Pace of batlle.

DerpCat

Im hoping that for the next expansion they dont just enlarge the map and give more factions. I really hope they reformulate sieges but above all that the maps get bigger and the pace of batlle slower, i can barely enjoy myself looking at the units bc battles are so damn fast, it kinda takes away the immersion and epicness. Also i think it diminishes strategy, as you cant really take your time to decide what you want to do, be it attacking or defending. Prior Total wars were never this fast and table top warhammer never really required fast decision making

boyfights

You can always pause? Unless you're playing multiplayer I guess, but that's a whole different problem

Gaussia

I agree. I think that longer battles would enhance tactics while reducing micromanagment (would also prefere larger maps on the same theme).

I think the battle pace is a deseign decision though were they don't want battles to last to long in which case we who wants longer battles can only hope the designers change their mind.

Do anyone know if the developers have said anything about battle pacing when they disscus the game? Would be interesting to know their opinions about it.

Commissar_G#7535

I'm already 250 turns into a VC campaign and it's starting to feel tedious.

I really don't my campaigns to last longer.

boyfights

I'm doing a slower vc campaign right now to try and figure out what the appeal is and I'm coming up dry, I'll never understand people playing the same campaigns for 300+ turns

TyrionLamperouge

I really hope that with all the money they have made and the money they will make with the dlc, they will try to make the game more enjoyable with full rosters, bigger maps, longer battles and a complete rework on sieges (the worst in all the total war saga).

DerpCat

boyfights said:

You can always pause? Unless you're playing multiplayer I guess, but that's a whole different problem

Pausing is anti climating, besides bigger and slower batles have a much more epic and strategic feel, thats why other TW games were like that

DerpCat

boyfights said:

I'm doing a slower vc campaign right now to try and figure out what the appeal is and I'm coming up dry, I'll never understand people playing the same campaigns for 300+ turns

What do turns have to do with better batles?

DerpCat

Commissar_G said:

I'm already 250 turns into a VC campaign and it's starting to feel tedious.

I really don't my campaigns to last longer.

Were you bored by every campaign of other TW's titles then? Bc this game's batles are ridiculously smal and fast when compared to other titles in the series.

DerpCat

I really think we could have both sides. I mean they arent going to discard every map they made so far, thats ridiculous, but we could have a section of Large maps. So like we could choose ambush, subterrean, sige, short, and large maps

brbonfire

Guys talking about campaign length, he's pretty clearly referring to *battle* length. Also, OP, you're using a battle lengthener mod, right? I know, I know, it'd be better if it were in the base game, but it'd fix the problem.

I actually... kind of agree and disagree on this one. Basically, it's a direct clash between Total War and Warhammer spirit. Total War is more about longer battles, while the tabletop battles, although turns can take a while, typically only run like, six or seven turns or so. Some people like the shorter, more arcadey style of TWWH as well.

At least, I THINK it was six or seven turns. Has it changed recently?

boyfights

I took it to mean that longer battles make for a longer overall campaign, obviously depending on how many battles end up actually being played

boyfights

In terms of hours rather than turns

theedge634#1394

Commissar_G said:

I'm already 250 turns into a VC campaign and it's starting to feel tedious.

I really don't my campaigns to last longer.

Campaigns get tedious at like turn 50 to me. The issues isn't so much pace of the campaign, but more a lack of the AI's ability to build a decent army and force battles in their favor.

I think the one thing that truly holds the GC back IMO is the lack of resistance from opposing factions once you get your economy up and rolling. Well that, and the lack of ever facing a decent army from opposing factions. I consistently find myself rolling into battle with tier 4/5 units against tier 2 units... it's pretty anti-climactic when everything you face is pretty much a push-over, with the computer's only chance of beating you coming through shear attrition.

DerpCat

boyfights said:

I took it to mean that longer battles make for a longer overall campaign, obviously depending on how many battles end up actually being played

If people are annoyed to play longer batles just because it consumes more time it begs the question why are they playing at all, are they not having fun?
Edit: I mean campaign i can kind of understand but batles hsould be the fun part right?

DerpCat

brbonfire said:

Guys talking about campaign length, he's pretty clearly referring to *battle* length. Also, OP, you're using a battle lengthener mod, right? I know, I know, it'd be better if it were in the base game, but it'd fix the problem.

I actually... kind of agree and disagree on this one. Basically, it's a direct clash between Total War and Warhammer spirit. Total War is more about longer battles, while the tabletop battles, although turns can take a while, typically only run like, six or seven turns or so. Some people like the shorter, more arcadey style of TWWH as well.

At least, I THINK it was six or seven turns. Has it changed recently?

True TT didnt have big batlles but bc it was done in turns, the sartegic side was not compromised bc each player had lots of time to think, something we dont see in TTW, unless you pause but i find that very immersion breaking and is not possible in MP

Commissar_G#7535

boyfights said:

I'm doing a slower vc campaign right now to try and figure out what the appeal is and I'm coming up dry, I'll never understand people playing the same campaigns for 300+ turns

I'm not "trying" to play a long ass campaign it's just how the cookie has crumbled.

I have no choice but to fight the battles as stacks of ironbreakers, slayers, hammerers, thunderers, gyros and artillery are apparently better than my 9 chevron elite VC armies.

Which is fine. I'm enjoying the strategic challenge. But if battles took me any longer the campaign would be beyond tedious. I'm currently fighting my 19th Dwarf stack in about 40 turns since they declared war.

Commissar_G#7535

As you can see, really not having an issue with the AI's army comp this campaign.

Nyanko73

Get the Proper Combat Mod from Kam on steam. It will be a game changer for you.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=691006940

GRAY_HAT

DerpCat said:

boyfights said:

I took it to mean that longer battles make for a longer overall campaign, obviously depending on how many battles end up actually being played

If people are annoyed to play longer batles just because it consumes more time it begs the question why are they playing at all, are they not having fun?
Edit: I mean campaign i can kind of understand but batles hsould be the fun part right?

The trick is keeping them the fun part, a huge 60 v 60 battle with top tier units will be fine if it's slowed down but I think !most people would prefer not to have the 5v5 40minute battles that M2 couldhave sometimes as the normal

So ask is this mod or base ?

DerpCat

Commissar_G said:

boyfights said:

I'm doing a slower vc campaign right now to try and figure out what the appeal is and I'm coming up dry, I'll never understand people playing the same campaigns for 300+ turns

I'm not "trying" to play a long **** campaign it's just how the cookie has crumbled.

I have no choice but to fight the battles as stacks of ironbreakers, slayers, hammerers, thunderers, gyros and artillery are apparently better than my 9 chevron elite VC armies.

Which is fine. I'm enjoying the strategic challenge. But if battles took me any longer the campaign would be beyond tedious. I'm currently fighting my 19th Dwarf stack in about 40 turns since they declared war.

But thats comes from a campaign issue, batles shouldnt be penalized bc the campaign was poorly designed, and maybe if batles were better you wouldnt be so bored

DerpCat

grayhat said:

DerpCat said:

boyfights said:

I took it to mean that longer battles make for a longer overall campaign, obviously depending on how many battles end up actually being played

If people are annoyed to play longer batles just because it consumes more time it begs the question why are they playing at all, are they not having fun?
Edit: I mean campaign i can kind of understand but batles hsould be the fun part right?

The trick is keeping them the fun part, a huge 60 v 60 battle with top tier units will be fine if it's slowed down but I think !most people would prefer not to have the 5v5 40minute battles that M2 couldhave sometimes as the normal

So ask is this mod or base ?

well 40 min is too much, there's a midlle ground....

krunsh

I feel like battle pace is slowly finding its place with each update. I have been using the Proper Combat mod which slows it down, but with the new patch I started a vanilla campaign as the empire and not hating the battle pace.

I think it just needs to be slightly slower. As for previous Total War games not being so far, that just isn't true. Both Rome 2 and Attila started super fast and were slowed down in the following patches. Mostly it's having lots of units with terrible stats or low more (Levy in previous games) which causes this in the early game. If the gap is reduced between core and elite units, and units are balanced well, it should fix itself.

boyfights

DerpCat said:

boyfights said:

I took it to mean that longer battles make for a longer overall campaign, obviously depending on how many battles end up actually being played

If people are annoyed to play longer batles just because it consumes more time it begs the question why are they playing at all, are they not having fun?
Edit: I mean campaign i can kind of understand but batles hsould be the fun part right?

i don't mind playing the odd longer battle and usually try to set up battles with multiple stacks when the opportunity presents itself, but i do find the battle speed appropriate where it is, with most of my battles lasting around 6-8 minutes and i don't really feel like it needs to be much longer

i like how decisive the combat is and don't really see the appeal in waiting for my mans to slowly chip away at the other team's mans, unless my mans are horse archers in which case it excites me unreasonably but i wouldn't want that to go any slower either

boyfights

Commissar_G said:

I'm not "trying" to play a long **** campaign it's just how the cookie has crumbled.

I have no choice but to fight the battles as stacks of ironbreakers, slayers, hammerers, thunderers, gyros and artillery are apparently better than my 9 chevron elite VC armies.

Which is fine. I'm enjoying the strategic challenge. But if battles took me any longer the campaign would be beyond tedious. I'm currently fighting my 19th Dwarf stack in about 40 turns since they declared war.

are you using vlad? i think i'm just bad at the game but i almost never end up with more than a couple rank 9 units, i tend to blast through most of my campaigns in like 80-100 turns but my ghorst campaign is already at 150 and looking like at least another 50, so far i'm still enjoying it but feeling like i better start doing something about empire or chaos because they're both getting pretty strong, i decided to take all the southern provinces in this one instead of blazing straight at reikland like i did with mannfred

Commissar_G#7535

DerpCat said:

Commissar_G said:

boyfights said:

I'm doing a slower vc campaign right now to try and figure out what the appeal is and I'm coming up dry, I'll never understand people playing the same campaigns for 300+ turns

I'm not "trying" to play a long **** campaign it's just how the cookie has crumbled.

I have no choice but to fight the battles as stacks of ironbreakers, slayers, hammerers, thunderers, gyros and artillery are apparently better than my 9 chevron elite VC armies.

Which is fine. I'm enjoying the strategic challenge. But if battles took me any longer the campaign would be beyond tedious. I'm currently fighting my 19th Dwarf stack in about 40 turns since they declared war.

But thats comes from a campaign issue, batles shouldnt be penalized bc the campaign was poorly designed, and maybe if batles were better you wouldnt be so bored

It's not a campaign "problem". I'm playing on legendary. I want the challenge.

The battles are fun as hell. I'm just fighting a plethora of them and making very little ground in the process as I can't auto-resolve any of them with how punished VC are in the auto department.

Think of how big the campaign map going to be by the end too. 2 large new areas of map in game 1. 2 smaller new zones for Skaven and WE.

New continents with Lustria, naggaroth and ulthuan and whatever they decide to do for daemons. Battle length all adds up.

epic_159733007811cHJwei4

I personally think the battles, on average, could be around 2 - 3 minutes longer. But that's about it. Any longer than that and things start to drag imo.

But I will say it's so fast currently that you barely get to appreciate the setting.

DerpCat

Commissar_G said:

DerpCat said:

Commissar_G said:

boyfights said:

I'm doing a slower vc campaign right now to try and figure out what the appeal is and I'm coming up dry, I'll never understand people playing the same campaigns for 300+ turns

I'm not "trying" to play a long **** campaign it's just how the cookie has crumbled.

I have no choice but to fight the battles as stacks of ironbreakers, slayers, hammerers, thunderers, gyros and artillery are apparently better than my 9 chevron elite VC armies.

Which is fine. I'm enjoying the strategic challenge. But if battles took me any longer the campaign would be beyond tedious. I'm currently fighting my 19th Dwarf stack in about 40 turns since they declared war.

But thats comes from a campaign issue, batles shouldnt be penalized bc the campaign was poorly designed, and maybe if batles were better you wouldnt be so bored

It's not a campaign "problem". I'm playing on legendary. I want the challenge.

The battles are fun as hell. I'm just fighting a plethora of them and making very little ground in the process as I can't auto-resolve any of them with how punished VC are in the auto department.

Think of how big the campaign map going to be by the end too. 2 large new areas of map in game 1. 2 smaller new zones for Skaven and WE.

New continents with Lustria, naggaroth and ulthuan and whatever they decide to do for daemons. Battle length all adds up.

Again i dont know how any of this correalates with the change of battles, these are all campaign issues, i get that by extending batle time the campaign is going to be longer than before BUT batles are the key factor of total war it never was the campaign, does anyone really consider building some buildings and managing some dodgy diplomacy mechanic more entertaining then the actual batles? Then change the campaign dont sacrifice batles bc of it

DerpCat

FrontlinerDelta said:

I personally think the battles, on average, could be around 2 - 3 minutes longer. But that's about it. Any longer than that and things start to drag imo.

But I will say it's so fast currently that you barely get to appreciate the setting.

precisely, i dont want them to be super long either but at least some more time just to apreciate it

Nyanko73

Battles are way too fast for me in vanilla. That's why I am using a mod. I understand some people like the click frenzy stance like James on twitch but personally, I enjoy micro managing units heavily and the pace is just not enjoyable at the moment for that purpose.

I wish CA would have created different pace settings to accommodate different play styles.

Bel_Isar

I think they should be slightly longer to give you more time for maneuvers. Currently the Battle ends shortly after the battlelines make them like 20-30% longer, so you have more time to outflank or outmaneuver the Enemy.
I even had fights, where the reinforcements reached the fight after the main army was done...

it shouldnt reach Rome 2 Hoplite-Levels though. But 8 Minutes to concquer the largest city of the empire... Thats just not epic at any level...