Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.
What it made me realise most of all is how long it's been since I have needed to even think about ambush tactics or terrain advantage (other than height perhaps) while fighting a TW battle.... Shogun II was it? Napoleon for certain.
Shogun2, really? With its five-second battles and AI that could only hill-camp and didn't even react if it was shot at while doing so?
What it made me realise most of all is how long it's been since I have needed to even think about ambush tactics or terrain advantage (other than height perhaps) while fighting a TW battle.... Shogun II was it? Napoleon for certain.
Shogun2, really? With its five-second battles and AI that could only hill-camp and didn't even react if it was shot at while doing so?
Shogun 2 had clearly defined terrain advantages and disadvantages in it's battle maps. How the AI utilised them is a different discussion.
MarcusLivius: You are indeed a lord of entitlement.
What it made me realise most of all is how long it's been since I have needed to even think about ambush tactics or terrain advantage (other than height perhaps) while fighting a TW battle.... Shogun II was it? Napoleon for certain.
Shogun2, really? With its five-second battles and AI that could only hill-camp and didn't even react if it was shot at while doing so?
Shogun 2 had clearly defined terrain advantages and disadvantages in it's battle maps. How the AI utilised them is a different discussion.
So does TWWH. The AI sucking at using the terrain is clearly relevant here since S2 is used as a positive counter-example to the current title. Also, concession accepted on S2's even faster pace of battle.
I'm just debunking another case of rose-tinted nostalgia glasses.
battles are the key factor of total war it never was the campaign
This is pure opinion and I'm pretty sure there are a majority of players who would disagree. The game has always been about both. Indeed, I'm 100% certain CA would tell you the campaign is a huge, huge part of the game.
Being familiar with this thread,I don't think Derp believes campaign doesn't matter, just that battles are the highlight (literally-think about what's in their trailers). But yes you are right even that is an overall "opinion" ..
BUT that's the underlining point..don't sacrifice one "highlight" or preference for another, which inevitably takes depth away (adding depth in one area to make one area more shallow). Don't sacrifice one element or preference..KEEP the Game open for all players (See CA stance on Blood andGore)
What it made me realise most of all is how long it's been since I have needed to even think about ambush tactics or terrain advantage (other than height perhaps) while fighting a TW battle.... Shogun II was it? Napoleon for certain.
Shogun2, really? With its five-second battles and AI that could only hill-camp and didn't even react if it was shot at while doing so?
Shogun 2 had clearly defined terrain advantages and disadvantages in it's battle maps. How the AI utilised them is a different discussion.
So does TWWH. The AI sucking at using the terrain is clearly relevant here since S2 is used as a positive counter-example to the current title. Also, concession accepted on S2's even faster pace of battle.
I'm just debunking another case of rose-tinted nostalgia glasses.
I don't care about a discussion on S2's pace of battle. I liked it.
And the battle maps were interesting. Warhammer has a lot good maps. But far too many rolling plains for my liking, particularly in the badlands.
MarcusLivius: You are indeed a lord of entitlement.
What it made me realise most of all is how long it's been since I have needed to even think about ambush tactics or terrain advantage (other than height perhaps) while fighting a TW battle.... Shogun II was it? Napoleon for certain.
Shogun2, really? With its five-second battles and AI that could only hill-camp and didn't even react if it was shot at while doing so?
Shogun 2 had clearly defined terrain advantages and disadvantages in it's battle maps. How the AI utilised them is a different discussion.
So does TWWH. The AI sucking at using the terrain is clearly relevant here since S2 is used as a positive counter-example to the current title. Also, concession accepted on S2's even faster pace of battle.
I'm just debunking another case of rose-tinted nostalgia glasses.
I don't care about a discussion on S2's pace of battle. I liked it.
And the battle maps were interesting. Warhammer has a lot good maps. But far too many rolling plains for my liking, particularly in the badlands.
This.
There's no nostalgia re Shogun 2 where I'm concerned @Ephraim_Dalton . I hated battles in that game. They represented a huge departure from what we'd had before and - certainly in terms of their OTT fast pacing - set the trend for a lot that's been bad about battles ever since.
But as Commissar says, terrain advantages played a much more significant role and map design was much superior. They were big and varied enough to produce some great encounters, even if those were over in the blink of an eye and often played out with a tediously samey army comp.
We've had a long stint of TW games putting fast and furious battles at the centre of their being. I think we're ready now for something new. Not necessarily a slavish reproduction of what has come before, but a formula that offers the map space and battle pace that allows creative and adaptive tactics rather than a frenzied rock-paper-scissorsfest.
Maybe not for Warhammer (too late for that), but absolutely for the next historical title.
I also disliked Warhammer's pace when I started playing. . . but it kinda grew on me. Yes, it's quick, but the only battles that really over in the blink of an eye are the ones that were destined to be boring anyway - when both players bring rush armies and just slam them together. If you've got balanced army lists with infantry, cavalry, skirmishers, artillery, maybe a monster or two, then the battle does, in my experience, settle out into distinct phases and require significant tactical understanding to win effectively. And I've had a few quick battles where I was getting quite worried about the twenty-minute timer running out, particularly playing Greenskins v. Dwarfs where artillery and skirmishing play a significant role in breaking up the Dwarfen defensive position.
battles are the key factor of total war it never was the campaign
This is pure opinion and I'm pretty sure there are a majority of players who would disagree. The game has always been about both. Indeed, I'm 100% certain CA would tell you the campaign is a huge, huge part of the game.
Of course Total War the Empire building and management SIM......
I adapted to the pace as well, went from first battle: what the **** it's over? To I got this...and still....****! It's over already.
I found the only way to have near the feel of pace of battle that's ideal (longer than avg. 5- 8 min) is to have most forces (half on the map) skirmishes or missle units.
But then it's a shoot out and skirmish fight and still limiting, especially with unit choice IMO (and apparently many others).
Mods aren't same caliber as CA product, slow motion would be great if we wanted to just stare at our monitors-BUT we DONT, and pause is always good for a tactical pause (bathroom run, or child wakes up-still want to be a good prent AND save game) but does nothing for the overall pace.
From what I gather, that's not suitable, and most people here didn't just start (myself 200+ hours -just battles)
battles are the key factor of total war it never was the campaign
This is pure opinion and I'm pretty sure there are a majority of players who would disagree. The game has always been about both. Indeed, I'm 100% certain CA would tell you the campaign is a huge, huge part of the game.
Of course Total War the Empire building and management SIM......
It´s not like Total war does a better job at beeing a sole Battle simulator either. Total War never was great because of its Campaign or Battles. it was great becouse it has both in a good manner and connected. Not because it did one part perfectly...
battles are the key factor of total war it never was the campaign
This is pure opinion and I'm pretty sure there are a majority of players who would disagree. The game has always been about both. Indeed, I'm 100% certain CA would tell you the campaign is a huge, huge part of the game.
Of course Total War the Empire building and management SIM......
It´s not like Total war does a better job at beeing a sole Battle simulator either. Total War never was great because of its Campaign or Battles. it was great becouse it has both in a good manner and connected. Not because it did one part perfectly...
No one said TW should be about just one, but saying that battles arent its focus is ridiculous. Total War has absolutly nothing in its campaign that other games dont do better, campaign only exists to give the battles context, thats why you dont see empire management in MP and its why campaign has been so dumbed down, you dont even control taxes, diplomacy hasnt seen an improvement since god knows when, food system has been removed etc. You just have to see how CA actually markets the game to see where its focus is, but this is not the subject of the thread so lets all agree to disagree
No one said TW should be about just one, but saying that battles arent its focus is ridiculous. Total War has absolutly nothing in its campaign that other games dont do better, campaign only exists to give the battles context, thats why you dont see empire management in MP and its why campaign has been so dumbed down, you dont even control taxes, diplomacy hasnt seen an improvement since god knows when, food system has been removed etc. You just have to see how CA actually markets the game to see where its focus is, but this is not the subject of the thread so lets all agree to disagree
Just because games like EU4 or CK2 have a better campaign part, doesnt mean the campaign is not a esential part of Total War. Games like Graviteam Tactics, Pike and Shot, ect.. Do the Battle-part better, so what? With shadow of the horned rat and Mark of Chaos, there are actually Warhammer-Setting-Battle games, with better Battles (if you take their rlease-date into account of course) There are even new Additions, promoted as core-features, wich are campaign only, such as Hero-Development, Legendary Lord-Quest-Lines, ect... Empire Management is perfectly possible in Multiplayer, if you start a Multiplayer-Campaign.
I agree that the Campaign has been dumped down but so has the battles. The whole game has been dumped down compared to previous Titles. Neither can we control Taxes, nor can we fight bridge-battles. Neither Diplomacy nor Sieges have seen a Improvmenet since god knows when (they arguably got even worse. The Food System has been removed, so has stances, formations and ammo-types. So i rather see the focus on accessability, not on the battles...
No one said TW should be about just one, but saying that battles arent its focus is ridiculous. Total War has absolutly nothing in its campaign that other games dont do better, campaign only exists to give the battles context, thats why you dont see empire management in MP and its why campaign has been so dumbed down, you dont even control taxes, diplomacy hasnt seen an improvement since god knows when, food system has been removed etc. You just have to see how CA actually markets the game to see where its focus is, but this is not the subject of the thread so lets all agree to disagree
Just because games like EU4 or CK2 have a better campaign part, doesnt mean the campaign is not a esential part of Total War. Games like Graviteam Tactics, Pike and Shot, ect.. Do the Battle-part better, so what? With shadow of the horned rat and Mark of Chaos, there are actually Warhammer-Setting-Battle games, with better Battles (if you take their rlease-date into account of course) There are even new Additions, promoted as core-features, wich are campaign only, such as Hero-Development, Legendary Lord-Quest-Lines, ect... Empire Management is perfectly possible in Multiplayer, if you start a Multiplayer-Campaign.
I agree that the Campaign has been dumped down but so has the battles. The whole game has been dumped down compared to previous Titles. Neither can we control Taxes, nor can we fight bridge-battles. Neither Diplomacy nor Sieges have seen a Improvmenet since god knows when (they arguably got even worse. The Food System has been removed, so has stances, formations and ammo-types. So i rather see the focus on accessability, not on the battles...
mine are on average 7-8 minutes for two full stacks, seems about perfect to me
boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality or reason burns or acid bruises anyone, stop your gladiator love for agressions.
I think it's fair to put the question of correct battle pace in TW games in with the other big ones, like:
What is the meaning of life? What came before the Big Bang Are we alone?
and "Who killed the Dead Sea?"
You still haven't figured out the meaning of life?
Mortals........
YOU WILL NOT MOCK THE EMPIRE OF MANS MORTALITY, LORD AVADON. WE WILL REST IN SIGMARS HALLS, WHILE YOUR SOUL WILL BELONG TO THE RUINOS GODS FOR ETERNITY.
A soul?.......never had one in the first place........
Though....I do have....a nice collection.....and I am always looking.......to add to it.........
mine are on average 7-8 minutes for two full stacks, seems about perfect to me
Reason why I'd want an alternative over a compromise...-alot of people agree with you. I think I understand the preference, but for me it takes a lot of the enjoyment out of the game at the current pace.
Hey no harm giving support in alternative battle pace,huh? You might even enjoy it over current rush pace..ya know might have TOO much bugmans "juice"...need to take things a little bit more slow --but still having the intensity of battle simulator..
And that's heresy @Fredrin, it is not too late for CA to implement a change in TW:Warhammer!! Their announcement trailer featured the lord of change! Haha means they have too..right?
i could handle them being a few minutes longer but i feel like 20 would be way too long except for maybe fall of man style battles
i generally feel like they've hit the right balance in terms of how long combat lasts and how long it takes to make flanking maneuvers and all that stuff though especially as a translation from tabletop warhammer, where combat is also very decisive when it doesn't involve units that are meant to be tarpits, like flagellants and slayers and skeletons
boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality or reason burns or acid bruises anyone, stop your gladiator love for agressions.
I tend to fight a lot of the big battles on slow speed so for me a big battle tends to take 30mins at a guess although maybe only 10-15mins of in game 'battle time' I have no problem with how things are now really.
I feel the proper combat mod hits the right pacing... Battle lines stand long enough for cav-charges to actually matter... additionaly battles "feel" better... Two stacks per side feel like a real battle instead of a 5 minute slaughter fest. Only heroes and lords could be a bit weaker still... lategame sometimes army's don't feel like army's, more like background-scenery for lords
Yeah it's pretty rare that I'll get a cavalry unit in position to flank too late to make a difference, usually only if the power differential of the units meant that flanking was unnecessary to begin with
boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality or reason burns or acid bruises anyone, stop your gladiator love for agressions.
yeah i don't understand that, nothing really seems to melt that quickly, and if it is then either
a) you already won the combat and your cav would be better utilized somewhere else b) you need a tougher unit for an anvil to hold the enemy to let your cavalry hammer get maneuvered c) you waited waaay too long to get your cav into position
boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality or reason burns or acid bruises anyone, stop your gladiator love for agressions.
The way I see it, Benny Hill battle speed is just a way to compensate for the fact that tactical gameplay is just a bit rudimentary.
If there's not a great deal of mental challenge presented by tactical decision-making... put the player under time pressure and *boom*, there's your challenge.
Maneuvering should play a much bigger role, as should the significance of committing a unit to combat, as should terrain penalties, weather conditions, height advantage, general traits and a whole host of other variables that altogether make commanding battles a fun intellectual challenge.
The way I see it, Benny Hill battle speed is just a way to compensate for the fact that tactical gameplay is just a bit rudimentary.
If there's not a great deal of mental challenge presented by tactical decision-making... put the player under time pressure and *boom*, there's your challenge.
Maneuvering should play a much bigger role, as should the significance of committing a unit to combat, as should terrain penalties, weather conditions, height advantage, general traits and a whole host of other variables that altogether make commanding battles a fun intellectual challenge.
NOT REACTION SPEED
Dude, TWWH has probably the best BAI of the series yet when it comes to deployment and picking targets and I've yet to see "Benny Hill" speed. Hyperbole like that only weakens your argument.
I just had a VC vs VC battle. Those are incredibly static even if you outflank and surround the enemy. I shudder at what would happen if the slowpokes got their way and all combat became like that.
The way I see it, Benny Hill battle speed is just a way to compensate for the fact that tactical gameplay is just a bit rudimentary.
If there's not a great deal of mental challenge presented by tactical decision-making... put the player under time pressure and *boom*, there's your challenge.
Maneuvering should play a much bigger role, as should the significance of committing a unit to combat, as should terrain penalties, weather conditions, height advantage, general traits and a whole host of other variables that altogether make commanding battles a fun intellectual challenge.
NOT REACTION SPEED
Dude, TWWH has probably the best BAI of the series yet when it comes to deployment and picking targets and I've yet to see "Benny Hill" speed. Hyperbole like that only weakens your argument.
I just had a VC vs VC battle. Those are incredibly static even if you outflank and surround the enemy. I shudder at what would happen if the slowpokes got their way and all combat became like that.
My Benny Hill is your Matrix Bullet Time. Point is, it's subjective.
Plus, it's not an either/or argument if players are given global speed options. Otherwise, I'd just be telling you to use the 4x speed function, in the same way "slow-coaches"are forced to play the game paused or in slow-mo most of the time.
All that's neither here nor there, to be honest. My main point is that if combat was a more satisfying mix of competing variables, needing to be weighed up to form a unique and interesting strategy, battles would last longer and be a lot more interesting than they are currently. 6-8 minutes puts it in the ranks of an easy Sudoku puzzle and requires about as much imagination too.
maybe you could turn up the difficulty if it's too easy
boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality or reason burns or acid bruises anyone, stop your gladiator love for agressions.
Comments
Shogun2, really? With its five-second battles and AI that could only hill-camp and didn't even react if it was shot at while doing so?
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeI'm just debunking another case of rose-tinted nostalgia glasses.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeBUT that's the underlining point..don't sacrifice one "highlight" or preference for another, which inevitably takes depth away (adding depth in one area to make one area more shallow). Don't sacrifice one element or preference..KEEP the Game open for all players
(See CA stance on Blood andGore)
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeAnd the battle maps were interesting. Warhammer has a lot good maps. But far too many rolling plains for my liking, particularly in the badlands.
- Report
2 · Disagree AgreeThere's no nostalgia re Shogun 2 where I'm concerned @Ephraim_Dalton . I hated battles in that game. They represented a huge departure from what we'd had before and - certainly in terms of their OTT fast pacing - set the trend for a lot that's been bad about battles ever since.
But as Commissar says, terrain advantages played a much more significant role and map design was much superior. They were big and varied enough to produce some great encounters, even if those were over in the blink of an eye and often played out with a tediously samey army comp.
We've had a long stint of TW games putting fast and furious battles at the centre of their being. I think we're ready now for something new. Not necessarily a slavish reproduction of what has come before, but a formula that offers the map space and battle pace that allows creative and adaptive tactics rather than a frenzied rock-paper-scissorsfest.
Maybe not for Warhammer (too late for that), but absolutely for the next historical title.
- Report
1 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeI found the only way to have near the feel of pace of battle that's ideal (longer than avg. 5- 8 min) is to have most forces (half on the map) skirmishes or missle units.
But then it's a shoot out and skirmish fight and still limiting, especially with unit choice IMO (and apparently many others).
Mods aren't same caliber as CA product, slow motion would be great if we wanted to just stare at our monitors-BUT we DONT, and pause is always good for a tactical pause (bathroom run, or child wakes up-still want to be a good prent AND save game) but does nothing for the overall pace.
From what I gather, that's not suitable, and most people here didn't just start (myself 200+ hours -just battles)
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeTotal War never was great because of its Campaign or Battles. it was great becouse it has both in a good manner and connected. Not because it did one part perfectly...
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
2 · Disagree AgreeI agree that the Campaign has been dumped down but so has the battles. The whole game has been dumped down compared to previous Titles. Neither can we control Taxes, nor can we fight bridge-battles. Neither Diplomacy nor Sieges have seen a Improvmenet since god knows when (they arguably got even worse. The Food System has been removed, so has stances, formations and ammo-types. So i rather see the focus on accessability, not on the battles...
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeMine is 5-8min long on average.
How long would you want them to be compared to the recent build?
I would like the average land battle (not including quest battles) to take 15-20 min.
It's really crazy, no matter how many armies you fight, or who is leading them, or where you fight does not significantly change battle length.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agreeor reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
stop your gladiator love for agressions.
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeThough....I do have....a nice collection.....and I am always looking.......to add to it.........
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeHey no harm giving support in alternative battle pace,huh? You might even enjoy it over current rush pace..ya know might have TOO much bugmans "juice"...need to take things a little bit more slow --but still having the intensity of battle simulator..
And that's heresy @Fredrin, it is not too late for CA to implement a change in TW:Warhammer!! Their announcement trailer featured the lord of change! Haha means they have too..right?
- Report
1 · Disagree Agreei generally feel like they've hit the right balance in terms of how long combat lasts and how long it takes to make flanking maneuvers and all that stuff though especially as a translation from tabletop warhammer, where combat is also very decisive when it doesn't involve units that are meant to be tarpits, like flagellants and slayers and skeletons
or reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
stop your gladiator love for agressions.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeI have no problem with how things are now really.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAre we lacking mods that can do this while preserving balance?
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThey already do so unmodded unless you're really slow on the uptake.
- Report
1 · Disagree Agreeor reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
stop your gladiator love for agressions.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeA slower paced mode would be very welcome.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
2 · Disagree Agreea) you already won the combat and your cav would be better utilized somewhere else
b) you need a tougher unit for an anvil to hold the enemy to let your cavalry hammer get maneuvered
c) you waited waaay too long to get your cav into position
or reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
stop your gladiator love for agressions.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIf there's not a great deal of mental challenge presented by tactical decision-making... put the player under time pressure and *boom*, there's your challenge.
Maneuvering should play a much bigger role, as should the significance of committing a unit to combat, as should terrain penalties, weather conditions, height advantage, general traits and a whole host of other variables that altogether make commanding battles a fun intellectual challenge.
NOT REACTION SPEED
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeI just had a VC vs VC battle. Those are incredibly static even if you outflank and surround the enemy. I shudder at what would happen if the slowpokes got their way and all combat became like that.
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreePlus, it's not an either/or argument if players are given global speed options. Otherwise, I'd just be telling you to use the 4x speed function, in the same way "slow-coaches"are forced to play the game paused or in slow-mo most of the time.
All that's neither here nor there, to be honest. My main point is that if combat was a more satisfying mix of competing variables, needing to be weighed up to form a unique and interesting strategy, battles would last longer and be a lot more interesting than they are currently. 6-8 minutes puts it in the ranks of an easy Sudoku puzzle and requires about as much imagination too.
- Report
1 · Disagree Agreeor reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
stop your gladiator love for agressions.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree