Battle based on Blanchetaque (was: Scouting Missions)

[Brother Oni]

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 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]

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.

Spoiler: Ugly Battle Map Sketch again (for reference)

Show

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)

Spoiler: more notes from Blanch

Show

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]

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).

Spoiler

Show

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]

Spoiler: Outline for Chapter 2 and Rough Outline for Chapter 3

Show

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]

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]

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).

Spoiler

Show

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hmm.... good advice.

I'm working on the bridge crossing choices now.



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.

Spoiler: VERY ROUGH Dialog from Bridge Cross

Show

    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]

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]

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]

I'm glad. Will keep checking back inbetween working on the TTRPG. Might need to consider starting my own thread soon.

[Rosstin]

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.

• 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]

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]

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]

This is going to be interesting.

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

[Rosstin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Spoiler: How do you handle the possible betrayal of the native-born Sylgardians in your own army?

Show

    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]

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]

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]

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.