The art of parrying seventeen blades in one stroke

[Anonymous]

Seeing as the HRPT is only a week away, and HRPTs in the past have involved a lot of massive group combat, I thought that now would be a good time to bring up an issue related to hordes of attackers attacking one humanoid-sized opponent in the blink of an eye, swinging all twenty of their blades as one weapon, in a whirwind of blood turned to mist. This isn't an issue that is limited to huge battle scenarios, but it's during these HRPT battle scenarios that we see a literal bombardment of PCs and NPCs all hacking at some PC superstar hero in an attempt to kill him instantly.

Obviously, killing the most capable officers and warriors within an army is a pretty sound strategy when you have the opportunity, but there's no way to gauge distance and space between them when you're in a text "room" that acts as a battlefield for fifty PCs and NPCs. You can't even judge if there'd be room enough for four people to swing their weapons at a single foe, let alone ten or more. If, however..  there was a coded limit to the amount of opponents who could target a single foe at once, it would provide enough emulation of "distance" to give players a fighting chance in a scenario that otherwise would mean instant death.

There are already a few MUDs out there that I've played which have this feature implemented. The solution that I found to be the most innovative was putting a limit of three attackers at once on any given target, and any PC/NPC who tried to help attack that target would have to make a skill check on some roll (no idea what the roll is) to see if they could get into the fray. Each attempt would lag the would-be attacker, forcing them to keep trying to look for an opening. Having a fourth attacker getting in seemed pretty difficult, and I've never seen a fifth attacker successfully target the same person, though I've seen the roll attempts made and fail.

Personally, I'm much more in favor of seeing a real buff hero PC fight his way to a heroic end on the battlefield than seeing him die in fifteen seconds because the opposing army all typed in "kill <buff hero's name>".  Armageddon's combat code is extremely dangerous, and attempts to be very realistic in its design in one on one fights, or in small groups. I feel the combat mechanics do a wonderful job at handling these smaller fights, but could (in my opinion) do an even better job at handling large scale warfare if there was a reasonable limit placed on how many people can swing at someone's body simultaneously. Seeing as the focus of Armageddon is all about roleplaying characters in a story, I don't see how making an attempt at removing instant and unrealistic death by the insta-blender could hurt the game.

Anyone share the same opinion?

[Flaming Ocotillo]

The above message was posted by yours truly.

Seven units of GDB infantry must have killed my account's log-in status before I finished writing the post.

[Callisto]

I support the idea, since it would still level a serious disadvantage at the targeted PC/NPC but not to the point where you get one round of massive spam per PC/NPC. It would break away from all to common battles where all the gith gang bang one PC, while at the same time all the PCs are gang banging one  gith.

It'd go a long way in making battles more tactical and in need of planning, as opposed to the current war plan of rush in and have your most skilled fighter "tank" while everyone else assists.

Never seen code like this in any other mud, but it sounds just peachy.

[Sakra]

Beyond the fact that three 'unit of half-giant infantry' could be the ones attacking you, heh, it's a great idea. I know the unit combat was going to be looked at after the last HRPT, but I don't remember if anything was done.

*thumbs up* (N/T)

[Rindan]

I personally like the idea.  Surviving in mass battle against PCs requires magik if you are a leader.  If you are recognized as a leader everyone and their dog is going to go slavering in to charge you.  That isn't to say that is unrealistic, but I do agree that it should be much harder to get 20 guys on that one poor bastard templar.  It would be neat if after three or four people it takes a skill check to get in as well.  This would at least give defenders time to defend their leaders.

Of course, the flip side is that if you don't like the idea of being skewed 20 different ways, then get better organized, get some guards, and hold back.  If you are willing to sacrifice less people on the front of combat a leader can fall back behind the combat and watch from a distance with a few guards.  That way, anyone who wants to get to you has to charge through the normal defense, then attack you one on one where your guards are more able to keep an eye on you and defend you.  There is also always the option of hiring a few poor 'rinth rats to act as decoys.  Just give them a shitty templar robe, tell them to put the hood up, and tell them that if they speak they die.

There is a lot of potential strategy involved in Armageddon mass combat.  When talking about even squad level combat there is an awesome amount of strategy.  It is amazing what a well oiled group can take on.  I have been in situations where vastly outnumbered groups managed to hold their own in combat and come out on top simply because the leader had his head on, the soldiers had their heads on, everyone knew their place once the combat began, and they communicated effectively during combat.

[RaynerApe]

I am a newbie who havent yet had hist first character approved so please excuse me if I suggest something stupid, but... I think the subject should be looked at in a more serious manner, what happens when a large number people attack together a single target - each of the attackers takes a certain portion of the target's defending sphere and in the same time they overlap their own offence sphere, thus adding more and more people around the target makes it more difficult for not only them, but those next to them to attack.

So here's what I suggest.
1) Limit of people who can attack harget depending on size without a penalty - usually 2 for small size (halflings, dwarves), 3 for normal (human, elf) and 4 for large (half-giants). There might be problems with scaling (for example do 4 half giants can attack 1 half giant) which may be worked out through a complex comparison of size levels, but I'll leave this to the wiz'.
2) Melee-combat - Every additional attacker to that number either poses a penalty to every attacker's rolls or -more realistically- poses a penalty to the next attacker's roll.
3) Ranged-combat - Additional attackers to that number do not pose a penalty to other attacker's rolls but get a penalty to their own rolls to hit exactly the target - on failure they should have a chance to hit one of the attackers.
3) There should be an absolute maximum of 8 attackers involved in melee combat (but the penalties for such fight against a target less than a half-giant or even something bigger should be very, very big!). Which is, an attacker on every semi-direction around the target.

Someone may argue that character involved in combat don't tank against their target, and also effectively withdraw and then expect the exact moment to attack again, but I think such limitation brings some tactical and roleplaying factors to the game. Just imagine a combat involving a lot of weak attackers. A strong ally comes ot help and then he shoulds for one or several of them to withdraw and give him space (and less penalties/difficulty) to deal with the target.

So, what do you think?

[Anonymous]

I am a newbie who havent yet had hist first character approved so please excuse me if I suggest something stupid, but... I think the subject should be looked at in a more serious manner, what happens when a large number people attack together a single target - each of the attackers takes a certain portion of the target's defending sphere and in the same time they overlap their own offence sphere, thus adding more and more people around the target makes it more difficult for not only them, but those next to them to attack.

Well, with a large number of people pressing on one target only the first 3 or 4 are going to get a whack in on him until the group circles around him.  But no matter in reality he or she is a goner if surrounded.  The only question is if they might take a few arms or lives with them and how many.  I think the existing code takes things like this into account pretty well.

So here's what I suggest.
1) Limit of people who can attack harget depending on size without a penalty - usually 2 for small size (halflings, dwarves), 3 for normal (human, elf) and 4 for large (half-giants).

I really disagree with this.  With the reach of a longsword, let alone a spear, I'd say six people could easily gather around one person.  Limiting it isn't a bad idea, but that small is a little unrealistic.

Also, dwarves tend to be much wider and weigh more than humans so it doesn't make sense to me how their slightly lesser height would render them immune from more attackers.

I'm pretty sure what is being discussed here, however, is a single NPC unit that is described as being 'a unit of Half-Giant soldiers' or something like that.  The unit acts and moves exactly like a single entity and does massive amounts of damage.  Since you've never been in game you wouldn't have had a chance to interact with them, at least not this mud's version.

All in all largescale combat is pretty deadly and anyone can get slaughtered, if by getting outnumbered for no other reason.  And in a way I really like that.

I have a lot of issues with the idea of limiting the number of combatants because it conjures up images of Bruce Lee movies in my head where 6 attackers all take turns queuing up in pairs to let Bruce kick their ass.

[Malifaxis]

Criminal Rhinocerous' Wardrobe wrote:

I really disagree with this. With the reach of a longsword, let alone a spear, I'd say six people could easily gather around one person. Limiting it isn't a bad idea, but that small is a little unrealistic.

The thing is with that is that if you're using a longsword... sure you have more reach, but you're swinging the blade in an arc (usually), and therefor, if you are within four feet of your buddy... well, your blade made find blood before you find your target.  Spears?  Yes.  You get 9 guys with spears, and they can all jab the same dude and have a kebob party.  9 guys with longswords ends up with about 3 guys standing, a pile of parts, and a possibly dead opponent.

If there was a way that the weapon type mattered on a group attack, that would be very realistic.  It's one of the reasons that law enforcers carry short billy clubs.  They have a large amount of kinetic pay-out on the strike, a very small chance of accidental death, and they can be side swung or overhand swung with the same effect.  This is not true with blades... blades have a high chance of accidental death, and while you can overhand swing them... it's kind of stupid to do so.

With daggers, sure they're a small, pointed weapon, but to get more than five or six guys around one person with daggers is... well, Roman.  Sure, they did it with Caesar, but they all took turns.  You get a large crew with short blades, and they're all going to be shoulder to shoulder.

One thing I would *greatly* love to see is the idea that HGs, when attacked en-masse, could hit more than one freakin opponent.  I mean seriously... if an arm is as long as you are tall, and someone is swinging a hammer that weighs more than your damn head (helmet and all), that individual should be able to connect with more than one target.

I realize HGs are already uber.  They're supposed to be.  They are supposed to be able to stop riots... I can think of no better way to stop a riot than to have someone bash three people's heads in in one strike.

[Quirk]

.  You get 9 guys with spears, and they can all jab the same dude and have a kebob party.  9 guys with longswords ends up with about 3 guys standing, a pile of parts, and a possibly dead opponent.

If there was a way that the weapon type mattered on a group attack, that would be very realistic.  

It would get extremely complicated, however. If you simply gave the spearmen licence to attack 9 at a time, 9 spearmen would decimate 9 swordsmen. But as the lower half of the page linked here shows:

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm

historically the sword/buckler men were more than a match for the pikemen and spearmen, who were in turn great against cavalry, who were in turn great against sword/buckler men.

Then you have to balance maces and clubs, axes, daggers... the sheer amount of code needed to make group combat vaguely realistic would be frightening.

An upper limit on the number of opponents who could attack one target would be a good first step though. In the heat of combat you're not going to get to surround one guy entirely unless he's either all alone or is far advanced in front of his friends. Two or three people would be a sensible upper limit for an attack on a line of soldiers supporting each other; maybe four or five for an isolated warrior.

And unit mobs are just silly unless pitted against other unit mobs. If they can have only one attack target, then they should be the equal of two or three okay warriors but with huge hit points to simulate the rest of the unit reinforcing them, not the equivalent of a ton of warriors all jumping someone at once.

Quirk

[Flaming Ocotillo]

I really like the discussion going on here, though I'd like to seperate two different issues that are starting to form in the thread.

My initial point was that groups of individual PCs or NPCs can slaughter another PC by having say, fifty people striking at that target at once. This is the big problem. If you hold both your arms out and spin around in circles, you'll get some grasp of how much room you need to move around. Add a three to four foot blade in that hand, maybe coupled with a shield or an off-hand weapon, and that same circle-spin will hit anyone standing next to you for quite a bit of distance. Enough distance to keep a lot of people from standing anywhere close to you when striking at the same target. Sure, spears have a better chance of jabbing someone in a tighter circle, but for the sake of "generalized" weapon ranges, from swinging around massive mauls and greatswords to the forward thrust of a spear, I'm of the opinion that three or four opponents on one target wouldn't be so terribly unrealistic as to imagine huge gaps of space between everyone involved.

The other issue being brought up by some people is the concept of "unit" NPCs targeting individual PCs. Even though it's only one coded NPC attacking someone, it's twenty virtual NPCs all striking at the same person at once. The "unit" NPCs are another issue altogether, even though they simulate twenty or so virtual NPCs in the body of one entity. Unit NPCs are very rarely found in the game, but I'll agree that any unit NPC versus a PC target, even if it's one on one, throws the PC into the ugly situation of having to defend themselves against twenty weapons all striking as one. Not only are the unit NPCs extremely uber-powerful and not meant to be facing PCs, but they are usually unarmored and not wielding a weapon, and so they will actually punch with their fists in hand to hand combat, doing -INCREDIBLE- stun damage to anything that they hit, since their strength is so high, and because brawling is coded to knock people out like nobody's business. If a regular PC is hit with a punch from a unit NPC in the head, they'll generally be knocked out on the first blow. Even body hits (usually two body hits) will take down a PC despite whatever hit points are remaining. It's kind of scary to imagine, but I think that unit NPCs are actually -less- of a threat to PCs when they are forced to wield a weapon.

The first issue could be addressed by limiting the number of attackers on a single foe. The second issue looks to be a little more complicated. If NPC "group units" are necessary on the battlefield with PCs (and I'm not totally convinced that they are), there has to be some kind of safety measure taken to avoid those unit NPCs targeting a PC. I don't really have many suggestions, because mass warfare is so chaotic that people even end up attacking their own PCs and NPCs... so to avoid one kind of NPC attacking PCs seems like a really difficult endeavor. One suggestion in this case would be to equip NPC units with an attack type that is something other than BRAWLING FISTS that do hundreds of points of stun damage per hit. Give them one attack per round with this new attack type instead of the two attacks they have with brawling, so people can keep track of what they're doing. Why would they need two attacks per round when they're already simulating twenty people attacking every so often? Maybe unit NPCs could be coded like sparring dummies, and don't actually fight back, but staff members could emote having them do all sorts of things before the units are given the imm-command to just drop dead.

Anyhow, just thought I'd seperate what the two issues are, in my mind. Let's not confuse the first issue (a massive group of coded bodies attacking one body simultaneously) with the second issue (a single coded body supporting twenty VNPCs attacking a single coded body of one person).

This is starting to sound like a math equation.

[creeper386]

The main problem comes down to... Even with swords a well organized group can and well circle a smaller group/person and slaughter them. Even if they are unskilled if they are working together a group of ten warriors, no matter what they are wielding should be able to take even a skilled warrior down.

Now I haven't seen an HRPT, or any time when fifty people are attacking a single person, but not only is that unrealistic, thats incredibly bad RP on multiple levels. I have however seen incredibly skilled, "heroic" characters take on alot of other PCs and still coming out fairly unhurt.

Now, you say that if you have a weapon that requires room to work, you can't really attack someone in large numbers. Thats fairly untrue. Most people, specially someone slightly skilled in combat isn't going to let a group of people circle tightly around there. They are going to keep them at bay. While the people circling aren't going to be all pressing in and trying to attack at once. They are going to go through several different roles dealing with advancing, attacking, falling back, and generally supporting their fellows during the whole time. And over all I see the code as dealing with it fairly well.

Yes I agree a cap COULD be useful, but making it so incredibly low, would really fuck with things, hardcore. I'd say a cap no smaller then 6-7 preferably leaving it at 10, so as to not allow what people seem to see all the time of 50 some people attacking one person at once, but still allow a workable pallete. If you only allowed 3-5 people attacking at once... PCs would become an INCREDIBLE power house.. Against other PCs and NPCs alike. The staff would have to revamp alot of intelligent NPCs to think when working together, and so on and so on.

Creeper

[Carnage]

Well, let's put this in perspective. Coding something like this would be a monumental task. First, let's think of a way around this. Typically, there were two ways to lead an army: from the front or back. Both have their merits. Let's say, however, you want to lead from the back. How can you represent this in Armageddon?

Well, let's set things up. Let's say I'm Crassus and going up against Spartacus. I have my army of shitty Roman legions that flee in terror, and he has his of well-trained, fearless slaves. Now I want to stay alive in this battle since I'm rich and bought this army. Let's put this in Arm, say on the Salt Flats. I'm approaching from the west, he from the east. How can we possibly set this up? Well, both of us have about 100 NPCs and PCs each. I lead from the back, so I stay one room away. To the west. I set up possibly 5-10 that guard west, so they can't immediately charge through. I then have another 5-10 personal guard, set up to protect me.

Set up this way, you can accurately represent space and distance. Yeah, my men aren't as strong as his are, but I've set them up to have one goal: protect me, not destroy his army where as they're all focused. If you have a lesser number of men, try to make it up in a more decisive way. Give your men better training. Whip them into a fanatical frenzy before the fight so they don't turn around and flee. One of the Roman legions Spartacus faced wanted to run away so dearly that they stripped off their armor so they could run faster. Hell, 300 Spartans defeated 20,000 Persians and held off an army of 200k. What's a good way to do this? Well, bring your men to, say, a canyon. E-mail the MUD account beforehand or wish up, saying that you're doing this for a tactical victory and ask if the amount of men incoming can be limited in that room, so that way they can't flood their army in. Voila.

As for being gangbanged by 20 people, I'm inbetween. I realize it's an exaggeration yet not, as I'm sure it's happened before. I say give a penalty for every person over 5 attacking a target. Keep in mind though that Spartans achieved most of their victories because they worked in groups. Individually they fought as well as anyone else, but as a group they were ferocious.

To summarize, before you go whooting and hollering for a giant code change, thing about what a reasonable way to accomplish such a thing in game would be. With a bit of creativity, you can do some amazing things with the code.

[Quirk]

Well, let's put this in perspective. Coding something like this would be a monumental task.

Actually, it's in the order of a dozen lines of code max. I happened to be the Harshlands coder for a longish while, the mud that I believe is being referenced as to the limit on the number of attackers able to concentrate on one person, and I can remember that part.

(Could be that people are thinking of SoI, or another HL offshoot, or a totally different mud. I was just guessing based on my own knowledge of that codebase's support for it).

[Carnage]

Actually, it's in the order of a dozen lines of code max. I happened to be the Harshlands coder for a longish while, the mud that I believe is being referenced as to the limit on the number of attackers able to concentrate on one person, and I can remember that part.

Yeah, if you want a crude code that says "5 people can attack at once", then sure. But what about a group of gortok attacking a hunter? Can just five of them do it at once? What about a large group of people attacking a bahamet, or if a PC sorceror atop a kank is being assaulted by a line of pikemen?

Unless you plan on adding in a bunch of if and thens (at which case it'll be just circumstantial junk) it's a pretty pain in the ass thing to play by. Realistically, attacking officers and generals in war is not only something that's fair, but something encouraged. You also can't think of a bunch of people attacking someone as slashing all at once. It could be one lunging in and stabbing them in the back and then leaping back just as another hefts his axe and goes for a long swing, while another brings his club from beside the guy with the axe. And so on.

[Quirk]

Yeah, if you want a crude code that says "5 people can attack at once", then sure. But what about a group of gortok attacking a hunter? Can just five of them do it at once? What about a large group of people attacking a bahamet, or if a PC sorceror atop a kank is being assaulted by a line of pikemen?

The numbers aren't going to vary that much and are mostly going to be low. Four to six, maybe, in most cases, more in the bahamet case. You could probably work it out as a multiple of size, where say, 2 + X * size is the total size of allowed attackers - can't get as many half-giants round one human as halflings. Still pretty simple code at that.

Expecting everyone to be able to reach an officer or general is very iffy, and especially the case where ten guys face ten guys and each group are attacking one target is just physically odd. A general flanked by lackeys isn't really going to be easy to surround anyhow. Having people attempt to do it is fine, but actually having everyone able to do so is rather less sensible.

Quirk

[Flaming Ocotillo]

Here's the problem on making "reserve" units that stay out of the fight in an attempt to add some kind of order to a battlefield:

PC/NPCs guarding a directional exit aren't able to get into combat, or they no longer guard the direction.

PC/NPCs guarding their supposed leader in the room adjacent to the fight are also not able to get into combat.

Why is not getting into combat a -bad- thing? Because as it stands, you can have an -unlimited- number of people attacking any single target, and the more people who attack, the greater the bonus is to the damage, and to the chances of hitting. While the strategic leader and his reserve unit are sitting east of the main battle, with his guard units standing around and avoiding combat in the actual fight zone, his weakened army (from the missing units being used for guarding) is being slaughtered because the other army can gang bang more targets at once. The absolute best strategy I can think of, using the code as it is, is to concentrate as many attackers as possible on a single target, so that no matter how much defensive skill the target has, they'll be killed pretty quickly.

It's a lot like playing Warcraft, for anyone who's ever played it, except there's no physical space limit to how many of your units can attack another unit at once. Isn't the best strategy always to concentrate as much fire as possible on one unit and then progress to the next? There's never a point to keeping healthy units away from a target if there's still extra space around that target to get in a few more hits.

I really like the idea of having guards on a battlefield and reserve units placed in another part of the battlefield, in attempt at tactical combat, but there really isn't any reason to do that when your units will only die faster. The more men you stack against a single foe, aiming from target to target with this insta-shotgun of ten or more attackers, the better your chances are of success. The strategy reminds me of musket warfare, except nobody's using guns to target an area... they're just sort of teleporting their weapon arms in unison towards one enemy when the whistle blows.

[Carnage]

Because as it stands, you can have an -unlimited- number of people attacking any single target, and the more people who attack, the greater the bonus is to the damage, and to the chances of hitting. While the strategic leader and his reserve unit are sitting east of the main battle, with his guard units standing around and avoiding combat in the actual fight zone, his weakened army (from the missing units being used for guarding) is being slaughtered because the other army can gang bang more targets at once.

Let me address several points.

First, when was the last time, in real life, you heard of a mob attacking someone (or someone being lynched) and the mob stopped and said, "four person limit. There's not enough room." IRL, people DO get attacked by more than six people at once. Multiple people can stab someone. Multiple people can punch someone or kick them while they're on the ground. Life's not fair.

Second, when was the last time in Armageddon you saw someone (a PC preferably) ever being attacked by more than "four to six people" when there's dozens of other targets around? If you did, was it a templar or an officer? Why didn't they have people guarding them, who then proceeded to attack the person who they successfully blocked? If this was on a giant open field, hasn't anyone ever heard of 'rescue'?

Third, if you're getting gangbanged and think it's so bad, wish up or e-mail the MUD about it. Spit on the enemy in character for using such pathetic and unrefined tactics that are similar to gith. Roll with the punches.

Fourth, if your army is getting its ass kicked because about five or ten people are privately guarding you, your army friggin' sucks and you need to change your tactics. Start fighting things decisively. Focus on better training. Create sabotage missions. Whatever. There's a whole bunch of RP potential, such as burning a wagon of the enemy's supplies and running off into the night rather than just code combat. If your enemy is resorting to using the overwhelm them method take a lesson from it and start using hit and run tactics rather than directly facing them. No, guerilla warfare isn't 100% supported but if you e-mail the MUD I'm sure someone is going to be more than willing to help.

In short, go beyond the code if you need to rather than complain about how someone uses a cheap tactic.

[Supreme Allah]

Carnage wrote:

First, when was the last time, in real life, you heard of a mob attacking someone (or someone being lynched) and the mob stopped and said, "four person limit. There's not enough room." IRL, people DO get attacked by more than six people at once. Multiple people can stab someone. Multiple people can punch someone or kick them while they're on the ground. Life's not fair.

A hundred people attacking one is far different from one army fighting another and automatically leaping to the rear to effortlessly surround the leader.

Carnage wrote:

Second, when was the last time in Armageddon you saw someone (a PC preferably) ever being attacked by more than "four to six people" when there's dozens of other targets around? If you did, was it a templar or an officer? Why didn't they have people guarding them, who then proceeded to attack the person who they successfully blocked? If this was on a giant open field, hasn't anyone ever heard of 'rescue'?

Carnage, this part of your post makes me wonder if you even read the post you responded to. The quote you gave from another actually answers the questions you pose superbly.

Please reread this:

Because as it stands, you can have an -unlimited- number of people attacking any single target, and the more people who attack, the greater the bonus is to the damage, and to the chances of hitting. While the strategic leader and his reserve unit are sitting east of the main battle, with his guard units standing around and avoiding combat in the actual fight zone, his weakened army (from the missing units being used for guarding) is being slaughtered because the other army can gang bang more targets at once.

Carnage wrote:

Third, if you're getting gangbanged and think it's so bad, wish up or e-mail the MUD about it. Spit on the enemy in character for using such pathetic and unrefined tactics that are similar to gith. Roll with the punches.

Should we wish up and email before or after our character has been instakilled? If the code supports our deaths as it does now, I sincerely doubt any resurrections for being attacked by 50 NPCs at once will be in order.

Carnage wrote:

Fourth, if your army is getting its ass kicked because about five or ten people are privately guarding you, your army friggin' sucks and you need to change your tactics. Start fighting things decisively. Focus on better training. Create sabotage missions. Whatever. There's a whole bunch of RP potential, such as burning a wagon of the enemy's supplies and running off into the night rather than just code combat. If your enemy is resorting to using the overwhelm them method take a lesson from it and start using hit and run tactics rather than directly facing them. No, guerilla warfare isn't 100% supported but if you e-mail the MUD I'm sure someone is going to be more than willing to help.

This entire part right here seems kinda misplaced. When me and 50 of my NPCs are in a room with 50 of yours, I don't think we'll be emailing the mud account or emoting out the burning any wagons. Hit and run? This isn't quite real life, Carnage. We have a code we have to play this game by, and we're trying to make it more realistic one step at a time. As it stands now, the way to win is the go from one guy to the other and insta-kill it with 50 NPCs - which, in reality, would not likely be possible in the middle of a battlefield.

[Rindan]

I really have no strong opinion one way or another, but one way to save your leaders is to get a large horde of people guarding that leader.  So, if a templar is leading a dozen PCs to battle against another dozen PCs, have his men guard the templar.  When it comes to combat, tell your men to hold off on attacking.  Once someone attacks they loose their ability to guard.  If one waits for the attackers then as they go for the templar they have to get through a dozen different guards.  Each time someone attacks the templar he is going to be stopped by a guard and those two will start their own battle.  After it looks like most everyone is paired up and fighting their own desperate battles, then the templar can give the order for the remaining men to proceed into battle.  

Once someone is locked in battle they can't charge targets unless they use the change opponent command to attack someone who is attacking them, or the rescue command.  Thus, until fights start being won and lost, everyone will be unable to attack the templar who should be wisely avoiding getting into many fights.  If the templar is nervous about being used as a decoy to spread the battle out, then he can simply throw a rob at some grunt, throw on a soldiers robe, and keep only a couple people back to guard him.  After everyone has gone for the decoy templar and been spread out by those guarding him he can throw back on his templar robe and take command.  This sort of strategy could work for anyone.

I think the biggest problem is that once combat starts everyone panics at immediately picks a target, and of course they go for the more obvious targets.  Holding back just a few seconds could help to ensure not only that gang bangs are quickly dispersed and fights are spread out, but lead to more coherent organization.

The biggest problem is that there is rarely a chance to try out group tactics and large group tactics in game.  Even if you could gather the people together for a mock battle, such mock battles are terribly dangerous.  Things can turn sour real quick even with sparring weapons.

There are tactics that can be employed though, the challenge is executing them in game.  If your organization is getting a mob together and leading them into battle, don't be surprised when they act like a mob being lead into battle.

[Carnage]

A hundred people attacking one is far different from one army fighting another and automatically leaping to the rear to effortlessly surround the leader.

Right, which is why if you're in the next room and your army is actively engaging the other, your men should be delaying the other from attacking. Yes, they can flee, but then if they want to regroup and directly attack you you can regroup your own people and set it up. Have a plan and discuss it IC and how to operate it OOC before doing something like this, which you'll certainly know of ahead.

Should we wish up and email before or after our character has been instakilled? If the code supports our deaths as it does now, I sincerely doubt any resurrections for being attacked by 50 NPCs at once will be in order.

Life's tough. Why don't you crusade about some other bug or flaw in the code that actually happens, rather than one that's basically unheard of ever being done. When was the last time a PC was in control of massive amounts of NPCs and ordered them to attack one person at a time? As far as I know, never.

Carnage, this part of your post makes me wonder if you even read the post you responded to. The quote you gave from another actually answers the questions you pose superbly.

Please reread this:

Because as it stands, you can have an -unlimited- number of people attacking any single target, and the more people who attack, the greater the bonus is to the damage, and to the chances of hitting. While the strategic leader and his reserve unit are sitting east of the main battle, with his guard units standing around and avoiding combat in the actual fight zone, his weakened army (from the missing units being used for guarding) is being slaughtered because the other army can gang bang more targets at once.

I'm not quite sure if you understood what I originally said, Allah. Here it is again:

Second, when was the last time in Armageddon you saw someone (a PC preferably) ever being attacked by more than "four to six people" when there's dozens of other targets around? If you did, was it a templar or an officer? Why didn't they have people guarding them, who then proceeded to attack the person who they successfully blocked? If this was on a giant open field, hasn't anyone ever heard of 'rescue'?

I stated the situation was highly unlikely to occur and unheard of, and then proceeded to question as to why certain circumstances weren't taken to protect that person and countermeasures were not done. If you go into battle, as a high-rankign official without guards, expect to die. This isn't an Arnold movie with a buff hero taking on hordes of people. It's gritty realism.

This entire part right here seems kinda misplaced. When me and 50 of my NPCs are in a room with 50 of yours, I don't think we'll be emailing the mud account or emoting out the burning any wagons. Hit and run? This isn't quite real life, Carnage. We have a code we have to play this game by, and we're trying to make it more realistic one step at a time. As it stands now, the way to win is the go from one guy to the other and insta-kill it with 50 NPCs - which, in reality, would not likely be possible in the middle of a battlefield.

If you have 50 NPCs that are prepared to be with you, chances are you have some sort of hint that something big is going to happen and the imms know it as well. If the only thing you do to settle an IC war is have a direct confrontation with the two armies, order all your NPCs to attack one enemy at once and go "okay now your army is destroyed you lose", you're not the kind of person who should be in that sort of position. You can try and make things fun by e-mailing your clan imm (or whoever is supervising) and saying that you want to set up xxx group of players to attack a cargo supply or whatever and ask if you can set it up. If this isn't quite real life and saying that doing things besides having one big fight with NPCs is unrealistic, why are you crusading for this?

This entire argument is pretty idiotic though, considering the situation of someone running around with 50 NPCs and attacking player one, then player two, then player three is never going to actually happen.

[Guest]

A MUD version of the D&D grid system would be nice...

Code Select Expand


xxxxx
x111x
x101x
x111x
xxxxx


With '0' being the target, only 8 people (the 1s in our example) could effectively surround them, if all parties are man-sized. Small creatures might be able to swarm better, while larger ones could not.

[kiddgoth]

Hey is that a mini mine sweeper grid?   0=Boom!!!