Let's talk military!

[Atralane]

One thing I’ve discussed in several threads previously on the topic of warfare was individual unit/squad behaviors. Here’s some from the combat feedback thread…

@Atralane

Something I’d like is to set “personalities” for groups when fighting, such as “defensive” or “aggressive”. Based on the style chosen, units would have different chances for blocking a hit or attacking more frequently (but more likely to be hit, due to carelessness). These two examples could be used as such:

Defensive–Hold out until reinforcements arrive! A swarm of enemies rushes a soldier away from your other troops. There’s too many to attempt fighting back safely, so just hold back until everyone else comes!

Aggressive–Push back the horde! A mass of weaker enemies is threatening to overtake your units. Since their attacks do little damage and they can’t take much of a hit individually, instructing your soldiers to not hold back will dispatch them faster, before they can start dealing some serious injuries!

@Atralane

One thing I would like to see possibly implemented soon are early-game non-lethal weapons.

This came up to me after watching last week’s playthrough, where they again mentioned the passive vs. aggressive event tree. Currently, this is only based on thieving goblins. The problem is that, aside from letting the goblins take all your stuff and terrify your villagers or wall off your entire area, there’s not much your settlement can do to passively resolve the situation.

That’s why I would like the ability to create/substitute basic non-lethal weapons for your footmen to use against this first threat. Particularly, a net crafted by the weaver seemed to be a viable possibility, as it could be produced and used by the current classes available so far. The footmen could additionally have a fight/capture behavior, where the latter would weaken the enemies to increase the chance of capture, Damage dealt to units might be more likely, since they’re trying to subdue the foe and can’t outright fight them as normal.

Perhaps all (or most) weapons could have a “non-lethal mode”? Such as the flat side of a sword, butt of a spear, back of a katana, blunt arrows, etc. The option to use either mode could be decided in a squad tactic for a group of soldiers.

Specifically, I’m interested in how Stonehearth will allow us to use our soldiers. Unlike most RTS games, Stonehearth’s more personal, yet detached playing style goal is opening new strategic and immersive elements to gameplay beyond the general “How do I destroy Player 2?” mentality. Several of us have already begun thinking about the logistics requirements for a full-scale assault on an enemy, especially when you have supplies and camping to think about. Personally, I’d be interested in seeing this, as this commonly is overlooked in a lot of games I’ve played.

As for controlling units in combat, I sort of like the style seen currently in RimWorld, which seems to balance some automatic control and manual directions for units. If we are ultimately aiming for less RTS “hyper-clicking” management (and I say that with both respect and familiarity), the ability to create battle formations and tactics is critical. I mentioned this with @Teleros’s zone thread, since I feel zones can offer the foundation to some of this for the defensive portion of the game–as for offensive and exploration, this will need to be an on-the-go system, so pre-made formations and behaviors seem critical for me.

I still feel the need for direct control, so how will that work? Well, one possibility could be a minor hit to morale; if your army goes in with numerous battle plans memorized and orders ready to be executed and then all of a sudden they’re told to drop them, and perform this action instead–well, this can worry soldiers and throw some panic in the ranks. If you stick to the plans you make (or pre-created stock plans) and don’t directly control units and squads, the soldiers will be more at ease and fight more effectively. If an order falls under the general plan, such as archers switching from one bigger unit to another, and they originally were ordered to “attack larger threats first”, then this wouldn’t really affect their morale–it’s just redirecting fire on another of the same enemy.

Of course, for single squads, this would be less of an element–independent squads can act as your personal soldiers, useful both for strategic movement in a large battle separate from the main force or for exploration and treasure hunting. The downside of having a smaller force could be less morale gain for winning battles (bigger army = more cheering and celebrating afterwards), or perhaps a limit to how many of these special task forces you can make. That way, the smaller entity uses more direct control methods, while the larger army for offense/defense requires a little more logistics to work and tries to follow general battle plans to limit micromanagement in a large battle.

What do you think?