Designing a "Battle of Agincourt"-based battle (Queen At Arms)

[Rosstin]

Basically our strategy is just to draw the base character, then some optional hairstyles and decorations on photoshop layers, and flip them in and out to make different characters. I'll show an example in a bit.

[NichG]

I don't have much to say in detail about the battle design (a bit late to the party on that I think, and military history is a black box to me), but I wanted to chime in with a 'good luck!' on the Kickstarter. I've gotta say I'm also curious about how your experience with it will go and afterwards I'd be interested in reading a post-mortem of the process.

[Rosstin]

Thanks NichG!

[Rosstin]

OK, let's get to work on this "titles" thing....

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...ZytCAj53w/edit

First, "Commander"... hmmm... let's see what you guys said about that title.....

Personally, I like "Commander" and my main concern is that it's a naval title and I don't want players to b---- about that, which is the main reason I'd change it.

OK, so these guys:
Grand Marshal + Vice Marshal (this is okay)
General + Colonel (I'm not nuts about it, phonetically)

[Mr. Mask]

Marshal and Commander are the most appealing. Some people may whine that the later is a naval rank normally, but the term could be a reasonable translation of whatever term the Ortherans use. One thing going for Marshal is that it isn't as used as Commander.

[Rosstin]

I've spent enough time on this that I've wrapped around and am considering sticking with Asst Commander and Commander xD

In other news I resurrected the original battle map, I'm talking to an artist about doing actual battle maps for the game.

[Rosstin]

The first battle map:

Spoiler: Chapter 1 Map

Show

I'm going to look for references, to find good map designs for my artist to use as a guide.

USAGEWISE:

• the map should show up once or twice in the chapter as foreshadowing
• can be used as a transitional element, if doing so does not break immersion (playtesting needed)
• it should be viewable at will from the game menu
• used often in the battle and viewable at-will
• is an inventory item that the protagonist acquires

ARTWISE:

• elements important to the game's battle and story should be highly visible
• non-important elements should be de-emphasized
• color should be used, as readability is important
• should be built as a PSD with layers for each element
• it's possible that in extreme cases we might need to change important events later on, modifying the map. so again, LAYERS
• we might also want to use the map as a clickable interface at some point (unlikely but not impossible

[Rosstin]

I'm going to change the Prelate title while I'm at it. I've never liked that title (sorry guys!)

How about.... Bishop Lucius + his priests, or clergymen, or clerics?

[Mr. Mask]

Sort of wondering about the assistant in Berin's title. It hints that his role is purely as an assistant. Might be nothing important.

Good stuff with the map. Nothing really to add. I sort of wonder why they have an abandoned fortress right near their capital, but there are reasons you might.

Bishop doesn't do it for me, personally. I'm having trouble thinking of a title more suitable than prelate.

[Rosstin]

Vice Commander?

[Demidos]

Sort of wondering about the assistant in Berin's title. It hints that his role is purely as an assistant. Might be nothing important.

Good stuff with the map. Nothing really to add. I sort of wonder why they have an abandoned fortress right near their capital, but there are reasons you might.

Bishop doesn't do it for me, personally. I'm having trouble thinking of a title more suitable than prelate.

Hierophant?
Elder?
Chief Healer?
Archpriest?
Healbot?

[Mr. Mask]

Vice Commander suits me, at least.

Of the titles listed, Hierophant sticks out to me.


That's just my opinion, though. It's more important what the fans and team think.

[Brother Oni]

Speaking of which, Mask and Oni, do you guys want to be units in the army somewhere? I can't necessarily promise we'll draw your faces in, but I can use your names in the pool of NPC names for a particular class of unit.

While I have no objection to you using my name or avatar (an idea is useful when it comes close to crunch time ), I don't think I would fit Ortheran or Sylgardian aesthetics unless you wanted the knights to have stylised masks for their full face helms.
Given plate harness is personalised for the user and the comparative wealth of the knights, some individuality would be possible.

Personally, I like "Commander" and my main concern is that it's a naval title and I don't want players to b---- about that, which is the main reason I'd change it.

As I mentioned in the last thread, outside of the navy, commander is a job description not a rank.

Grand/Vice Marshal looks the best since you want more flavour.

I'm going to change the Prelate title while I'm at it. I've never liked that title (sorry guys!)

Further to Demidos' post, from the previous thread, my suggestions were Prelate and High Canon.
If you're hunting for alternative names, here's the resource I used: link.

Since you're changing Prelate, does this mean that Chapter Master is back on the table?

[Rosstin]

Any fellow Gamedevs have tips on how to design a Kickstarter Video?

[Mr. Mask]

If you mean video editing, I don't know how to help you there. I can offer some general advice.


First, you need to consider your resources. Do you have good microphones? Good scenery where you live? Good cameras and people who know how to use them? Could you get film students who live nearby to help you or the like? Those are going to effect what you can accomplish with live action footage. Along with such things as your ability on camera. Be prepared to run several takes, while paradoxically acting natural.

Music and gameplay footage comes into question as well, along with content made specially for the kickstarter video. There have been a few where the characters will address the backers or even undergo a unique scenario which doesn't occur in the game (usually as an example), and that is a possibility.

Both angles have similar goals and points. You want to hook the viewer at the start of the video and leave them impressed by the end. You need to decide which features will be interesting to backers and how to present them to maximize their interesting nature. The project, yourself and your team will also need some good presentation if you want to spend much time dwelling on any of them. A general outline of the video, followed by a more detailed script and semi-storyboard, and then the video itself is the general process. You'll also need to consider the skill of your video editor.

That's the basics. There are specifics on how to draw in the viewer which could be discussed, and other details.

[NichG]

Any fellow Gamedevs have tips on how to design a Kickstarter Video?

Complete lack of personal experience but things I've read suggest that the audience responds better to seeing the actual developer talk about the project rather than have it be 100% screenshots/etc. So even if you think you sitting there in a messy dev environment talking about your game would be boring or embarassing, it seems like having at least a good chunk of that is important to making people feel a personal connection with the project.

Aside from that, probably you want to focus more on 'how awesome will this be because of you guys!' angles than 'here is why you should buy our game' angles, although some of both is important. Basically make the audience feel like they have direct power over how awesome the product is, rather than just 'if this doesn't get funded it won't happen' which is kind of underwhelming.

[Mr. Mask]

Nich's points are good. Personally, I consider the first one awkward and embarrassing for both parties more often than not, but I have also heard that it gets a good response from backers. Some projects like Sealark have done very well with very little, so there isn't a cut and dry method--but then Sealark was from an established indie dev.

The second point is one I shouldn't have neglected. Telling people they're special and can change the world is wise, and slightly true in the case of kickstarters.

On the subject of telling people fund the game or it won't happen, I will note a few kickstarters have said the game will happen regardless--but the backers can make it happen sooner and much better than it could otherwise come and be. That one by the guy who worked on Spiderman 2 set the goal at one dollar and then gave that money himself, but managed to hit large stretch goals in place. As you mentioned, the main point of a kickstarter is to get attention and kickstart a project's fanbase and funding. Strangely, many people are hesitant to back a kickstarter that mightn't succeed, from an ignorant and instinctual misunderstanding of how the money isn't lost if the kickstarter doesn't reach its goal.

[Rosstin]

I'm working on the game's GFX, to make the future video better.

            show slash2 with fastWipeUp

image slash1 = im.MatrixColor("gfx/s1_d2.png",im.matrix.opacity(0.75))
image slash2 = im.MatrixColor("gfx/s2_d2.png",im.matrix.opacity(0.75))

    $ fastWipeUp = CropMove(0.1, "wipeup")

[Mr. Mask]

Is it difficult to make the screen shake? Just thinking that if you could make the screen jerk to the side (to the left if he hits with his left hand, the right if he hits with his right), it might be more effective than the slash animation (both might also be good). With the kickstarter video and trailer in mind, the slash animation is a good idea.

[Rosstin]

We got screenshake too :-)

[Laiska]

Heya folks, inept story person D here again to bring you all something the boss man here says you'll quite fancy, a siege!

Following the massive battle that was posted about prior, despite having bested the Sylgardians, the Ortheran army still needs to find a way into Sylgard's capital so that they can confront the Queen. Upon approaching the capital, they demand entry, but are of course denied entry, and so must attempt to starve out the Sylgardians, or else force their way into the castle.

Now the mechanics of such things are by no means my forte, so I've cobbled together a proposal for this section based on scant research and suggestions for other, but I'm sure it's pretty unrealistic, so here is a copy of the planning doc. Feel free to make comments/edits/feedback, what have you.

- D

[Mr. Mask]

First thing I notice, is Alastor's becoming desperate and slaughtering the Slygardians on your side. First off, you mightn't have any Slygardians on your side since you have the option of splitting with them earlier (unless you've been recruiting more regardless as you continue through the story). If the ruler made an order like that, I as the commander would overrule them--violently if necessary. Because in the end, all you're doing is threatening your own soldiers. "You want to kill off some of your own side? Sure!" Unless you meant the captured Slygardian prisoners on your side of the wall, in which case torturing or mass executions shouldn't result in your men revolting (would probably ruin any chance of peace).

To me, being able to plant explosive charges but them not taking down the wall seems strange. It does depend on just how much of a fortress we're dealing with here. Xi'an has walls a hundred feet thick, so it would take a heck of an explosive to blow a considerable hole in that. But then, Xi'an is almost impossible to take by storm, so it mightn't be the best fit (unless it is extremely under manned).


A bunch was said on the subject of sieges in the last thread, starting from about here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...1#post17188328

I'll also quote the relevant bits.

Spoiler

Show

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).

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 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.

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.



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)

So if you double or triple the number of mouths to feed with all the civilians, it's not going to last long.



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.



Hence my much maligned spoiler tags.

Go get some rest and get well soon.

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.


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.

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:

Spoiler

Show

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.



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).



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.



I'm not sure what you mean: link.

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.

Was going to respond to that last bit that familiarity does not always mean military actions will be pleasant. The American Civil War had an unbelievable number of civilian casualties. So, I feel you can do what you want to with the Ortheran soldiers. After such a long and hard war where the enemy has been pulling nasty tricks, I myself can't imagine them feeling like being too noble towards the Slygardians; but I could help you justify this behaviour if you need it.

The points about the civilian population and why they can't starve them out are covered already in your version. You may have looked over this already, but I think it will cover my and Oni's initial response to how a siege might go. Do ask any further questions you have and say if you're not sure about something, though--I don't expect these quotes to be satisfactory on their own.

The general point is that I'd expect to have more options for how you approach and handle the siege, and various stages of the siege.

[SerenityFrost]

We totally plan on there being options on handling the siege, but we're also trying to keep those options simple and swift. The player would have just gotten off an intense battle phase in the game with almost no downtime (for the player, the mc has a single free day) to recoup. While there is some merit to hammering on the player to help them sympathize with soldier fatigue, there needs to be a balance to it.

And yeah, the King killing our own men is a bad end option. Basically him doing that signifies the end of the siege. He grows impatient and does something that makes the soldiers revolt. Since the Sylgardians in the castle don't have any sort of relief coming, it seemed like a good way to give the siege a time limit. It's not one of my best ideas, admittedly. Both Laiska and myself are certainly open to other ideas on how to do this.

[Mr. Mask]

With a siege, there aren't really suitable A B C options. It tends to be made up more of elements like whether you add some siege towers to the mix, whether you build an earth ramp here, and if you wait till the undermining operation is finished.

For the attack, even the fastest method of attack will involve a few days preparation and surrounding the city. Once you've constructed ladders and rams, and simple ways to cross the moat (assuming there is one), you can make your attack from several angles. A direct, minimalistic plan would be very unlikely to succeed, unless you outnumber the enemy to an extreme (and are willing to take extreme casualties). If the enemy was seriously undermanned and ill prepared, then it could work.

I can go into more detail with the decisions you would make and the mechanics of it (not right now though. If I feel better tomorrow).


For the bad end option, I suggest supply shortages forcing you to retreat. You'll be deep in enemy territory, and it has sounded like the Ortherans haven't been the best off in terms of supplies or soldiers for this war, so your supply caravans are likely to be pretty thin (assuming they aren't cut off altogether). The capital meanwhile probably has enough stocks to last for a year or more. There's also the possibility of political trouble at home, or even the weather. If when winter comes, your supply caravans are crawling at a snail's pace, and your soldiers are freezing to death, while the Slygardians are regrouping and picking them off, you could get to the point of starvation and revolt. If there is political pressure at home for a victory, the war could be ended even if you're close to winning.

Or, you could go with the Slygardians are regrouping being the reason. Stalingrad was under siege for a long time, until a second Russian force finally came and encircled the German army. All chance of success was lost in that moment. If the Slygardians regroup and encircle you before you take the capital, that would definitely be a game over. The best ending you could manage at that point is negotiating a less than ideal peace for your side, an outright surrender, or fleeing for your lives before they encircle you.

That second idea might be better. More dramatic and decisive. One thing going for the supply lines is that you can see the state of your troops as the problem worsens, and it gives you a clear sort of time limit. Their performance will also get worse as they get more hungry and more of them die from sickness, making it a balancing act between good preparation and the state of the men who make the attack.

Sorry for gabbling here. Running a slight fever.


If you want a bad ending where Alastor goes mad due to the crown, you could consider him assassinating the MC because she won't follow his orders (and has failed to placate him). If you had been ordering him to assassinate people previously, it would be a rather poetic ending.

[SerenityFrost]

Gabbling is always welcome, Mr. Mask. You taught us quite a lot with your post there. Also, I hope you're feeling better soon. Fevers are often the bane of my existence because they can really staunch creative output. d:

It's starting to sound like having a siege will take a different sort of mechanics than what we've been using for battles. Nothing impossible to do with our game engine though. It could be reported to the MC that we only have X days worth of supplies to make the siege happen, which would handle the element of urgency I was hoping to do with the King's "overreaction". Also, having him kill the MC outright for disobedience after threatening to kill captured soldiers (if any) and our own Sylgardians (also if any) could be a better plan for showing his desperation and darkened soul.

It occurs to me that it would actually be beneficial to the player to have less soldiers at this point in the game. Less mouths to feed means more supplies to go around. It could be something for the player to consider when a smaller amount of soldiers = a larger amount of days to win the siege. It could also mean, however, that there are less people to send out to gather more supplies if needed. There could be a chance of losing men each time you need to do this. It'd be a delicate balancing act to be sure.

It'll certainly be difficult to have a siege without clear A B and C options seeing as that's about 100% what a visual novel is in the first place. But I don't think it'll be impossible to pull off. We've spent quite a lot of effort being as accurate as possible in all the previous battles. Also, someone who's willing to buy a visual novel would understand what it is already (or have figured it out by this point in the game) so I suspect the player will give us slight leeway with the siege as far as planning flexibility. If we can be clever and find a way to make it feel like they're really handling a siege though, that'd be absolutely excellent.

EDIT: This idea for the bad end hit me about an hour after making this post. It's possible that when you hit Day X if you're running low on supplies the King's solution to this problem is to kill soldiers to make supplies last longer. Since player agency is the key to this game you can agree to let him do this, or refuse. Refusing ends in your death, agreeing ends in soldier revolt and your death.

[Brother Oni]

It occurs to me that it would actually be beneficial to the player to have less soldiers at this point in the game. Less mouths to feed means more supplies to go around. It could be something for the player to consider when a smaller amount of soldiers = a larger amount of days to win the siege. It could also mean, however, that there are less people to send out to gather more supplies if needed. There could be a chance of losing men each time you need to do this. It'd be a delicate balancing act to be sure.

Until you hit less than the minimum number of men to maintain the siege, at which point the defenders will just sally out and kill you.

For an idea of how a protracted siege deep in enemy territory would go, take a look at Caesar's Battle of Alesia where they built fortifications to keep the enemy in and a second set of fortifications to keep the relief force out.

Note that the intention of this siege was to starve the enemy out and would only have worked if the civilian population was kept penned in to rapidly deplete the defender's food supplies. Stockpiling of food for only military use is likely to spark off a civilian revolt (not to mention that it's the soldier's families that are starving), which will potentially end the siege as the defenders would have great difficulty in fending off attacks from two sides.

EDIT: This idea for the bad end hit me about an hour after making this post. It's possible that when you hit Day X if you're running low on supplies the King's solution to this problem is to kill soldiers to make supplies last longer. Since player agency is the key to this game you can agree to let him do this, or refuse. Refusing ends in your death, agreeing ends in soldier revolt and your death.

I would say that the King would start killing the wounded as killing fit soldiers is the height of insanity and any sane soldier would refuse that order. Compliance with the order results in an army revolt and your lynching, defiance results in the King ordering your execution.

If you don't want the King so blatantly unhinged, what he could do is to order more and more assaults in order to get the siege over with - agreeing with this plan results in you leading the next assault to a gruesome end while refusal is regarded as treason and a traitor's death.

[SerenityFrost]

I like the escalating assault ordering idea for a regular progression in the siege. We could even make him constantly choose Sylgardians (if they have them) to do it. Though the less dramatic option, it can leave some ambiguity to the King's change in personality. It could come off that he's just inexperienced and desperate rather than crazy. There's always room for that in the last chapter or even the climax of the siege where the King and Queen face off and you need to make the decision of which side you're on.

As for siege tactics. There's meant to be a discussion before the siege with the generals where each pitches a strategy that reflects their abilities. (Magic, Engineering, Brute Force.) The player is then allowed to pick which they want to start with. There were two ways we considered handling the aftermath. The King ignores the player's decision the next day, even though at the meeting he was supportive of what the player chose, and orders the soldiers to go along with his plan (stealth), which he didn't bring up at the meeting. Or the King goes with his stealth plan without the MC's knowledge and things roll with what the player chose only to find out it was just a distraction for what the King wanted to do.

[Mr. Mask]

Serenity: Fevers tend to staunch thinking in general. Feeling better now, just a bit unpleasant instead of like I was sleep walking, and typing, and living in general in a state of sleep.

Think of the mechanics like Gods Will be Watching, a balancing act between preparedness for the assault and other factors. There still end up being some choices you make as to how you want to assault, even if it's just how many siege towers you're building compared to how much you could have undermined with the same manpower and time. During the battle itself, you can have an exciting fight scene, where you can make choices like whether to take the towers and walls or to push onward into the city, and etc..


You're going to need to set up Alastor's fall, orders and reactions carefully. Otherwise it might feel like Long Live the Queen, where the death seems too unexpected and unavoidable. If his orders are too absurd, then you could logically get the support of the officers and army (particularly if you've been respectable among them), and Alastor could do nothing to you. Of course, he is a master assassin, so unless you arrange his death (wasn't it possible for him to die in the last battle?), he can kill you if he decides to, even if he can't get it done officially. There's also the question of the romance and whether how much he likes you will effect this. If his madness is too clear and too dangerous, and you have a lot of influence with the army, then the logical solution would be to supplant him one way or another. Whether you're allowed to do that and how to prevent the player needs to be considered.
In general, rather than a single event that results in your death, you might want to make it part of the balancing act, trying to placate Alastor and prevent him from doing anything rash.

Killing prisoners when you're in a siege and running low of supplies is fairly standard (assuming you can't just ship them to a POW camp), but it's still very different from killing your own soldiers. A witch hunt of Slygardians among their own ranks requires participation of the masses, but it's hard to imagine soldiers turning on people who have fought with them, unless there has been some heavy resentment between them festering. And if Slygardians make up a sizeable portion of your force... it would just be far too mad an idea (if they're separated, mixed into the Ortherans, then you could try an extreme, sudden betrayal on the level of a genocide plan, rounding them up and killing them off--but there is a reasonable chance of it resulting in a revolt instead, and would only be worthwhile if you were sure they'd turn on you).


The number of men you want depends on a couple of things. You do need a stronger force to succeeding in storming a castle (barring something like kidnapping the queen then the enemy army surrendering). If you can't destroy them out in the field, you can't destroy them when they have amazing fortifications. Even when you greatly outnumber the defenders, stormings often fail, or succeed at absurd cost. And while more men does mean more to feed, it also means you have more to dig trenches, patrol the area, and help with other necessary tasks.

Some could be sent on foraging runs to try and make up for their presence (you could make it a mechanic deciding how many forage and how many work if you wanted, but it wouldn't be necessary). For losing men when you're foraging, I don't think your losses would be significant enough to put a dent in your military plans. If there are enough enemy forces present to do that, then it's time to send patrols to hunt them down, or to stay in camp with heavy watches and sentries.


For the ABC, it's fairly similar to the previous battle where you prepared your defence. Just, this time, you're preparing your assault. You still have the choice of whether to wait for a plague to spread from flinging stuff over the wall, whether to cross the moat with pontoons or to fill it in with dirt, how many areas you're going to focus your attack on, and possible spying actions. A good mixtures of decisions (including decisions with good synergy) results in getting a victory without too many losses.


For the king's idea, you could make it that he decides there should be "accidents," among the sick and wounded. He wants Lucius to poison them secretly so that it will look like they died of a plague. Though, similar to the POW, if you have a supply line going, you ought to be send away your wounded and sick who won't soon recover with the caravans on their way back. If you're cut off you wouldn't have that option.


Oni's idea of ordering early assaults is good. This is a common problem among commanders, getting impatient during a siege and attacking before they're ready (why Sun Tzu said to avoid besieging walled cities). A failed assault results in some enemy casualties but a whole lot more for your own side. You'll also lose stuff like siege towers in such attacks and need to rebuild them. Failed assaults also reduces morale, and morale will drop greatly with successive failed assaults.

Something's gotta give if you keep attacking with glorious failure. Either your men will be so casualty-stricken and demoralized that they no longer have the ability to storm the capital (resulting in a retreat or a pointless siege until the enemy finally wipes you out), the troops become so angry that they overthrow you and Alastor (consider the possibility of a slightly brighter Bad End, where you can choose to join the revolt to save your own skin, if the men liked you enough), supplies have given out and it's getting to the point of starvation so you have to retreat, or the attrition is enough that one day you actually capture the walls from the enemy (if your army was strong enough and your plans close to reasonably prepared enough enough, multiple assaults could work).
Even if you win through attrition, it will be harder to take the city, inner wall and keep if you've taken too many casualties.

While you can't outright refuse the King, there are ways to weasel your way out of these early assaults. You can probably argue and convince him out of the attack at least once, especially if you are on good terms and/or have a good military reputation in past actions (that way, you get some leeway for military skill OR dating/befriending Alastor). Tell him you can't make the attack today because of so and so, but you can definitely make it next week! Then, next week comes, and you just happen to get a bad knee. If excuses aren't enough, you might be able to overrule him once if you have respect among the officers. There might be certain actions that sate Alastor, and delay his next demand for you to attack (anything from chats and romantic interludes to news from spies that a plague is spreading within the city or that you've managed to get extra supplies). Eventually, you'll hit your limit for how much you can argue against him, make excuses, and overrule him, till it gets to the point where you'll be relieved of command (or worse) or assassinated by Alastor.
I think this could be a fun subplot alongside the siege plans, part of the balancing act you need to maintain.

There could also be some excuses you could make during the attack. "The siege tower is busted, do you still want to attack?" "Oh for the love of... YES! Who needs the siege tower!? Take that city!"
Just thinking that if the player spends a lot of time and resources on siege towers, then they lose them all in an attack they didn't realize they'd be forced to make, it'd be annoying. Though, with proper foreshadowing, it could be their own fault for not adjusting their plans to what was clearly a problem.

You could consider highlighting events which are provoking Alastor into this state. Some of the men are getting sick from hunger, and he's visibly upset--thinking they should have ended the siege before this happened. Or news from home is that he's being portrayed as indecisive, and his men aren't properly cared for. Or the enemy feigns some false weakness, to provoke you into attack and he's taking the bait. Would make him more sympathetic and the situation would be deeper.


As you mention, putting Slygardians up the front is a clever way to dispose of them. And, this seems such a reasonable idea for getting rid of potential enemies, you don't need to be too crazy to think of it (just kind of paranoid and/or racist). Heck, with enough morale you could throw all the Slygardians in the first assault, blatantly showing your disregard for their lives, and they may still go up there and fight for you (an assault on fort Wagner comes to mind). If morale was high enough that it didn't result in some kind of revolt, then it could make for a dramatic scene where the Slygardians willing accept their suicide orders. Reminiscent of Gallipoli.


Stealth isn't a bad idea, actually. There were a number of forts no one could take, till they got some dangerous men to sneak behind the line and open the front doors. Troy is the most dramatic example of this. Not telling your other officers is a sign of paranoia, which can be reasonable in some cases--but is probably Alastor losing his level-headedness in this case.
How does the stealth plan go in the story?

[SerenityFrost]

I've had this rolling in my head a while, but haven't mentioned it yet since I wasn't sure if it felt realistic enough. I was thinking the King's stealth plan was that he was going to sneak Lucius into the castle via an underground passage. The passage is too small to send men through, and easily collapsible if discovered, so he wants to be smart in his use of it. Lucius is sent through with the intent of setting off a contagious sickness. Something that will spread quickly in close quarters. Lucius is the only one who doesn't put forth a plan during the meeting, and is a trusted adviser to Alastor. If Lucius has enough respect for you, or you're in a romantic relationship, he'll come to you with concerns but won't tell you about the plan because he wouldn't betray the King's trust in him. What you tell him will influence what he does, however. If you express a preference for hostages he'll use an illness that is unpleasant but not fatal.

As for Alastor's relationship with the MC, yes, that does influence him some, but not enough to not kill her. We have every intention of making sure his "madness" is a slow build with an explosive pay off by the climax. As well as a proper resolution in the final chapter should the player choose to not kill him and then pursue said resolution. This includes a culmination of any romantic feelings.

EDIT: That last paragraph is very vague. I'd go into more detail, but it's not really battle relevant.

[Mr. Mask]

There are times when the enemy has managed to poison water supplies. If they were meant to be sneaking into the city, I'd expect them to also try to open the gates and take it while they were there. They mightn't succeed at the latter, but it's certainly worth a try. The passage might only reach to an area that intersects the water way that feeds into the Slygardians' well, so they mightn't have the option.
Once the water is poisoned, the Slygardians have a serious problem. If there's a lot of rain or snow, they can survive off that. If they have a second well they can swap, though they probably will be infected by the contaminant before they know to swap. If they only have one water source and work out its contaminated, then they could try boiling the water which might work--which is why you'd expect Lucius to mix in a poison which can be cleansed from the water. If their only water source is poisoned, they'll have to surrender before long.

Alastor's relationship sounds like it's going to be interesting. Looking forward to exploring that.