalty, so it evens out.



Logistics: I agree that her power as an administrator would have more effect, especially if the medical system has become messed up in the camp.

Particularly if the clerics aren't that good at the admin and organisation side of things ("I'm a doctor, not a pen pusher dammit! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_McCoy)").


Something that I'm not sure has been mentioned to you, but Prelate Lucius can cast minor healing magic. Along the lines of lay on hands or cure light wounds, but with a touch more versatility.

Could I have some clarification on the type of healing please? Is it an accelerated natural healing process (so cure light wounds would speed up healing where a few months for a broken bone is compressed into the length of a spell), a patch job type magic (where the skin and flesh is made whole, but bones would still be broken) or a Regenerate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/regenerate.htm) type of magic where the subject is made whole again (lost limbs are replaced unlike with the other two)?

Regardless of the type of healing, as mentioned earlier, the protagonist would be far more useful as pure triage with Prelate Lucius stabilising or treating the badly injured and restoring the moderately injured back to active duty (the lightly injured would be taken care of by the other clerics).

As Mr Mask pointed out, depending on the people healed and the order, it could have significant effects on the battle and morale. For example, prioritising people in order of injury would be fair and earn the most respect but limited improvement in combat effectiveness, while focusing on the specialists only (who incidentally happen to be all Ortheran) would significantly raise your combat effectiveness at the cost of morale due to the rumours of favouritism.




There's some other stuff related to magic, but I dunno if you wanna hear all of it since none of it is really relevant to the game's mechanics. More than happy to delve into it though if you all want to read me rant about world development stuff.

I'd like to hear more about it as it gives me a better understanding of the setting and what mechanical options are viable or not.

At the very least, it would save a page's worth of arguing among Mr Mask and myself. :smalltongue:

Mr. Mask
2014-02-14, 08:16 PM
Medic: The combat eligibility idea is not too different from something I'm using in a different context, but I can't see how it can be used in this context. Without knowing what kind of injuries they sustained, you can't even begin to make use of the system.

I said assuming your 68 was accurate, you'd be lucky if as many as 10 or 20 of those treated patients were able to function and help any time soon.

There are times where you'd be lucky to get through 20 patients, when their injuries are really hard to deal with.


Ortheran Loyalty: I don't think it would. They've been trained together, so I don't imagine the Ortheran troops like to see the Slygardians being left to bleed to death. If you were prioritising Slygardians over Ortherans it would be pretty negative to morale in the context, but in the circumstances I can imagine Ortherans with less severe injuries volunteering their place in line to Slygardians.


Favouritism: Similarly, I don't think this would negatively effect morale either. This is a fighting unit, they are concerned about their combat effectiveness as their survival relies on it, and it worries them when they lack key specialists and warriors. It would be a problem if the commander was healing favourites rather than the people who are good for the army. Also, since Lucius wasn't going to do any healing previously, they'll appreciate that the commander managed to get miracles out of the priest. If they get the false impression that the priest could have easily healed everyone but he and the commander don't care, that could be a problem.


Arguing: I don't like arguing... The best I can say for this is it helps me remember stuff.

Brother Oni
2014-02-15, 05:54 AM
Medic: The combat eligibility idea is not too different from something I'm using in a different context, but I can't see how it can be used in this context. Without knowing what kind of injuries they sustained, you can't even begin to make use of the system.


I'll say again, the type of injury does not make a difference for this level of abstraction.
The theoretical metric I'm using, is a measure of how injured they are and how quickly they can be returned to duty.

Examples:


Someone has PTSD and requires significant rest, recuperation and psychiatry to even function? Less than 50% fitness to return to duty.
Someone has lost both legs and hence has no mobility? 50% fitness to return to duty.
A light arrow wound to the arm that would take a minute or two to remove then bandage? ~90% fitness.
An embedded arrow wound to the torso that's become infected but the person is mobile and would take a week or so to recuperate: 60% fitness. The infection has spread, he's now come down with a fever and cannot be moved - less than 50%.


Remember that I suggested the cut off to be 85% fitness to return to duty. You can disagree with that level if you like, in which case what level of injury do you think she can treat? This would affect the pool of people she could return to active duty so that ~68 would shrink or increase.



I said assuming your 68 was accurate, you'd be lucky if as many as 10 or 20 of those treated patients were able to function and help any time soon.

There are times where you'd be lucky to get through 20 patients, when their injuries are really hard to deal with.


This is where triage comes into it - she passes on the people she's unable to help to professionals and helps the ones she can. I did state this assumption in my model.

You still haven't said where you're getting this value of 10-20 patients from yet.



Ortheran Loyalty: I don't think it would. They've been trained together, so I don't imagine the Ortheran troops like to see the Slygardians being left to bleed to death.

Except they're fighting against the Sylgardian army who's been raiding their villages and homes. As mentioned earlier, the Slygardians are noticeably different, so it would be foolish to assume that there wouldn't be any resentment.

I thought the whole point of raising the morale/building a relationship with the men was to overcome the inherent resentment of both Slygardian and Ortherans so that they both trust and believe in you, rather than their nominal rulers - remember that quote from Sun Tzu earlier?



If you were prioritising Slygardians over Ortherans it would be pretty negative to morale in the context, but in the circumstances I can imagine Ortherans with less severe injuries volunteering their place in line to Slygardians.

You must have a much more optimistic view of human nature than me or the idea of a much more modern army.
See the next point though:



Favouritism: Similarly, I don't think this would negatively effect morale either. This is a fighting unit, they are concerned about their combat effectiveness as their survival relies on it, and it worries them when they lack key specialists and warriors. It would be a problem if the commander was healing favourites rather than the people who are good for the army.

You seem to have this view of a very modern army, where everybody pulls together for the overall goal of defeating the enemy. This shift in military perspective came about as a result of the horrific casualties from WW1, which post dates the cultural era this setting is in (17th to 18th Century I think we decided on).
Back in the Early Modern era, favouritism ran rampant, along with significant cronyism: for example, there was no formal training to be an officer - you either needed a rich or politically powerful patron to push your promotion through, or you could simply buy your commission outright with the right connections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_commissions).
The men weren't much better off - during the American Revolutionary War, one of the British generals made it a flogging offence to break ranks/step to avoid marching through a puddle (I want to say Gage, but I can't find the reference at the moment). Mutiny or desertion was a capital offence and there were men executed for it as late as WW1:link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etaples_Mutiny).

It may not be that the protagonist is intentionally favouring one or the other, but the appearance of doing so (the specialists being all incidentally Ortheran as I mentioned earlier) may affect morale.

Favouring Ortherans or Slygardians would depend on the integration of the races. If Ortheran and Sylgardians soldiers are intermixed at a sub-company level, then I would agree with you that there wouldn't be an issue.
If the Sylgardian are separate at a regimental level, much like the Sikh and Ghurka regiments in the British Army, then I can see potential for resentment.

Thinking about the admin side, since the Sylgardians rotate in and out of the Ortheran army from their homeland, I would think that Sylgardian only companies inside a regiment, with some senior/veteran Ortheran officers, would best be able to accommodate this.
The Sylgardians will have more experienced troops to learn the tricks of the trade from, but surrounded by enough countrymen to not be alienated.
The Ortheran officers would accelerate the learning process of the Ortheran way of soldiering and help to minimise racial tensions (it's hard for an Ortheran to grumble when his Sylgardian counterpart from another company is doing the same crap duty because their idiot major ordered both companies to do it).

This separation at the company level is not including any details of the Sylgardian culture, (for example they have cultural taboos or different religious observances). For example I can easily see Sylgardian soldiers being female despite the Ortheran bias - re-integration back into Sylgardian military is going to be significantly hampered if half your troops are used to a different way of soldiering to the other half.
Single sex companies would be the best way to avoid 'mishaps' and there may be significant competition for the few Ortheran officers spots in mixed or female only Sylgardian companies. :smalltongue:



Also, since Lucius wasn't going to do any healing previously, they'll appreciate that the commander managed to get miracles out of the priest. If they get the false impression that the priest could have easily healed everyone but he and the commander don't care, that could be a problem.


Pulling miracles out of the Prelate of the Church of Althea would be good for more morale regardless, especially if the men hear that the protagonist was able to help him to do so.
It would also go a long way to getting your troops to believe in the righteousness of their fight - if the goddess herself is aiding them on their endeavours then how could they be in the wrong?

Mr. Mask
2014-02-15, 12:10 PM
OK, you lost me.

Since she isn't a trained doctor, she'll be better to focus on administration.

I said you'd be lucky to get 10 to 20... I have no idea what their injuries are. Largely arrows? Swords? Axes? How good is their armour? Ambush? Fire? How severe are the cases she's treating? What medicine does she have available, what medical tools, and what training? Asking for estimates without any data is beyond pointless. So is making them.


Racism: "Foolish," huh?

Many places and times were not so racist as the past few centuries of Western history. The Romans were fine with any race who had become part of their culture, and that ideal bled into much of early Europe. Even directly after the Crusades there was less racism than much of today, where the natives begun to trade with and get along with their new neighbours and vice-versa (later, Saladin kicked them out).

So far, the evidence points towards Ortherans not having any racial resentment towards the Slygardians. If they were the right kind of culture, they could switch the moment the disaster happened (like treatment towards a certain racial group after a certain surprise attack against a harbour). If they are the kind of society to take slaves based on racial identity, then they're likely to be very racist as soon as it suits them.

As for bleak world views... Look up the Lord Resistance Army. They had a pretty decent documentary about it back in 1998. Might have a look for it.


WW Stuff: ...OK, I'm not even sure where to start with this. There have been periods of various armies in history that did have very favouritism-centred systems of officership, promotion, etc.. A period in China suffered from this... Tang Dynasty? Can't remember. The idea that it was always like that and has slowly evolved into the present day model is just wrong. Almost anything where, "it used to be like this, but evolved to like it is now," is a very simplified view that comes up from pop culture. Most systems used the length of military service to decide who got promoted.

Training the men to not break formation for puddles is a good idea. Later, they'll have to keep formation when it requires stepping on the guts of someone they know and have known for years. Will have to use their comrades bodies not for burial, but as shields against bullets.


If the Slygardians are still in separate units from the Ortherans one day before the battle, the protagonist is in serious trouble. At that point you might want to keep the wounded Slygardians alive as hostages, in case their units decide to turn against you in the battle.

It was stated that they picked only male Slygardians in the draft, there probably aren't enough female soldiers to form a unit.

Brother Oni
2014-02-15, 05:40 PM
OK, you lost me.

Since she isn't a trained doctor, she'll be better to focus on administration.

I said you'd be lucky to get 10 to 20... I have no idea what their injuries are. Largely arrows? Swords? Axes? How good is their armour? Ambush? Fire? How severe are the cases she's treating? What medicine does she have available, what medical tools, and what training? Asking for estimates without any data is beyond pointless. So is making them.


I'm going to try this one more time and I'm going to answer your questions, even though you don't answer mine.

I am abstracting injuries for the sake of providing a model.

The type of injuries sustained do not matter, only their potential to be returned to active service.

The severity of the cases she is treating is minor - any major cases she cannot treat, she refers to the other clerics so she can focus on the ones she can treat. This is known as triage.

The assumption is that she has reasonable medical supplies and equipment for a major early modern era army in the field, since Aster has not stated there is a supply issue.

I agree there is limited data, hence why I'm making a suggested model and I stated all my assumptions used to make that model. In my opinion, a suggested model is still more useful than giving a vague answer for the purposes of helping Aster.

There's plenty of places where the model fails but the only one you've focused on is the severity of injury to active duty fitness percentage, which I've addressed to some degree by using abstraction, which for some reason, you refuse to do comprehend.
If I said she can treat anybody with more than 84% hit points remaining, would it make it any easier for you to understand?

Again, I'm asking you where do you get this 10-20 number from?


Racism: "Foolish," huh?

Many places and times were not so racist as the past few centuries of Western history. The Romans were fine with any race who had become part of their culture, and that ideal bled into much of early Europe. Even directly after the Crusades there was less racism than much of today, where the natives begun to trade with and get along with their new neighbours and vice-versa (later, Saladin kicked them out).


Using an Antiquity era and early Medieval culture as examples for how things are in an early modern era culture is extremely tenuous at best.
The Normans were fairly non-racist - if you could fight well, they used you. That didn't stop the 100 Years War and the perpetual enmity the French and English still have for each other nearly a millenia later.



So far, the evidence points towards Ortherans not having any racial resentment towards the Slygardians.

That was until the Sylgardian army started raiding Ortheran villages. If you'd like an example of how that changes things, take a look how Japanese Americans were treated after Pearl Harbour - you really think they were interned peacefully with no abuse from other American citizens?



As for bleak world views... Look up the Lord Saviour's Army. They had a pretty decent documentary about it back in 1998. Might have a look for it.


That's religious and hence not a valid topic for discussion on this forum.
I didn't say you had a bleak world view, I said you have an extremely optimistic one of human nature.



WW Stuff: ...OK, I'm not even sure where to start with this. There have been periods of various armies in history that did have very favouritism-centred systems of officership, promotion, etc.. A period in China suffered from this... Tang Dynasty? Can't remember. The idea that it was always like that and has slowly evolved into the present day model is just wrong.

Not slowly evolved. As I said WW1 was a massive kick up the arse of military perspective and significantly accelerated the development of tactics, equipment and training into something we recognise now.

Up until then, the development of tactics and organisation was fairly linear and you can clearly see how things hadn't changed with the invention of modern weapons. As an example, some French generals in WW1 thought attacking with vigour (and hence bayonet charges with either no ammunition or unloaded rifles) was the decisive factor, as they were back in the Napoleonic era and earlier: Attaque à outrance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attaque_%C3%A0_outrance). They hadn't learnt anything from the brutal lessons of the earlier ACW where modern weapons were just starting to make an impact.



Almost anything where, "it used to be like this, but evolved to like it is now," is a very simplified view that comes up from pop culture. Most systems used the length of military service to decide who got promoted.


Except that we're using an early modern era basis for the culture and that was what the system was for that era for every European army except for the Imperial Russians and the Prussians.
Since Aster appears to favour the ECW structure I proposed, I assumed that the associated military political situation would also be used and since the cultures look to be more Western European, I used the British Army as the model.

I'm not saying 'it used to be like this but evolved to like it is now', I'm saying 'that was how things were in those days for the structure that you'd like to use'. If Aster doesn't want to use it then fine, but please don't insult me by implying I have a pop culture view of history.



Training the men to not break formation for puddles is a good idea. Later, they'll have to keep formation when it requires stepping on the guts of someone they know and have known for years. Will have to use their comrades bodies not for burial, but as shields against bullets.

I apologise if I become somewhat short with you, but this comment significantly annoys me.

This was an example of the extreme pettiness that the general went to because he wanted things done exactly the way he wanted them to and you're agreeing with him?
You really think that keeping place in column formation on a normal march is going to make an ounce of difference when you're advancing under fire in line formation?

You force your men to march through a puddle and by the end of the day, they all hate you as they've been marching for hours with wet feet and some of them have started developing trench foot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_foot). Unless of course they somehow magically have modern waterproof boots, self heating socks and puttees that repel water.

Have you ever been on a multi-mile march carrying a burden with wet socks in cold weather?



If the Slygardians are still in separate units from the Ortherans one day before the battle, the protagonist is in serious trouble. At that point you might want to keep the wounded Slygardians alive as hostages, in case their units decide to turn against you in the battle.

All right, state your suggestion for how the Sylgardians will be easily integrated in the Ortheran army to allow for straightforward cycling of men in from and back to Sylgardia with minimal disruption to the other men and officers.

From what it sounds like, the protagonist isn't going to have the authority to reorganise her army until the third chapter.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-15, 09:37 PM
OK, I think I've reached my limit. I don't feel like arguing any more, so I won't. I don't agree with what's being said, but I just can't bother to have a post war every day.

Do your best to be helpful to Ross. If I can still offer help, I'll probably do so.

Brother Oni
2014-02-16, 03:20 AM
I apologise for coming across as overly argumentative.

What do you say to drawing a line under the whole thing and starting anew with whatever help that Aster or Serenity requests?

Hopefully this time, it won't devolve into a post war.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-16, 04:09 AM
That would be lovely.

Cheers!

SerenityFrost
2014-02-21, 08:36 AM
Hey there, fellas! I know I promised a world setting rant a little bit back, and that'll happen when I have the time and energy for it.

I do have a funeral question though. Instead of explaining how funerals work in our setting I'm just gonna toss the story script of the funeral scene in here tucked away in a spoiler tag. Hope you guys can read it okay. It's in game script format. (MC - Main Character, R - Rubus the Archmagus, L - Prelate Lucius)

Also, the question below has some game spoilers in it. If that bugs you don't feel like you've gotta read and answer it. I'm working on the assumption, however, that spoilers to the game would be a given in this topic.

scene traingrounds with fade # I really like this scene. Nice details with the burial rites. #I think we should give Lucius and Nick a handful of speaking lines just so they show up on-screen.
#sfx - fire
"I'd never been to a real funeral before."
"The pyres had taken all day to build, but we got them done just in time for the moon to rise."
"Althea's light shined brightly on the pale bodies of men in their finest laying in a line along the wood."
"There were three pyres built, which I didn't quite understand."
"The first two made sense. One was for our fallen soldiers and the other the fallen of our enemies that they could not come and claim."
"But the third, which was taller than the rest, only had Assistant-Commander Berin."
"I thought to ask one of the clerics why he was to be given separate passage from the other men, but I never gathered the nerve."
"I could only assume it was because of his rank. Which felt wrong to me somehow. He should be allowed to travel with the men who fell with him."
"Why should he be forced to take the journey alone simply because he had a title?"
"I wanted to bring this up to my brother, who was standing by my side as the Prelate said the passage rites to guide the soldiers on their journey."
"But speaking would mean interrupting the rites, and I didn't want to risk sending one of their souls the wrong way."
"This was so much different than what we had at home."
"The pyres were never this big, for one. We never had this many bodies to put on them."
"The family of the dead usually had time to prepare as well. They could make nice clothes for them to meet Althea in, and personal affects weren't difficult to come by."
"We never had a town cleric, so it was usually my father who lit the flames and gave the passage rites."
"When he died, it should have been Nick."
"Because he wasn't there, the rites were given by our neighbor, but I was the one to light the flame."
"I wondered if my brother was thinking about that now. Not being able to give our father his passage rites."
"I couldn't see his face until the pyres were ablaze, but the expression he had was different than what I'd expected."
"The smoke which carried the men's souls rose to the sky and the Archmagus conjured a wind to carry the ashes, allowing both body and soul a safe journey to Althea."
"The families of the men lilted into a graceful chorus to comfort them for their journey, and the Prelate's words grew thunderous so that they could still hear the steps they should take."
"The moment had me in awe, but my brother looked bored."
"How much death had he seen for this to not at least sadden him?"
"Would he have been this way at our father's passage?"
"I couldn't even imagine it."

scene traingrounds with fade
"When the last of the ashes drifted away the songs began to fade."
"The Prelate said his final words and soon it was time to move on."
"Many of the men went to the tavern, including my brother who'd not said a word to me since the battle."
"He didn't look my way or invite me to come, so I could only assume that he wished to grieve in peace."
"If he was going to grieve at all."
"While the whole experience had me both sad and rattled, I couldn't keep a myriad of questions from bubbling into my head."
"Though I wanted them answered, I wasn't sure if my brother should be the one to do it."
"I spotted the Prelate going to the medical tent, but he would probably be too busy to answer anything for me."
"Assuming I could conjure the words to ask."
"Still, it could never hurt to ask at least one of them."
"I wouldn't necessarily get answers otherwise."

menu:
"Follow Prelate.":
jump c02d01_clerictalk
return
"Follow brother.":
jump c02d01_taverntalk
return


label c02d01_clerictalk:
"It was obvious he wanted to be left alone, and the Prelate could probably answer my questions better than my brother could."
scene medtenti with dissolve
play music "mus/SkyeCuillin.ogg" fadeout 0.5 fadein 1.0
play nature "sfx/medtentempty.ogg" fadeout 0.5 fadein 1.0
"Since most everyone had gone to the tavern, the tent was eerily empty."
"I knew that I'd seen the Prelate walk in here, but I wasn't spotting him now."
"Had he gone into one of the curtained areas? Was he maybe treating some of the wounded?"
"Would it be rude of me to just walk around and check?"
"I jumped when I heard the tent door close behind me. I spun around and spotted the Archmagus."
r "Hello, Aide Cordale."
"He gave me a genial greeting."
r "Do you need medical attention?"
"I shook my head."

if c01snottoplaya_spokeToMages:
r "Ah, you must be here for conversation. Yes, I find the Prelate fascinating to speak with as well."
else:
r "I'm surprised you're not joining your friends at the tavern. Was there something you wished to speak to the Prelate about?"

#if spoke at tavern
#r "Ah, you must be here for conversation. Yes, I find the Prelate fascinating to speak with as well."
#if not spoke
#r "I'm surprised you're not joining your friends at the tavern. Was there something you wished to speak to the Prelate about?"
#else
"I nodded."
r "I see. You will likely find him in the back then, dodging his prayers."
"The Archmagus chuckled at his comment, but I was just confused by it."
"I followed him further into the tent and the Prelate was indeed in one of the curtained areas."
l "You brought company."
"The Prelate had an absolute blank look on his face. He must have been very tired."
r "He wanted to speak with you about something."
l "Ah, I see."
"A warm smile graced his face and he gestured that I sit on one of the beds. So I did."
l "What was it you wished to ask me?"
"The questions flooded into my mind, but only one managed to escape my lips, and it took its time doing so."
mc "Why was the Assistant-Commander not with the other soldiers?"
l "Ah. I see, because you're Sylgardian you don't understand our customs."
"The Prelate closed his eyes, lowered his head, and shook it." #closed his 'eyes' maybe?
l "The Assistant-Commander may not have looked it, but he was of the noble class. His family, you see, purchased for him a different route to Althea's arms."
l "It would only be confusing for him if he were to have traveled with the other soldiers."
"I wasn't even aware one {i}could{/i} buy alternate routes to the afterlife."
"The confusion on my face must have been evident, because the Prelate continued to explain."
l "The belief behind it began in Montecrest, but soon took hold amongst the nobles of Orthera."
l "You see, it is understood here that there is a period of wait between death and acceptance into Althea's gardens."
l "During the time it takes to travel on the bridge of light, Althea has time to judge you and place you accordingly in her home."
l "Or decide to not place you at all, even possibly forcing you to walk the bridge of light until she feels you're fit to move on."
l "In Montecrest a culture of allowances arose. You could donate a particular amount of gold to the Prelate of your temple and he would read special instructions that would allow you to bypass the bridge of light."
l "You can see how that could be popular amongst the noble cast here."
"I nodded."
r "The whole thing is hogwash." #I wanna change hogwash to be the wash of whatever local farm animal we decide on, for color
l "It is a widely held belief, Rubus."
r "Oh come now. Why would clerics have a special set of instructions {i}just{/i} to give to the wealthy dead? Althea has little interest in monetary things."
r "She judges on actions, not how much one can carry in their purses."
l "Belief and logic rarely go hand in hand."
r "You really shouldn't be perpetuating lies of that caliber."
l "I only repeat what I have been told."
r "And {i}do{/i} as you're told without question."
"The Archmagus was getting really annoyed by the whole conversation, yet the Prelate seemed strangely calm."
"Almost unnaturally so."
r "Why don't you tell Aide Cordale how you really feel about this kettle of tripe?"
l "How I feel has little bearing on what is believed, Rubus."
r "Well it {i}could{/i} if you were willing to talk about it."
"Now I was getting confused again. Did the Prelate not believe in his own teachings?"
"Why was he Prelate then?"
"I suppose I could have asked him, but I couldn't get up the nerve."
l "Does that answer your questions, Aide Cordale?"
"I nodded, though it seemed to only cause more."
l "I'm glad."
r "Feh, it pains me to see you acting so {i}simple{/i}, Lucius. I'm going back to the tower."
"The Archmagus left without much warning."
l "Do not mind him. He is just a man that is passionate in his beliefs, even when they differ greatly from the norm."
l "There is something to be respected in that."
"There sort of was. I nodded at the Prelate."
"He then began to stare at me. I guess he was waiting for me to say something."
"I opened my mouth, but of course no sound came out, and I was getting uncomfortable."
"So eventually I just excused myself and left."

scene traingrounds with dissolve
play music "mus/Plaint.ogg" fadeout 0.5 fadein 1.0
play nature "sfx/yardnight.ogg" fadeout 0.5 fadein 1.0
"A blast of cold wind hit me as soon as I left the tent."
"No one was outside anymore, and my rapidly numbing limbs told me why."
"Most of the men probably took refuge in the tavern, but then, with the sort of day this had been, just as many others were probably already in the sleeping tents." #took refuge
"I was pretty tired myself, but the tavern was bound to be warmer than the tent would be at any rate."
"It wouldn't hurt to get in some good sleep before packing tomorrow, but there was no telling when I'd have another chance to rest away from the weather."

Now, my question is this. The King and his loyal Commander die in the chapter 2 end battle, but there wouldn't really be time for a super elaborate funeral before they crown his son King, would there? I'm unsure just how funerals, especially the sort like the one I described (heavily Viking) would be done on the battlefield.

The fact that he was the King must mean some sort of funeral preparations would have to be made. Would it even be culturally viable to abbreviate the ceremony for him like they would have the rest of their fallen men? I can't really fathom a way for them to postpone it given how much importance they put into it.

I welcome examples to other sorts of funerals from various cultures, by the way. What you just read up there is from the first draft of the game, so I'm still open to ideas on the matter.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-21, 10:05 AM
I'm a bit confused on one point. You mention she has never been to a real funeral before, but then you describe her lighting funeral pyres after her father was too dead to light them?


During the American civil war, they bundled high ranking officers into coffins then sent them home by train so they could have proper funerals. If funerals have such religious significance within the setting, they're likely to go to similar lengths for their king and high ranking persons.

If they were very desperate, that could change matters. If they're trapped, under constant attack, don't have the resources to make the pyres or men to spare, there are too many men to burn... it changes things. If they were worried about their enemies desecrating the king's body so he couldn't reach the afterlife, they'd make do with something smaller just to prevent that. If they're on good enough terms to negotiate with their enemy, they may be able to work transport of high ranking officer's corpses through enemy lines back home.

Funerals tend to be more for the living than for the victim, as a form of grieving, but religious tones can change that. If immediate sending is imperative as part of the religion, they may have to arrange a funeral quickly on the spot. If scale of the funeral is important, then they're likely to delay till the King is home for a proper ceremony. Normally, you default to the latter, since few will want to see the king sent off to the afterlife in a small way.


As for crowing a new king, that depends on their system. Many feudal systems could last a while without a king, the instances where they wouldn't was because the king was the only thing holding the warring powers within the country together. Some systems do need a leader the way they're set up, even if they're a leader only in title. When the king dies, you sometimes get several factions racing and fighting to make their candidate the next king or instances of delay because the accepted candidate is hiding from people who would see him dead.

Since only the one who can wear the crown can be king in this setting, their system either relies on that person heavily, or can manage for extended periods without a king (depends how easily replacements can be found). Since the crown ensures(?) competence, they can more easily have a system reliant on their king.

So, a lot of this depends on their system and the current political situation.

Religion and culture also has an effect. As mentioned, they might need a king right away, even if they're three years old. This tends to speed up power struggles for who is king, and can make things more likely to break down the longer you go without a king. How easily you can replace a king also has an effect (normally, kings aren't very expendable).

SerenityFrost
2014-02-21, 11:36 AM
Back at home they did the burning part, but they didn't have the full on ceremony like what she was watching. Her town was small so they didn't really have a cleric, just someone with seniority willing to try and guide their dead as best they could.

I can see why that line could be confusing though. I might just pull it.


In this particular case, as far as crowning is concerned, they'll need a King to finalize terms with Queen Charlotte once they reach the capital as a King or Queen are the only people with the power to sign a treaty. (If King Kendrick had a wife, for example, she could have signed in his stead.) His son, while being the Prince, could maybe negotiate terms, but he couldn't sign any documents to enforce said terms.

I actually haven't given much thought to how the crowning ceremony might be handled. I should probably do some research on the subject. Any good places you could point me?

Brother Oni
2014-02-21, 12:43 PM
A lot to go through, so I'll break it up into spoilered sections.


It takes 400-500kg of wood and ~6 hours to mostly reduce a human body to ash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyre), although there's modern solution which can reduce that to ~150kg wood and 2 hours (http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/society/a-thought-for-the-dear-departed/article3008863.ece).
In the case of multiple bodies, that's a lot of wood, probably more than what is available in the immediate area, especially if it's all green and not particularly flammable.

Even with a modern cremation incinerator, there's bits of bones remaining that are typically pulverised (or not, depending on culture (http://www.scattering-ashes.co.uk/different-cultures/japanese-cremation-ashes-rituals-kotsuage-bunkotsu/)) to make the ashes expected.

Stacking multiple bodies on a pyre compounds the total incineration process, even accounting for the additional corpses' body fat rendering down and igniting. It's often mentioned in historical texts that large pyres burnt for days, although whether that's because they kept on piling on the bodies or it was the original fire is unclear.
I think mass grave fire pits was the typical method for battlefield disposal so that anything that didn't incinerate properly could just be buried.

In order to quicken the scene, I suggest magic fire, possibly provided by the clerics if cremation is the typical funeral method.



In the case of an usurpation then sticking the body in a ditch or under a carpark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England) was typical, assuming that the divine right to rule wasn't respected.

Assuming this wasn't an usurpation, typically the old King's body would lay in state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lying_in_state) for a number of days, before being buried.
Whether they'd actually have the luxury of time to do that is a separate question, so the formal funeral could be delayed if needs be - they attempted to preserve Frederick Barbarossa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_I,_Holy_Roman_Emperor) in a barrel of vinegar until they could get his body home to be buried.

Since I assume that the Prince would be taking the throne, it would show suitable piety and respect for his father for a formal burial, even if he had to rush the coronation, which leads me nicely onto...



It depends very much on the culture and the background.

Where rulers were perceived to have the divine right to rule the procedure was normally very religious. The English are a bit of a unique case since the monarch is the head of the state religion, thus the monarch is crowned by the lead cleric of the Church (the Archbishop of Canterbury in this case).
For details of the English system, there the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_the_British_monarch) and (lots of) documentaries (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzahB7sHYSU).

As Mr Mask said, how the process goes and how quickly would depend on the immediate situation. Speeding it up would be possible in the case of war situation or current crisis.

I would have thought the Church of Althea would be rather more martial given her origins as a human general, so expediency in important matters (or 'hurry up and wait' as it's formally known) wouldn't be out of place.


As a side note, I was under the impression that Lucius was the Prelate rather than a Prelate of the Althean Church, but at least that answers my other question of why the head of the Church was travelling with an army.

Regarding other funeral customs, I can provide you with Chinese and Japanese ones, although as they're both heavily religious, I'll need to send it by PM.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-21, 07:19 PM
Lucius has a high standing in the church. Had he not decided to join the war effort (which was entirely his decision) he would be in charge of his own church and clerics. In this case church and hospital would be regarded as the same thing. So in modern day terms he'd be a hospital administrator.


I guess now is a good time as any to dip into the history of Althea.

The mythical figure of Althea, and the one that the religion is based upon, was a human born into a time where the gods were at war with one another. There are several different stories of her rise into deification, but only one is really told in Lanria (the continent which holds Orthera and Sylgard).

Althea grew tired of the destruction from the gods war and so she searched tirelessly for old and forbidden knowledge on how to defeat the gods. The gods were not pleased by this and did their best to strike her down at every turn (imagine the Odyssey, but if Odysseus had managed to piss off all of the gods), but Althea was crafty and clever enough to survive and persevere. However, it wasn't until she managed to find the Spirit of Lusk (the name of their planet) that she managed to find out how to defeat the gods.

The Spirit came to her in the form of a great golden elk. It had also grown tired of the god's war and so offered to be her steed, promising that if she rode it into battle she would also have the wisdom she needed to win.

The Spirit came through and she finally took the gods on directly. With the spirit's aid she was able to slay the gods, but dead was not something that a god could become. Instead the power of that slain god would become absorbed into the rest of the gods, making each one she had to fight more powerful than the one before.

When it came to the final battle with the final and most powerful god the Spirit of Lusk was slain. As Althea grieved deeply for her brother at arms, the power of the spirit entered her. With the spirit's power and her rage she managed to defeat the last of the gods. The power of the god, having nowhere else to go, entered Althea.

Fearing that she would become like the gods who had ravaged Lusk, Althea left for the moon where she currently resides. Looking down at man, helping only when needed, and guiding each passed soul to the grand garden she made for herself on the moon.

The Lanria version is the most popular one. There are minor changes depending on where you are. The animal form the Spirit of Lusk takes, what Althea was before she became a god (in Lusk she was a farmer's daughter while in Panservoy she was a princess), the number of struggles (and their respective stories) she really had to go through to learn how to destroy the gods, etc.

There is another, less popular, tale of her rise that had her the faithful servant to a power hungry god.

The Spirit of Lusk is mentioned there, but as something she sacrificed to gain the hungry god's favor and became a trusted soldier. Althea lead the hungry god's followers into battles with the other gods. Each time she defeated one the hungry god devoured them and became more powerful. Then, when the hungry god was the only one to remain, it decided to devour Lusk itself. Althea, seeing the error in her ways, turned on the hungry god, using the knowledge she'd gained from destroying gods to consume the hungry god herself and attain its power. Something that she could do thanks to having defeated and absorbed the power from the Spirit of Lusk at the beginning.

As you can imagine, this version of the tale is shorter and paints Althea out like a villain. Some try to focus on how she redeemed herself at the end, but most people prefer the heroic version. That is, of course, the people who have even heard this tale at all. You have to attain a high rank in the church to even read the historical texts talking about this Althea. Some followers ignore it entirely because so few texts detail this story, but hundreds detail the more popular one.


I suppose now is as good a time as any to explain how magic exists.

If you read the spoiler tags up there you'll notice there are a lot of different stories about Althea, and have probably assumed that the less popular one is the one that is, in fact, actually true. You'd be correct in this, but there is one detail that never managed to read the texts above. Althea is originally from Alabaster, the first kingdom to be destroyed by the gods. The people of Alabaster were the loyal followers of the Spirit of Lusk and so they lived where the spirit resided, in the very heart of Lusk. The core of the world.

Alabaster had always remained hidden away from prying eyes. The Spirit of Lusk was wise and wary of the hungry god and could see their treachery coming. The Spirit of Lusk sent its most loyal child out into the world to gain the trust of this god, and armed her with the knowledge she would need to defeat it when the time came.

When it came time for war with the gods the Spirit of Lusk decided to take this chance to rid itself of them all. It's most faithful child aided the hungry god in defeating them and then, at the end, the Spirit became one with its child and destroyed the hungry god.

With the destruction of the gods also came the end of magic. The gods only came to be because of the magic that the Spirit permeated through the world simply by existing inside of it. Because this power could be consuming, with Lusk cleansed the Spirit sent its children into a deep sleep so they would not need to suffer and left.

However, Lusk could not survive without some magic, so the spirit returned to its home, reawakened its sleeping children in Alabaster, and sleeps in the core for 100 years. After the 100 years Lusk is charged with magic again and the Spirit can leave until it needs to be charged again. This cycle makes sure that magic never becomes too powerful in Lusk, thus preventing anymore gods from cropping up and ruining things.

What magic actually is is a tricky thing to explain. It's such an abstract sort of concept that has defied explanation before (so much so that it itself is an explanation for things that people do not wish to explain) and I dare not try it myself. I can, however, explain what powers magic. The soul (synonymous with energy in this context.)

As you read in the funeral post, it's widely believed that, when a person dies, their soul is sent on a journey to Althea's garden on the moon. This is, however, not at all the case. When a person dies their soul dissipates and becomes one with the Spirit of Lusk. As it has always done since the beginning of time. The energy that soul creates is then dispersed through Lusk providing life and magic.

The reason arcane illness exists is because when someone is born they have the perfect balance of energy from the Spirit of Lusk. Their soul. To practice magic one must take in more energy, which bloats the soul making the body sick. Some people can get past this, their body getting used to the bloat over time. Others never do, and a few never experience the sickness at all. The ones who do not are considered blessed by the Spirit of Lusk to be trusted with the power that comes from using its gifts. Such as, let's say, the heir to a royal family which has protected an artifact that, stories say, was owned by Althea herself and can provide great wisdom for those who wear it by allowing them to see into the hearts of men. (Or great control of one wants to use it that way, but who would want to do that?)

Hope that wasn't all too brambly (And if it sounds like I used a bunch of broken English, that's just me failing at doing the thing I'm trying to make a profession of. I really need an editor for just everything I ever type ever.) I'm more than happy to hear any ideas to make my world concept cleaner and more polished. Using 1s and 0s to write something down is not the same as etching it into stone.


Also, thanks for the offer, Oni, but I've gone ahead and done my own research. I already have a good idea for how I want to handle things now, and you guys were a huge help.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-22, 04:09 AM
Not much to say, other than complimenting you on it seeming well worked out and interesting. A lot of stuff uses the lifestream/Nirvana, but you changed it up nicely. If you plan to bring some of the other gods back into the narrative at some point, that could be interesting. Not that you need to do such, making things too epic and big can be a bad idea.


In some cases you can make agreements with monarchs of other nations, but some political systems do make that impossible. So if they want to make a treaty soon, they'll want a new king soon.

Brother Oni
2014-02-22, 05:42 AM
Lucius has a high standing in the church. Had he not decided to join the war effort (which was entirely his decision) he would be in charge of his own church and clerics.

*Cough*Chapter Master*Cough* :smalltongue:



Also, thanks for the offer, Oni, but I've gone ahead and done my own research. I already have a good idea for how I want to handle things now, and you guys were a huge help.

No problem, it clears up a lot of misconceptions I had about the setting.

I have no real comments, except that the 'paying your way into heaven' concept has historical precedence (Indulgences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence)).

It later caused significant friction between the Church and State, which is a double whammy of politics and religion verboten on this board, so I suggest reading up about the Dissolution of the Monasteries if you want further information.



In some cases you can make agreements with monarchs of other nations, but some political systems do make that impossible. So if they want to make a treaty soon, they'll want a new king soon.

Ideally you want a new king quickly to stop the other rulers thinking you're weak and either annexing choice parts of your border or swallowing up your country entirely.

As you've said earlier, it depends on how the country is governed. A country with a strong bureaucratic backbone could keep things running happily for a long while (barring external threats), or one with separated governance like Parliament and the Monarch.

At the other extreme, you have the other noblemen running back to protect their domains before the King's body has even gone cold (William II's body was abandoned where it fell on a hunting accident! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_II_of_England)).

Mr. Mask
2014-02-22, 05:59 AM
Yeah, so it comes back to their system, which relates strongly to their religion and particularly their system of the crown and choosing a new monarch.

Since the point has been made that they aren't fully self sufficient, they need a monarch to make treaties between countries legally, that means their system must be able to replace the monarch quickly and reliably (that, or the system is bound to collapse in the future).


It should also be noted that laws can change. Monarchies can become democracies and vice versa. If it wasn't possible to get a new king quickly enough, the nation will either break down due to the problems its facing, or it will adapt to survive.

SerenityFrost
2014-02-22, 06:59 AM
Ah, Chapter Master. Thanks for giving me the word I needed. d:

Also, Indulgences was exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote up that scene. One of the cool things about going monotheistic was that I could borrow a lot from real religion to make theirs feel organic.

As for religious titles, I should probably work out some that aren't reflected in actual religions. Aster and I wanted to avoid making up lots of words, but it's becoming increasingly clear on my end that using real titles will just confuse players or make things feel as though I've copied a real religion but was too much of a coward to call Althea God. d:

Luckily using real military ranks won't be as sticky a subject seeing as different countries already use the same titles for different ranks. Plus, when it comes between war and religion, religion is always the most offensive.


Oh! A mechanic about magic I failed to mention was that you can use the energies of Lusk itself, which often involves slow charges and rituals, or you can take the energies from the people around you.

Using the people around you provides a faster and more powerful spell, but the price is that you've forcibly taken a piece of soul from the living. While that person will, in time, regain that loss from Lusk itself, they've become instinctively offended. Even if they don't know how magic works, and don't know what you've done, they will want to react negatively to you either via hate or fear. Plus if you do too much too fast you can cause nasty problems. Like make living zombies, for example.

You can, however, use a tiny bit from a lot of people safely if you're in a pinch. To do that you have to have made a willing connection (either emotional or physical) with the people around you. That instinctive hate or fear can be more easily ignored if they consider you a friend and if you have a large enough pool to draw from they can recover more quickly. That connection also allows for easier access which is a crucial thing when you're trying to also not get stabbed to death while casting.

The Archmagus is doing this. To pull off some of the major spells he'd need to as quickly as you'd want, he's taken to sleeping around with the men. The physical intimacy makes for a good quick and dirty connection to the men that he can draw from without worry of becoming so hated by them that they'd be unwilling to work with him. It also isn't too bad for troop morale.

I'm a bit borderline on this mechanic myself. While I loved it at the time I came up with it, I do fear it might seem a bit forced or silly. Especially when you boil it down to its most basic component. An alternative fuel for magic is the power of love. (Or if you wanna make a doofy reference of it Friendship is Quite Literally Magic.)


PS: Aster is working his butt off on our tech demo. You guys will certainly be getting a copy of that when it's finished. Thanks so much for all your help so far! You can probablyy expect to see your names in the credits as consultants when the game is officially released. Let us know how you'd like to be credited when it gets closer to time for that. Or now and I'll just make a note of it that I'll probably lose and have to ask for again when it's closer to release time.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-22, 09:02 AM
Credits: Just credit me as the text I've bolded(?): 'Mask (aka: "Mr. Mask")', if that would be all right. I'll remind you closer to the time.


Magic: Love and Friendship is magic? That's an interesting idea. I like it.

From what you describe, you could construe that Human Sacrifice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_%28video_game%29) is magic, too. I don't think the crazy gods and human sacrificing is something you'll get to tackle in this game, but if you plan to make a sequel you may wish to consider those plot threads. I can also imagine taking a bit of soul out of soldiers, so that they have just the right level of hate and aggression for combat (as well as giving you some energy), or making some living zombies to act as cannon fodder.

This magic is a lot more fun than these systems usually are (this has more depth to it, so you can work out neat possibilities).

Of course, I might be describing things you don't want the magic to be useful for. Just that you may wish to consider interesting utilities (though you mightn't get to make use of them).


Demo: We get a sneak peak of the game? Awesome! Looking forward to that. Send my regards to Ross as well.... crunch time can be really hard on a person (my regards to you as well Serenity, I hope you're holding up).

Brother Oni
2014-02-22, 07:39 PM
Ah, Chapter Master. Thanks for giving me the word I needed. d:

No way I can convince you to write in a battle scene for Lucius where he dons purple armour (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/File:Prettymarine01.jpg)? :smalltongue:



Aster and I wanted to avoid making up lots of words, but it's becoming increasingly clear on my end that using real titles will just confuse players or make things feel as though I've copied a real religion but was too much of a coward to call Althea God. d:

My suggestion would be to knock up a hierarchy outline, then make up and slot in titles as required.

That way you avoid making up too many words, but the player can still feel that there's a structure to the Church.



Or if you wanna make a doofy reference of it Friendship is Quite Literally Magic.

Oh dear Althea, save me from the freaking ponies. :smallsigh:

I'm not saying it's a bad design choice, just that it's not to my personal tastes.
The fact that I have indirectly watched the entirety of the Friendship is Magic material (multiple times) via my children may be somewhat influencing my dislike. :smalltongue:



Magic: Love and Friendship is magic? That's an interesting idea. I like it.

You must not watch very much anime (or watch entirely too much) as the power of friendship driving the hotheaded young hero resolve and giving them newfound magical abilities is a very common theme in shonen series.


I can also imagine taking a bit of soul out of soldiers, so that they have just the right level of hate and aggression for combat (as well as giving you some energy)...

Edit: Yeah, this is just going to lead into another butting heads thread again.

I'm just going to say that the hate is directed towards the caster and not the enemy and fear is not conducive to building up aggression.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-23, 12:40 AM
If you can fiddle with people's souls, you can probably get them into a mindset you prefer.

Brother Oni
2014-02-23, 03:58 AM
If you can fiddle with people's souls, you can probably get them into a mindset you prefer.

Depends on how the soul is related to the mind.

If they're so closely linked they're effectively synonymous then I'd agree.
If the soul and mind have a linkage more akin to the mind and flesh of Aristotelian thought, then it's trickier.

If the soul is less tangible than that then I would think that fine control of the mind via soul manipulation would be very hard to do.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-23, 04:37 AM
Even if the soul is related closely to the mind, you can't always get the results you want. So it really depends on minute details of the magic, which depend on which direction the story wishes to go.

Rosstin
2014-02-24, 12:07 AM
We're getting close to releasing the demo now! I'm working really hard on it...

I broke the code yesterday, and this happened:

(screenshot not representative of gameplay!)
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/hearts.png

That's the "snow" code operating on the heart sprite. Whoops!

Rosstin
2014-02-24, 12:11 AM
I might have already asked this, but I was interested in reading/listening to some fun fiction books on medieval warfare, to get myself in the mood. What do you guys recommend as good (fun) fiction books about medieval warfare? Especially ones that do a good job of describing combat, because I have to write all those scenes.

I was listening to some earlier, but the USB drive I downloaded them onto got formatted and I lost them, and forgot the titles. I was listening to a story about an English boy, the son of a mad priest, who wants to be a longbowman, his town gets destroyed by... bandits? Something? And he uses his mad bow skills to flip out and kill everyone.

I might listen to Three Musketeers because I heard that that has the best sword-fight in literary history in it.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-24, 01:04 AM
It's hard to find authors who can get combat and war right, so it's a bit hard to say.

I'd say Sir Nigel. Hasn't got a lot of war, but has some duels and skirmishes.

Rosstin
2014-02-24, 01:54 AM
I wasn't able to get Radical Dreamers working, which is a shame because I was VERY interested in it. :-(

Unrelated to Queen, but my other game, Rex Rocket, is becoming really successful. I think this might be my breakout hit. :-) I'm really excited, I've worked really hard for this. We have a booth at GDC2014 now, and we just released a demo of the second zone, the Barracks. That Zone is very representative of me, most of the concepts were things I personally designed, so I'm very proud of it and happy it's being featured in the demo.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-24, 02:21 AM
You made Rex Rocket? Why didn't you mention so earlier! I was really interested in that one, had a Cave Story vibe. But I missed the Kickstarter. Will make sure to get it, especially since a friend made it.

Rosstin
2014-02-24, 03:11 AM
You made Rex Rocket? Why didn't you mention so earlier! I was really interested in that one, had a Cave Story vibe. But I missed the Kickstarter. Will make sure to get it, especially since a friend made it.

:smallbiggrin:

Wow! Finally people know my games before they know me! It's a first. XD

Mr. Mask
2014-02-24, 03:55 AM
If you use that avatar somewhere in relation to Rex Rocket, that'd explain why I thought I'd seen you before.

Rosstin
2014-02-24, 04:43 AM
I use this avatar for everything. Maybe you saw me in TIGsource?

You can meet me at GDC2014 if you're going.

Brother Oni
2014-02-24, 07:22 AM
That's the "snow" code operating on the heart sprite. Whoops!

Are you sure this isn't a shojo visual novel? You got the harem, the big brother character who is romance-able and now hearts falling like snow around three of the lads. :smalltongue:

By the way, does the Nick in the main screen have a goatee, while the Nick in the text box is clean shaven?

Edit: ah nope, that's just an unfortunately placed heart.


What do you guys recommend as good (fun) fiction books about medieval warfare? Especially ones that do a good job of describing combat, because I have to write all those scenes.

As Mr Mask said, it's going to be tricky as fights are very quick visual things with little thinking involved, which doesn't translate well to the written word.

I remember Legend by David Gemmell having some good battle descriptions, but there doesn't appear to be an audiobook of that novel.

There are audiobooks of other works of his, but I haven't read them so can't say as to the quality of the battle scenes: link (http://www.amazon.co.uk/David-Gemmell/e/B000AQ70T8#/ref=la_B000AQ70T8_rf_p_n_binding_browse-b_2?rh=n%3A266239%2Cp_82%3AB000AQ70T8%2Cp_n_bindin g_browse-bin%3A308724031&bbn=266239&ie=UTF8&qid=1393244949&rnid=492562011).

SerenityFrost
2014-02-24, 08:36 AM
I've always had difficulty writing fight scenes that aren't horribly dry. My strengths lay more in character focused stuff, but having a fight scene be character focused can make the fight last too long. Hopefully making our fight scenes have an interactive element will make them read better.

Of course, Ross here is the one writing most of the fighting for the game. I'm just going through and editing them for flavor.

Rosstin
2014-02-24, 11:07 AM
Writing fight scenes SUCKS, it's really hard. I was reading a writers forum about "how to write a sword fight" and they said "don't." Argh!

Brother Oni
2014-02-24, 01:26 PM
From personal experience in writing fight scenes, I'd agree with them.

If you really, really must, focus on the lulls between bursts of action and write about how the character is feeling, their next potential moves, reflect on what just happened, greater concerns, etc (at least that's what I did).

The last thing you want is a big block of text that breaks the fight down to a blow by blow account.

Reading boxing match reports or listening to the commentaries is a good way of getting an idea of expressing a fight in a non-visual sense. Reading up on fencing manuals for the proper terminology would also be useful, at least if the POV you're writing from is a competent swordsman and knows the terms.



Unrelated to Queen, but my other game, Rex Rocket, is becoming really successful. I think this might be my breakout hit.

Congratulations, I hope it goes well for you. :smallbiggrin:

Finally able to watch the video, it looks very much like an updated Megaman platformer.

Rosstin
2014-02-24, 05:28 PM
I ended up focusing on on getting in a few relevant tactical details, with some psychology and emotional elements. For instance, in the yard fight you can mess with your enemy's head to defeat him-- you remember that he's superstitious (if you socialized with him) and you can freak him out by pretending to cast a spell (this is before you learn any magic.) I'd actually like to use more dialog in the battles, because I think dialog is the most important tool. The problem is I'm really rubbish at writing dialog.

Rosstin
2014-02-24, 05:30 PM
Are you sure this isn't a shojo visual novel? You got the harem, the big brother character who is romance-able and now hearts falling like snow around three of the lads. :smalltongue:

It's SUPPOSED to be. But we're basically totally failing at making it a harem anime, by having it end up being about the horrors of war instead. One of the main problems right now is that there isn't enough romance. It gets off to a really slow start romance-wise. You build up relationships, but it's very platonic so far.

That might be okay, I just have to stop billing it so hard as a romance game.

Brother Oni
2014-02-24, 07:28 PM
It's SUPPOSED to be. But we're basically totally failing at making it a harem anime, by having it end up being about the horrors of war instead.

That isn't our fault, is it? :smalltongue:



That might be okay, I just have to stop billing it so hard as a romance game.

Keeping the snow hearts in might be a good start towards restoring the romance balance. :smalltongue:

On a more serious note, I believe that extremely stressful situations (like war) can result in a loosening of inhibitions, resulting in a faster, but more fragile, development of relationships.

You could have a 'near miss' relationship status where the protagonist hasn't quite raised her relationship level enough and while she thinks she's found the love of her life, a later epilogue after the war is over shows the complete disintegration of the relationship.

Wait, I'm supposed to be helping with romance part, not the horrors of war part, aren't I? I'll keep my mouth shut...

SerenityFrost
2014-02-24, 11:32 PM
Luckily the dialogue is my job, and I'm good at it. d:


And yeah, I plan on using the stress war times to speed up romance. I'm hoping it'll feel naturally paced given the circumstances.

Rosstin
2014-02-25, 12:08 PM
New title screen! I'm trying to code this screen so that it shows a random boy and a random background.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/QueenTitle_400.png

Rosstin
2014-03-15, 05:13 PM
Resurrecting this for a bit, as I'm working on the last 2 battles of the game, for Chapter 3.

The first one is going to be a terrain-based battle in enemy territory that I might base on The Battle of Agincourt.

The second one will be a siege, culminating in an invasion of the enemy castle, and then a dramatic climax to the game, based on player choices.

Rosstin
2014-03-15, 05:18 PM
The bridge battle ended up having a nice structure because of the central puzzle of "how to cross the water". I have to brainstorm a similar cool puzzle or series of strategic/tactical decisions for this mid-Ch3 Agincourt-esque battle.

The Sylgardians are going all-out for this. This is their last chance to defend their capital from being sieged.

The protagonist's army has likely sustained losses by now, going from 9000-something men to around 6000 depending on how the fighting has been going. That might play a part in the battle as well. Unlike in previous battles, the number of men you have remaining may have a significant effect on your survival.

Sub-optimal strategy and tactics could result in a complete loss or a loss of many men, depending on the strength of your force.

Optimal strategy and tactics could result in a victory despite a small remaining force.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-15, 05:23 PM
Was thinking about this game.

Put down any questions you have about the battles you mention in the thread, and outline them here if it isn't trouble.


[EDIT] There are a few possibilities for tactical decisions, depending on what situations are available. If you didn't mind reversing the situation of Agincourt temporarily, you could have the Slygardians assailing your formation with missiles. You can decide whether to spread out the men, whether to send cavalry to get the archers. Your own archers are already countering them, but you could advance them to get them a better shot.

There would be some drawbacks to several of these points, and some perceived drawbacks.

Rosstin
2014-03-15, 05:40 PM
Now that we're over 50% done with the game, I'm really driving to get to the end. I'm pulling out all the stops! This is definitely the point in development where I'll be willing to sacrifice a bit of realism in order to bring all the plot threads together, and create a satisfying platform for the conclusion.

As such, I'll be a little looser with realism, more willing to use magic or other elements to create a cool puzzle and a cool network of decisions.

However, I still want to ground things firmly into some classic medieval warfare realities, and I'd like to get some good classic elements of famous battles in there for people to appreciate.

You guys are probably experts in this... what are some of the most genius, interesting, and/or crazy strategic or tactical decisions that turned the course of a battle, that you can remember from history?

One thread we've been following throughout the game, is how the Sylgardians are willing to practice total war. They're defending their home, and all they want is for Orthera (the protagonists) to back off. You can see this in the Sylgardian strategies-- launching a sneak attack, defiling and destroying a sacred bridge to prevent a crossing, (spoilers!) assassinating the Ortheran King dishonorably during a duel. The Ortheran leadership, through its King and Commanders, has been obsessed with rules and fairness. But rules are for the strong.

At the start of the 3rd battle, the protagonist is officially one of the main leaders of the army, ranking only just below the Prince, who siezed power in his grief over his father's death. This battle she can really do whatever she wants, as long as what she wants is to beat Sylgard (the Prince won't hear of retreat or amnesty at this point.) It would be a good place to allow the protagonists to commit some kind of atrocity in order to win, perhaps leading to a "bad" (but successful) victory ending.

The protagonist's army will contain between 6000-9000 men at this point, depending on losses.
Remaining men will determine how easy/difficult the battle is to win/survive
IE- if you play poorly but have 9000 men, you can still win (with losses)
If you have few men, you need to play optimally to survive
Battle takes place at a pinch-point, for example between a forest and a canyon wall
Something Agincourt-esque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
This is the Sylgardians' last chance to protect their capital, so they're going all-out. Their forces will be swelled with any man, woman, or child who can fashion a pitchfork into a weapon.
I need to come up with a complex network of interesting strategic choices to make this one of the more detailed and interesting battles.
Each boy's story should culminate into this battle somehow, specifically James', Rubus', and maybe Lucius'.

Some "extreme" methods of victory I'm brainstorming:

Rubus uses Nick's blood to cast a spell that weakens/sickens/kills all the Sylgardians within a certain radius. A nearly-instantaneous victory, but it affects Nicholas and the allied Sylgardians. This kind of forbidden magic might even trigger divine punishment, and an evil/tragic ending for the protagonist.
James uses explosives to rig a piece of cliff-face to fall onto the enemy army
(Or perhaps they create an oil to burn down the forest, killing the men hidden there.)
Lucius is able to synthesize a drug that makes the protagonist's men fight better, harder, faster, and stronger, but at the cost of their longevity and health.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-15, 08:36 PM
better, harder, faster, and stronger Their work is never over.



Will try and help you come up with something. I'm running a fever, so it's hard to think. Sorry for the inconvenient timing.


I'll mention one possibility. Aside from the battle itself, you could have a battle plan phase.

"There are three routes we can take, each with its own properties."
-Choose a route.
-Split forces into 2 or 3, take more than one route.

[If player split forces and put some on route B] "You'll notice there is some dense forest along this path. We could consider having part of our force enter the forest so that they may surprise the enemy. Of course, marching through the woods will lower the units cohesion."
-Good idea, glad I thought of it.
-That idea is dumb, and I hope you feel bad.
(If you had some men in the woods, you can call them out to surprise the Slygardian forces you'll meet on route A. However, if your forces are too small, you'll take unnecessary casualties.)

[During the battle:] "The men on route C are under attack! They need our help!"
-Leave them.
-Help them.


Some other decisions, like how quickly each unit should move along its route and potentially their composition, could add up to a complex, interesting encounter.

Hope this idea is some help. Will try and work out better ones later.

Rosstin
2014-03-15, 09:40 PM
Actually, Mask, I really like that idea quite a bit. I could make a network of canyons or something with various types of ambushes. Very Choose-Your-Own-Adventure. Although perhaps a little too CYOA, especially for the final battle. Hmmm.

I'm reminded that we wanted to have an awesome sacrifice event. We had a little one in Chapter 2, where you can sacrifice the senile commander in a suicidal charge.

Chapter 3 is tentatively titled "Total War". In keeping with that theme, allowing the main character to sacrifice one of the boys would be perfect. Nick (killed by a genocide spell, if you decide to use that dark magic), Rubus (killed when you send him off alone to perform some massive nuke spell?), Lucius (Serenity suggested that casting actual healing magic makes him very sick, maybe he could heal someone important/bring them back from death at the cost of his own life. Protagonist, even?), James (Suicides while carrying massive explosives?).

You could even do multiple sacrifices if we structure it that way. Kill all the boys! :P

Mr. Mask
2014-03-16, 05:10 AM
It doesn't necessarily have to be canyons. A river, with possible objectives on each side of it would be enough to make someone consider splitting their force (though sometimes that'd be a very dumb idea).

I agree that for the final battle, you might want to end if a bit differently. I suggest having this lead up to the final battle. It sounded like you wanted to have a castle storming for the final battle? That can work out to be pretty dramatic, with a lot of setpiece moments.


For storming a castle, you first need a reason they're not just starving out the defenders. Having it that your supplies are running low and your caravans no longer coming could be enough. The fact more enemies might rally and come and end you could also be sufficient. The defenders will have been torching their own farmland and poisoning their own water, so that things are getting more desperate for your troops. If you commit to storming a castle, there are a few ways of doing it.

Undermining takes a lot of time, but is very effective. It can't really be done if there is a very deep moat (sometimes castles were on islands, and lakes or the sea were their moats). With enough time, you can destroy an entire castle with undermining. In the game you're unlikely to have enough time, and would only be able to undermine part of the wall in preparation for an assault.

Siege towers, siege ladders, battering rams and trebuchets are all possibilities. Also stuff like having men place logs by the gate, then setting them alight--the fire weakening the gate. They all take time to construct, and you can have more than one. In the case of the game, you'd want some kind of resource to determine how much you can do and why you don't want to do as much as possible. Guerilla forces harassing you (from the castle or from the countryside), limited necessary manpower (depends if you're building them from scratch or just piecing together ones you brought) combined with lack of time due to supply shortages, something like that. I'm afraid I'm not a lot of help here, it's hard to think of the answers you need at this moment.

Sneaky tricks are possible. A castle was taken in the Crusades by having men sneak over the wall and open one of the side gates at night, letting the crusaders in. Potential sacrifice mission for Grey Fox perhaps? Others are possible as there have been plenty of siege tricks--even a Trojan Horse.

Choosing where and when you attack is a possibility.

The morale of your men and the strength of your enemy could also be important variables. If your men's morale is too low, you could have the possibility that the siege will fail. Waiting may have a negative effect on morale. One way to boost their morale is a dramatic gesture showing them the position their in. Before the battle, have a feast till your supplies are dwindling, feed grain to the horses, smash the cooking pots and destroy what supplies you have left. This was recommended by Sun Tsu for when in desperate straights, and the final battle is likely just that. As for the strength of your enemy, this might be the time for a dramatic blood curse, or suicide bombing, or other such things to even the numbers and/or take down the walls, if your men are not numerous enough or high enough in morale.


The storming itself will be quite interesting, with many stages. The main character could decide whether to be among the troops of the breach, or to stay back for each section, perhaps. Going with them boosts morale while putting you in danger, and hanging back allows you to skip the given stage with slightly higher losses and the risk you will fail if your men's morale wavers. In the case of multiple plans (trebuchet plus siegetower, etc.) you may get to choose where you deploy yourself depending on which area is likely to have the hardest/most important/easiest fighting (if you can force a breach quickly, your morale will be boosted--if some of your troops flee from a hard fight, your morale will drop for the others [don't worry, if you survive that stage the fleeing troops will likely return]).

The first stage will differ depending on the methods you chose. Climbing over a broken wall (bomb, trebuchet, or undermining), smashing through the gates or walking through a smashed gate (ram or trebuchet), climbing up a ladder onto the wall (siegeladder), climbing out of a siegetower onto a wall (siegetower), charging in through a sidegate (Grey Fox). These have some consequences for your involvement, like having arrows shot at you as you climb a ladder, or needing to escape the gatehouse before they pour burning pitch on you. Depending on how you do them, these scenes might be a bit heavy on text/story/writing, so this mightn't be a great idea development-wise. as they are action sequences, you could consider going thinner on the narrative, and swapping back to the thicker narrative at key points (after the first stage, when the breach is successful, you have the important conversation with love interest B).

After breaching, you still have the inside of the capital to deal with. It's probably an urban capital, so that probably means a literal maze of streets, filled with blockades and archers in high places trying to thwart your advance. You could consider setting the town alight, making it easier to bypass that stage and the next stage (an enemy mage might need to sacrifice himself to stop the flames or something--or just that the enemy is busy from fighting fires).

After getting through the town, there is the inner wall to assail. I'm afraid I'm a bit lacking in knowledge on besieging inner walls. Rams and ladders are still a possibility, undermining is too, probably. Undermining would require you to stop the storming and wait a long time--which isn't an option if you made that dramatic gesture of destroying your supplies, even if you manage to capture enemy supplies from the city. You could also try hitting the inner wall with your trebuchet which will also take time. It gives this stage the choice of whether to push the assault or to rest. If you have them reeling from blood curses, bombs and the city being on fire, pressing the assault would be a good idea. If you had a hard fight, a brief reprieve would be a good idea for your men. If you have supplies left, or have captured enemy supplies, you could give them a bit longer to rest and have another morale boosting feast within their walls (feasts drain resources so you have less times to use trebuchets or the like). Once you attack the inner wall, the process is similar, but the defences better and the resistance stauncher (you could consider something like having them blow up their own wall once you captured it)--but your enemy weakened and more desperate, more surrounded on all sides than ever was possible before.

Once you get through the outer wall, there is the keep which could also be split into stages (you'll want to be more detailed with it, since it's the dramatic finale and there is less variation to worry about). It will involve you breaking through its doors, climbing its stairs and fighting through its hallways, until you break into where the Queen is hiding for a final confrontation (if you have the option to hang back, then you would get to speak with her after she is captured). You'll probably want the main character and her officers present for storming the room with the Queen. I mean... it's the enemy Queen--not something you want handled by common soldiery.

That's my ideas and thoughts on storming a castle. You can cut out some options if you need to. Let me know what you think. Storming a castle might be too epic for the resources you have at hand for all I'm aware.




I really love your idea for sacrificing the love interests! I suggest making it possible to keep them all alive if you did a great job with command throughout (I think you could make it a pretty hard ending to aspire to). Killing the boys to make up for your tactical mistakes is a very interesting idea.


[Edit] Forgot to mention earthworks. These took quite a bit of time and manpower, and the men working on them were at risk, but they were often necessary for crossing moats (logs are better for moats, use logs if you can) or making siegetowers usable. Luckily, the manpower can be completely unskilled. You can build earthramps up to the tops of the walls so that you can just walk up, with enough time, effort and risk (it's not fun building those when the enemy is throwing boiling water at you). You need to do this work under cover of pavises (which you'll need to construct, they aren't too hard to construct), and you'll need your archers to suppress the enemy for it to work (which puts them at some risk, but they'll also have/need pavises). While the ramparts are slow and difficult to set up, they allow your men to walk up on to the enemy's walls, and are very hard to counter (you can smash siegetowers with fire or catapults).

Raining dead animals and people with disease into their walls is another very common way I forgot to mention. It doesn't take a ton of time either, so you're likely going to want to be doing that as you prepare other responses.

[Edit] I forgot to mention another one. If there is a nearby river, or if the river leads into the city, it's possible to dam it up and try and force your way in through there, or to dam it up hard then break the dam, so that it hits the city in a wave. Note that making the ground around the castle wet and marsh-like will have negative effects on your soldiers health, and this is dependant on local rivers and the lay of the land (and the type of castle--it mightn't even notice).

Rosstin
2014-03-16, 02:55 PM
Thank you, Mask! Those notes are excellent, that will really come in handy when I'm handling the siege. Sieges are totally classic, I have to make the siege awesome.

Rosstin
2014-03-16, 03:14 PM
For the Agincourt battle, I'm thinking of structuring it this way:

During the battle:

Knight Lorimette addresses the Protagonist and Prince Alastor (possessed by King Kendrick)
She can be a) captured and tortured or b) killed if the player is sufficiently ruthless, or she can be let go
Negative and positive outcomes of this? I don't know.
Depending on the state of your army and the number of remaining troops, the men advise you.
>8000 living troops in your army: Our troops outnumber the enemy. Even an ineffective strategy could be successful
6000-8000 troops: They outnumber us, but aren't as well trained. A competent strategy should ensure victory.
<6000 troops: The situation is desperate. Only the most careful deceit or foul play can ensure victory. Desperate measures and sacrifices may be required.
Planning phase
You are presented with a map and must allocate your troops, perhaps indicated by who leads them out of the five boys. Five squads->five boys? Could be nicely symmetrical.
Maybe each boy could have a series of suggested tasks of varying effectiveness. I like this idea. You talk to each boy and instruct them from among the various options. The only problem is, I would like the protagonist to be there to witness their escapades, and technically she can only be in one place at once. It's way less dramatic if she's just receiving reports. Grah.
Climax
The MC participates personally in the actions she attends, raising the success rate of those actions.
Results
Depending on the MC's choices, the battle is won or lost


Each Boy Should Have:

A useless task that will contribute nothing (not obvious)
A task that is only useful if another task is also performed
An exceedingly risky task that will result in his death, but contribute greatly to success


I still really like your suggestion about the multiple paths, Mask. I'm thinking of making that work somehow, having at least two battle locations.

Rosstin
2014-03-16, 03:26 PM
James:

Install wooden stakes to force cavalry to veer off
Detonate a piece of the cliff face onto the Sylgardian army (may require relationship/tech adv)
Command the longbowmen (increase effectiveness of their attack)
Unleash a devastating superweapon that will raze the land (no idea how to pull this off)
Burn down the forest with some kind of incredible catalyst (perhaps it's dead wood?)
Sacrifice himself and his engineers by sending men with explosives strapped to themselves into the battle (devastating effect for enemy, sacrifices James and many soldiers)
Something that seems smart but wouldn't actually work


Rubus:

Assist longbowmen by enchanting their arrows (safely raises their damage output by a bit)
Craft a spell from Nick's blood that will sicken and/or kill all Sylgardians within a certain radius (Will kill Nick, possibly also Rubus? An atrocity, leads to an "evil" ending.)
Transform the terrain to make it more difficult for the Sylgardians (transform the dirt into mud?)
Something that seems smart but wouldn't actually work


Lucius:

Assist longbowmen by poisoning their arrows (lowers relationship)
Healing duty on longbowmen
Healing duty on knights
Healing duty on men-at-arms
Synthesize a drug to causes the men to fight better, harder, stronger, faster, but prematurely ages/sickens them, possibly causing a great number of deaths post battle (greatly lowers relationship, suggested by possessed Alastor)

Rosstin
2014-03-16, 03:44 PM
Made a GDoc for this to organize my thoughts better (https://docs.google.com/document/d/10OLbQOfVkBPhGpPmhZizwJVkq940Ljduk3xUFF4HzxI/edit): https://docs.google.com/document/d/10OLbQOfVkBPhGpPmhZizwJVkq940Ljduk3xUFF4HzxI/edit

Coding-wise (and behind the scene) each action can be worth a certain number of victory points. Let's say you need 100 to win, or something.

Depnding on how I design this, there will be 3-5 separate actions. A "sacrifice" action could be worth a huge number of points, 60 or something.

The point total needed for victory is lower if you have more troops. The difference between the min/max requirements indicate how good/bad the outcome is.

Maybe if I have all the parts of the coordinated attack take place within the main character's main attack push, then I can have things be visible to her, and show the direct effects of the support provided.

I'm doing okay on this so far, but I'd like to come up with some clever "combined actions", where doing Action X and Action Y causes a greater result. Like, equipping your men-at-arms with leather and then muddying the battlefield causes great success. Things like that.

Brother Oni
2014-03-16, 05:14 PM
With regard to the siege, you are besieging a capital right? Mr Mask's comments are all accurate, but it neglects a major factor - the civilian population.
At best, they're additional bodies to throw into the melee, at worst, they can rebel and open up the gates to the Ortherans.
In either case, they're going to be a significant dent into the food supplies of the defenders.

If the Ortherans were feeling particularly noble, they could permit the civilians to evacuate the city before the siege lines close up, the effects of which would be double-edged: the defenders could fight harder, knowing that their families are now safe (well safer), but also realise that surrendering would be a viable option since execution of the entire garrison is potentially off the cards; another point would be that the defenders now have less people to watch the walls, but with significantly less mouths to feed - they could take all that food and retreat back to the castle where they could potentially outlast the besiegers for years.

Sending in the main character (or Nick) in as one of the storming parties would probably be the sacrifice option. They weren't called the forlorn hope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forlorn_hope) for nothing.

The castle wall will be as equally tough to assault as the city's outer wall since in a siege, the castle is the last refuge for the defenders.

With regard to storming the throne room, unless someone knows the layout of the castle, it's going to be very haphazard as to who gets there first - for the sake of a good narrative, it would be the officers and the main character. In reality, it would be whichever group of soldier finds it first, since it would be the medieval version of clearing a house room by room, which is incredible chaotic.

Dropping in dead animals to spread disease would take time to take effect, unless you're talking about a modified disease (eg. weaponised ebola with a break time of 18 hours), which is beyond their technology level, even with magic.
Another common tactic to demoralise the defenders would be to catapult prisoners back into the city (whether they were dead first is optional and how many parts to sent back was variable) - another potential atrocity action would be to let the civilian population go, then capture a significant number of them and return them back to the city by trebuchet. That said, I'm sure once you start on the children and babies, you're so far beyond the moral event horizon, it'd be too silly to take seriously.

My views and thoughts on each of the lads' actions:

Edit: rewritten to focus on the battle.





Unleash a devastating superweapon that will raze the land (no idea how to pull this off) (50VP?)
Burn down the forest with some kind of incredible catalyst (perhaps it's dead wood?) (35 VP?)
Sacrifice: himself and his engineers by sending men with explosives strapped to themselves into the battle (devastating effect for enemy, sacrifices James and many soldiers) (55 VP?)
Something that seems smart but wouldn't actually work


Sacrifice option needs some work - fortunately there's a historical version that will have virtually the same effect: petards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard). Maybe have them setup a minefield but the detonation mechanism requires them to be a little too close for comfort?

I suggest merging the superweapon option with the burn down the forest (I suggest a controlled burn that goes out of control) as devastating a forest will easily spread to any grasslands nearby and to the town - you only have to look at bushfires to see how they spread. I admit it's a lot drier climate in Australia and the US, but it's something to bear in mind.

Smart but useless - untried experimental weapon to a select few people (muskets maybe?), which has high promise but their lethality isn't much better than a longbow (higher damage is cancelled out by significantly lower rate of fire).





Transform the terrain to make it more difficult for the Sylgardians (transform the dirt into mud?) [5-10VP, but worth 30VP if you also equip your troops with leather instead of plate]
Something that seems smart but wouldn't actually work


Since you're willing to sacrifice realism to get this out, I'm not going to comment on the leather armour option.

Something smart but doesn't actually work - raise a fog so that the Sylgardian archers can't see what they're shooting at. It works until the Sylgardian mages raise up a wind to blow the mist away.




Sacrifice: Use healing magic to give your troops massive regeneration. Kills Lucius. [60VP]
Something that seems smart but doesn't work
Sacrifice: order Lucius to cultivate a poison vapour that is then launched into the enemy army, devastating them. Unfortunately the wind shifts, blowing it back into the friendly side, causing casualties.

Smart but useless: I'm going to have to think on this.



Sacrifice: Lead the forlorn hope. For a battle, it would be taking up a strategic but isolated point, possibly a hill near the centre that overlooks the battlefield, or a bridge/pass that would split the enemy army up into two if they didn't control it. His action is successful and instrumental in winning the battle, but costs him his life and everybody under his command in a glorious last stand.

Suboptimal but safe: Leads one of the frontline regiments

Chained task: Leads the reserve force - he's freer to watch how the battle develops and bolster weak spots in the line, but needs someone competent and in charge to hold the line.

Smart but useless: water attack on the enemy army (that bridge from earlier?) which fails.



Sacrifice: Leads one of the frontline regiments - his banner is immediately detected and the enemy lures him into a trap which his hotheadness makes him swallow entirely. However Alastor and his men puts up such a fight that the plan nearly backfires, making a massive vulnerability which significantly contributes to the Sylgardian defeat. Unfortunately to stop them breaking out of the trap, the Sylgardians are forced to kill them all.

Suboptimal but safe: Leads one of the reserve forces (unhappy about doing this as he wants to be in the thick of battle, but keeps him safe. He's not as good as Nick, so doesn't contribute as well)

Chained task: need to think on this

Smart but useless: asks to parlay with the enemy commander in order to save lives, banking on his position. He gets a meeting, but fails miserably as his reputation as a 'useless prince' means they don't take him seriously (that's what I get from the silly description on the website bio anyway).



Sacrifice: sneak into the enemy camp the night before and assassinates an enemy commander, but the camp is alerted and he kills himself rather than be taken prisoner.

Suboptimal but safe: runs communications between the different regiments and the command post during the battle

Chained task: force the enemy army into fighting on terrain of your choice via misinformation or lures. Dependent on James setting up stakes to defend your own archers and funnel the enemy into a killing zone (or his minefield option to achieve the same effect).

Smart but useless: set fire to the enemy supplies, but they're too well guarded for him and his men to get close (all the guards are watching the supplies, so the leadership is slightly less well guarded).

Rosstin
2014-03-16, 05:21 PM
The thoughts on the siege are great, but it will probably be 1-3 weeks before I get to writing the siege :smallsmile:

I'm more worried about getting the Agincourt battle written right now https://docs.google.com/document/d/10OLbQOfVkBPhGpPmhZizwJVkq940Ljduk3xUFF4HzxI/edit

I might be able to get that done this or next weekend if I work hard.

I'm trying to think of good "synergy tactics" right now. Like, using Rubus to muddy the ground, and then equipping your men in leather, so that the enemy has troubled footing but you don't.

Or, capturing the enemy leader and parading her, in order to goad the enemy into attacking first, before reinforcements arrive.

Rosstin
2014-03-16, 06:31 PM
I really like some of those, Oni!

* The idea for Alastor giving himself to the enemy is interesting.
* We definitely HAVE TO do a forlorn hope scenario for someone.
* I like your thoughts on a crazy experimental weapon for James that just doesn't work. One of our new writers established an idea that James creates stuff in a sort of fevered, manic state. Being a bit manic myself at times, I can attest that when you wake up in the morning with sanity restored, what seemed like a great idea... isn't always.

What were your thoughts on the mud/armor? I thought from Agincourt that that would be feasible somehow. Can you think of an alternate scenario?

Mask's suggestion about the multiple paths of attack is starting to gel in my mind now. There can be three "routes", a rocky hill, a deadwood forest, and a road between them. The Sylgardians can have archers on the hill and/or in the wood. For Nick, you can have him lead the cavalry in an attack on one of those locations. Sending the horses up the hill or in the forest is probably suboptimal.

I really like the poison cloud idea for that, too. Some ideas could kill you with your own stupidity. Like, create a poison cloud but the wind is in the wrong direction, whoever is in-the-way dies. But create the poison cloud but have Rubus cast a wind spell, and it hits the enemy.

I also really like your idea for a "night before" mission with Fox. I think I'm definitely gonna work that in. It's a dangerous mission, but you can gain good information. However, you and the Prince will be exhausted the next day and your contributions will be impaired (Fox is secretly Prince Alastor-- spoileerrrs)

Brother Oni
2014-03-16, 07:45 PM
What were your thoughts on the mud/armor? I thought from Agincourt that that would be feasible somehow. Can you think of an alternate scenario?


It's the part where you suggest leather armour to evade the mud that has me rolling my eyes.

Firstly, leather armour of the type you're probably thinking of, is an anachronistic thing from Renfairs and other modern pseudo-medieval things. There's been plenty of armours that have incorporated leather, but none in the proposed time period and none that I can think of that were used by European armies (hide armour was certainly in use, but not by professional armies).
There's the issue of getting all the leather out of nowhere to re-equip your soldiers (that's a lot of cows and leather takes a while to cure, not to mention the fashioning it into armour).

With regard to the mud, if it's thick enough to bog down and mire a person, it doesn't really matter what you're wearing, you're getting stuck. Not wearing plate just means you're less likely to drown in it - typical armour for a longbowman for the 15th Century was a padded aketon or gambeson (quilted armour) with a mail shirt (not hauberk) if they were rich/lucky.

With regard to this issue, I'm inclined to play it straight out of history and not have any special equipment issued to the men. The mud and missile fire harassment should be sufficient to leave the knights exhausted for the archers to mop up.



For Nick, you can have him lead the cavalry in an attack on one of those locations. Sending the horses up the hill or in the forest is probably suboptimal.

When you say 'sub-optimal', do you mean in the terms of the decision tree or just not a good idea?
Sending cavalry into woods would be a borderline suicide option, while charging up a hill is not as silly as it sounds as the additional speed of the horse gets you up there quicker (charging against a fortified position on a hill is very silly though).



I really like the poison cloud idea for that, too. Some ideas could kill you with your own stupidity. Like, create a poison cloud but the wind is in the wrong direction, whoever is in-the-way dies.

I'm inclined to give such plans 'good intentions but later circumstances screw it up'. Setting up a gas attack when the wind is already unfavourable is just the protagonist carrying the idiot ball. Setting up a gas attack with favourable winds which shift unexpectedly (either due to natural events or magic) is less idiot ball and more really unlucky.

I know some people would grumble at things being unfair, but when you're willingly using an unreliable weapon, you have to accept that its effectiveness is you know, unreliable. :smalltongue:



However, you and the Prince will be exhausted the next day and your contributions will be impaired

I keep on forgetting it's not one of those games. :smalltongue:

Mr. Mask
2014-03-16, 10:21 PM
Ross: Glad it was helpful. Heck, I'm happy it was comprehensible.


With the treatment of the Knightess... You should have the option of taking the knight prisoner without torturing her, treating her honourably despite how dishonourable Slygardia has been (which is how you would normally treat knights and nobles). Under the circumstances the men might be unhappy with this (since Slygardia has been committing war crimes, they want a morale-boosting execution, though torturing her for information will leave their morale neutral), though they'd be much more unhappy if you let her go.

Torturing her would sooner or later reveal what she knows of the situation (providing you have a good torturer) which should be useful. Under the circumstances, I can't think of drawbacks to torturing her aside from moral ambiguity. Unless the goddess has laws against torture or torture is a serious war crime (not likely unless the former hold true), moral backlash later on isn't so easy either. If by this stage of the game you're thinking of becoming Queen yourself, you might be able to convince her to turncoat, which would the information you need without torture as well as a major ally.

Letting her go is questionable. You could make her swear an oath by the goddess not to aid Slygardia any further in this war. Those sorts of oaths can be taken very seriously, so she may well do just that (breaking oaths to deities can also have negative consequences in such settings). If there are options for bargaining with Slygardians later on, having let her go might be helpful to that. Keeping her prisoner might also be helpful in negotiations, particularly if you're negotiating with people loyal to her. You could keep her than release her in exchange for something in negotiations. You could also torture her for information before releasing her, which may still have a positive effect on negotiations depending on the culture (modern culture views torture as worse than death, many ancient cultures held the opposite view). The knightess might appreciate you letting her go for nothing, or she might think you are slightly insane.

Executing her for morale is a pretty good option if you're low on morale. There isn't any reason you can't do it after torturing her for information (unless she dies in the process which gives you a corpse to parade for the men, or unless she escapes). Probably, after getting the useful information out of her, you'll get the choices to release her, keep her hostage, execute her, or torture her more in case she has more information (note that you aren't likely to get all the info you want at immediately from torture, and you might find out some of it was falsified and would have harmed you, if you persist).



Your idea for the five groups is good. It's possible you could combine it with the multiple paths. You could for example have three paths, six groups counting the main character's or just the five. You choose which officers to allocate where, and their options vary somewhat depending on which path they take and maybe who they are working with (if Nick is with the mage you can try the blood curse, for example). You could do this on a variety of levels, having optional paths which no one has to go on, or you could limit the choices more (we have three objectives, you must send two officers on each path (including yourself).

With having the main character be part of it... you might be able to do that. You can't have her lead men into the battle (though her men could still fight under one of the other officers), but she and her elite troopTHREEEE-DEEE I mean... REAL TIME! This might make the situation feel more stressful for the player, when they see the text updating as time passes rather than as they choose to go to the next round. You already have this more or less, with your timed decision--this'd basically be where you only have one decision, "RETREAT!" and that the choice to continue the charge is just to watch and wait (like a game of chicken).

One thing to note, is that the amount of detail that should be used is questionable. If you keep saying, "We are now X metres away, the enemy is still standing strong," that will probably have a stronger effect on the player. "Oh heck... these guys haven't changed their behaviour at all! I must have messed up earlier in the battle!" would be the kind of reaction. If you describe each stage in detail, curiosity will pull at the player to wait and see what happens next, and it will make them expect a last minute change since the descriptions keep changing. Just something to consider.

Another thing to consider, is that the morale of your enemy and their cohesion will probably effect the likelihood of whether they flee or stand strong. Also, a successful charge would be worth some VP, whereas retreating would cost you VP (the later you retreat the more VP you'd lose). If you hit the enemy when they're standing firm, it might be game over. You might be able to work something interesting if it isn't game over, like you don't lose much VP, but you lose a lot of knights (valuable men) which hurts you a lot later on (heck, you might gain a little VP for messing up that formation at the cost of your knights).



Multiple objectives: Forgot to mention this earlier. If there are multiple objectives, and if some of them are optional, you could have stuff that will help you later on with the siege. Like, you can take a farm if you're quick to boost your dwindling supplies, giving you time for more elaborate siege tactics.


Smart but useless (like me? ): Yeah, I totally misunderstood this. Not thinking straight. I thought it was a joke.

James: The suicide trooper thing could work for this. Turns out that a mixture of factors causes almost as much damage for you as for the enemy. Another could be a good idea with a design that just isn't worked out yet, like grenades which lack skilled grenadiers. There are plenty of designs and ideas which can be good, but can be useless if you haven't had them properly tested and modified yet.

I mentioned the possibility of setting up great defences which the enemy will just not attack.

Maybe some kind of synergy between magic and technology which sounds great but is far too advanced to pull off? "We can make a magic cannon!" "A magic cannon!!?!? YES!!"

Rubus: Some kind of illusion spell intended to scare the enemy. It scares them... but fighting in battle scares them a whole ton more, and they still do that.
An illusion spell could be used effectively in some circumstances. distract the enemy so you can get your men onto superior ground, lure them somewhere, whichever.

Maybe some synergy where you try to buff the soldiers who are already buffed with the Lucius' magic? It either kills them, injures them, makes them explode and then explode again, makes them crazy so they attack your guys almost as much as the enemy, makes them super soldiers, or a mixture of cases and extents. An interesting idea would be if a few of the super soldiers survived, and they gave you a bonus in part of the siege (whether it balances it out with the loss of manpower would depend on the number of troops Lucius and Rubus have). This idea might be a bit too weird and fantasy like, but I thought I should mention it.

Lucius: Depending, the curse thing could work as a smart sounding idea that was actually worthless (they don't respect Lucius' divine authority enough). You could also try something where he tried to convince a Slygardian force to retreat for religious reasons. Heck, if you have intel that says one of the forces is particularly religious, it might have some effect.

Nick: There are a few strategies he could try which could fail. A diversionary action which doesn't successfully expose the enemy's flank or the like. The thing is, these are highly dependant on the ground and various details, so it's hard to say what kind of tactics would be a bad idea without knowing that. It would be hard to give the player the necessary information.

You could have something like telling Nick to lead from further back so as to keep safe and to allow him to have a better view of the battle, but the loss of morale from his men counteracts the gains from having more control, or something like that.

Fox: You could have him set fire to the enemy's supplies, and have it that they're too well supplied for it to have major effect (they're near their capital and reinforcements, and the battle happens soon). Poisoning their water would probably be more effective.




Oni: It was mentioned that every man woman and child were being armed, so the third option is that at best they're going to fight you till you kill every last one of them (or capture their Queen). That can happen, but it really depends on the Ortheran mindset behind this war. Telling the kids to take up knives and fight the invaders would make some people rebel pretty fast (others have given that order very successfully).

How many they can feed for how long depends on the castle. As a rule of thumb, they should be able to afford to feed the number of men needed to effectively hold the castle for an extended period.

Offering to let the civilians through might be a good idea. If you don't have the food to starve out the defenders to begin with, that's less people to fight/slaughter/worry about on your way in (though they may swell the ranks of the guerilla fighters bothering you), and you might be able to plunder more food in the process of taking the city. With some sieges, civilians were trapped between the castle and the besiegers, thrown out due to food shortage but not allowed through the siege line in case they were spies.
You won't likely get to see that unless they throw out civilians who won't fight pre-emptively, but it'd make for an interesting decision of what to do with them.
I wonder what the problems would be with breaking your word and taking the civilians they send out (when you say you'll let them through) as hostages.

Sending an officer at the front of a siege party would be a good way to boost morale (them dying for the cause probably has some worth). With the main character, if they took part in the breach it would probably not be from the front (still would be very dangerous).

I think they'd be able to find the throne room by the staunch defence.
"Captain, we think we found the throne room!"
"What makes you so sure?"
"It has like a bajillion guys defending it. So... can we get some reinforcements?"

The time it takes to build ramparts, undermine or the like will be enough for disease to take effect. If they decide to just blow up the wall or open a sidegate immediately, then there won't be enough time for negative effects to show. How effective it is depends on a variety of factors. If you let the civilians out, that's less people to get sick and spread the disease.

A bit confused by what you mean with it being silly sending over the children and babies in catapults.



The Spoilers: They burn!



Unreliable weapons: As Oni says, this is fair enough (even though it might be called unfair). You'll want to warn the players of this possibility of course, even if subtly.




Well, I've used up all my strength writing this. I'll go and die now. (Dang this post is long... I wish I had added some bolding or the like to make it easier to read)

Rosstin
2014-03-17, 12:13 AM
EXCEEDINGLY useful notes, guys! I read every word.

Mask:

James Tech upgrades: We're definitely doing things with Black Powder in Ch3. To be honest I'm still struggling to find other good ones for Ch2, though. I still want to think up a good tech upgrade that applies to the bridge battle in Chapter 2... I thought of some arrow upgrades (whistle arrows, fire arrows, glowing arrows for signals) but that seemed a little bit boring? I wish I could think of a more clever tech upgrade for the Ch2 Bridge Battle.

I think that Chapter 3 will use Black Powder related upgrades. I haven't nailed down exactly what, but definitely explosives everywhere. In the bridge battle, the enemy mechanists use explosives to destroy the Goddess Bridge, and that made a big impression on James, so that's what's on his brain... he'll be inventing cannons or fire-lances or just finding effective ways to detonate the powder.

Game Of Chicken: I really like this idea. Definitely gonna use it.

Oni: I'm thinking that I'll implement the paths thing more as a conceptual zoning of the "battle areas" rather than actually having the characters go down various paths. But it's useful thinking because I can have a cool map and the player can see where various actions are happening. The three areas (forest, mainpath, rockyhill) will be nicely differentiated and you can think about how the horses fare on the terrain etcetera.

Speaking of maps, eventually I'm going to need to hire an artist skilled in cartography. :-P
Probably much later, after the demo is done, a first draft script is done, and the Kickstarter is done

Mr. Mask
2014-03-17, 12:51 AM
You read it all? You word-gobbling monster! Yes, I came back form the grave just to say that.


Chapter 2 Tech Upgrade: Maybe fire spears? Basically one-use pipes with fire exploding out of one end (hopefully the end opposite of you). If James had been playing with the idea for a while, they might be possible to produce in numbers to make a difference to that battle. They're also not so useful that it will have a dramatic effect on the story whether the player gets the upgrade or not (used for the first time in the battle, their effect is prone to be more dramatic).

Oh... I see that you've already thought of the idea of fire-lances. If you want something non-gunpowder-like for chapter 2... without knowing their equipment I can't really say. The different kinds of arrows you mention should already be in use (they're pretty useful, and not too technologically advanced).


Glad you liked the game of chicken. Should be a nice change of pace for the battle scenes, and work out well for the approaching finale.


Kickstarter: This will be your second kickstarter, won't it?

Brother Oni
2014-03-17, 03:27 AM
Wooden stakes seem kind of basic. It would seem odd that James can deploy them but no one else can. You could consider the construction of a simple defensive perimeter during the skirmish which the fore falls back to.

I was under the impression that 'wooden stakes' was a shorthand for 'significant earthworks that would take an experienced engineer to design and build'.



That is to say, James' engineers are able to construct simple defences very quickly, and so can create a defensive line behind your soldiers during the fight.

A good rule of thumb is that it takes an hour for a defence that lasts minutes, a day for defences that last an hour, a week for a day, etc.



There's a certain point where you stop being impairs by tiredness and can keep going for ages, until you finally have a heart attack and die (that's what happened when they experimented with how long a person can stay awake, it was pretty sudden).

Under clinical conditions, a person remained awake for 11 days, with others tested between 8-10 days.
Other people suffering from conditions that prevent sleep (e.g. Fatal Familial Insomnia) take months to die (6-30 months of absolutely no sleep).

An overnight scouting mission isn't going to significantly impair performance, especially if you manage to get some rest before the battle.
I've been reading an account from a modern conflict, where soldiers were in conflict for a number of days before being relieved and the human body is very able to snatch rest when and where it can.



Either the formation will break and the knights will cut them down as they flee. Or the formation won't break and the knights will turn to flee and will take losses as they do. Or neither side will give up and the knights will simultaneously devastate the enemy formation and themselves (no one is happy). It would play out pretty simply, like a game of chicken.


Actually cavalry can break off with no consequence. Being on horseback makes them very difficult to catch on foot and as long as they don't commit (ie they veer off in time), there won't be any losses against a footman formation.
If they were charging an archer formation, then yes they would take losses as they fled, but they would be significantly less likely to break off against more lighty armed and armoured archers, particularly if they don't have big pikes set up ready and waiting.

I'm also dubious of the 'several rounds' time frame - charges usually start from about 350 metres out (edge of missile weapon range) and it would take 15-20 seconds for the cavalry to cross that distance.
Any further away and you'd likely lose cohesion and impetus as the horses get tired, too close and you're pretty much a sitting duck for the archers until you charge, not to mention you might not have time to build up momentum.

For the sake of a good story, you could extend the time, but note that you won't lose too many men to archers due to attrition (a crossbowman could fire off one, maybe two shots before deciding whether or not to flee).



How many they can feed for how long depends on the castle. As a rule of thumb, they should be able to afford to feed the number of men needed to effectively hold the castle for an extended period.


So if you double or triple the number of mouths to feed with all the civilians, it's not going to last long.



The time it takes to build ramparts, undermine or the like will be enough for disease to take effect. If they decide to just blow up the wall or open a sidegate immediately, then there won't be enough time for negative effects to show. How effective it is depends on a variety of factors. If you let the civilians out, that's less people to get sick and spread the disease.

A bit confused by what you mean with it being silly sending over the children and babies in catapults.


The break period for bubonic plague is ~2 weeks, so if they fire diseased corpses in on the first day, it would barely be enough time to make a dent in the food supplies assuming they're well provisioned.

With regard to the brutal murder of children and babies, it was a comment on how ridiculously over the top cruelty and brutality devolves into a comedic caritature than actually shocking and repulsive, much like A Serbian Movie.
Besides which, imagine what would happen to the army's morale if the protagonist gave that order, not to mention whether the soldiers would actually obey it.



Dang this post is long... I wish I had added some bolding or the like to make it easier to read

Hence my much maligned spoiler tags. :smalltongue:

Go get some rest and get well soon. :smallbiggrin:

Mr. Mask
2014-03-17, 04:00 AM
Get well soon? That might be too much to ask. Well, I might get lucky on that end. I always seem to get sick after finishing a stage of a project.


Thanks for the rule of thumb. Will try to remember that one.


Sleep: Wow, I never heard of the 6-30 month cases. Thanks for mentioning. I need to keep that one in mind.

Either way, it was based off the guy who went for about a week, behaving pretty normally before the heart attack which I came to the same conclusion off of (that it shouldn't hinder you too much).

I see I have quite a few spelling and grammar errors in my previous post now...


Cavalry: I figure most footman formations have archers nearby if not mixed in with the footman.

15-20 seconds sounds about right for the sequence. At the moment I can't think of whether tachypsychia would come into play when the arrows start flying at you. Actually... you might be better to start it from the trot, before you have reached charging distance. That slower pace is good for building up the tension.


Mouths to feed: Well, that was just a logic estimate for pure fortifications. City fortresses are trickier. Certainly, there's no point to a fortress if a bigger army can starve you out quickly. So, that either means an immediate population dump, or that they have enough food to last a while. I might do some research into that when I feel better.


Plague: I agree that two weeks seems unlikely to dent enemy supplies. Did I imply it would be somewhere?


Infants: Well, it depends how you write it. The main character may wish to stay distant from the event, so you might get something closer to hints that it is happening (what is half-perceived can be creepier). I figure you wouldn't want to oversee it, since it is unnecessary/unpleasant and might be bad for your PR.

As for whether the soldiers would obey and whether their morale would suffer... depends. The USMC relationship with the Japanese during the last world war comes to mind.

Brother Oni
2014-03-17, 07:43 AM
James Tech upgrades: We're definitely doing things with Black Powder in Ch3. To be honest I'm still struggling to find other good ones for Ch2, though. I still want to think up a good tech upgrade that applies to the bridge battle in Chapter 2... I thought of some arrow upgrades (whistle arrows, fire arrows, glowing arrows for signals) but that seemed a little bit boring? I wish I could think of a more clever tech upgrade for the Ch2 Bridge Battle.

If you want fancy, small bags of gunpowder tied along the arrow shaft with a fuse that's ignited just before firing (two man job).
Arrow hits, fuse ignites the gunpowder, boom - explosive arrows.

For additional fun and games, put metal fragments in the gunpowder bags for shrapnel or combine this with a shorter fuse than the flight time, so you end up with airburst munitions.

You may need a bigger charge than that possible by arrows though - I've seen an illustration of a chinese arcuballista with the concept:


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kXQTi6OKqW0/SPt8YdK4PgI/AAAAAAAAAz4/GJimp80UnKU/s400/20070320101129390.jpg

Another possibility is to use the larger bolts (alternately catapault/trebuchets) to carry a payload of something like caltrops to make an area difficult to traverse by foot or hoof. Combine with the explosive charge and short fuse to airburst the caltrops over an larger area and you have a medieval version of cluster munitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munition).



In the bridge battle, the enemy mechanists use explosives to destroy the Goddess Bridge, and that made a big impression on James, so that's what's on his brain... he'll be inventing cannons or fire-lances or just finding effective ways to detonate the powder.


Cannon may take some time since the main issue is crafting a barrel strong enough to take the pressure (even wooden/leather barrels took a while to develop).



Mouths to feed: Well, that was just a logic estimate for pure fortifications. City fortresses are trickier. Certainly, there's no point to a fortress if a bigger army can starve you out quickly. So, that either means an immediate population dump, or that they have enough food to last a while. I might do some research into that when I feel better.

I think we're talking about two different things. I was under the impression the capital was a fortified city with a separate castle inside the walls rather than fortress city where the castle is integrated into the city wall defences.

The main difference between the two being that in the former, the military and royal family are equally well protected from the citizentry in case of revolt, while the latter has better deployment lines (you don't have to get the people out of the castle first to get to the city walls). The former would have its own food store which wouldn't be opened to the civilians except by express orders of the commanders.



As for whether the soldiers would obey and whether their morale would suffer... depends. The USMC relationship with the Japanese during the last world war comes to mind.

I'm not sure what you mean: link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa#Civilian_losses.2C_suicides_and_ atrocities).

I know that Japanese civilians who followed orders and killed themselves rather than being taken prisoner by the Americans used to throw themselves off cliffs and some US soldiers/marines tried to shoot them on the way down to try and put them out of their misery before impact.

If you're talking about the USMC treatment of Japanese soldiers rather than civilians, then it's significantly different circumstances.

There's also not the familiarity between the USMC and the Japanese that the Ortherans and Sylgardians have, which would significantly affect the relationship.
I think the PR would be bad regardless of whether she hung around or not since the source of the orders to fire the civilians would spread like wildfire around the camp.

Rosstin
2014-04-11, 11:25 PM
Working on the Agincourt Battle with the synergies and victory points this weekend. We brought in a new writer, Diana, who is using Twine to put together a playable battle prototype that stands alone. She's busy this weekend so I'm taking it over and seeing what I can do with it. It's playable online-- I'll post it for you guys to play once I've put a bit of work in and need feedback.

Mr. Mask
2014-04-12, 12:33 AM
Hope to hear from Diana in the future. And of course, I'm looking forward to testing the battle for you.

Rosstin
2014-04-12, 09:14 AM
I'll see if I can get her to join this forum at some point. We'll see :smallbiggrin:

This is what she came up with so far for Agincourt. I'm going to try and flesh it out and finish it. It's the most complex, combinatorial thing in the game so far. My favorite thing she's done is suggest that desperate solutions only show up if you start losing, which I think is more dramatic than the "wind-it-up-and-let-it-go" model I was using. It's more complex, too, but there you go.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/ScreenShot2014-04-12at35417AM.png

Rosstin
2014-04-13, 10:38 AM
It's aliiiiive! Thanks mods!

I think we'll abandon this thread now and move to the new one.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?341597-Designing-a-quot-Battle-of-Agincourt-quot-based-battle-(Queen-At-Arms)

But I'm grateful to still have this thread as a reference.

Rosstin
2014-08-14, 01:10 PM
We did it! We're on Kickstarter!