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.
I'm surprised (not really--it's the Internet) you are still completely missing "the head of the nail" on why atheres a demand (people wanting)for an alternative battle pace option @boyfights
1st No one(from what I gather), outside of watching replays--says they want to watch two stacks of phalanx crash into each other...
2nd no wonder those take forever that isn't the most balanced army, is it?
3rd difficulty doesn't change battle pace. Although your confusion on battle pace, I do appreciate you tempting to understand and feedback you give to try and make this game enjoyable, even if the suggestions have most likely been attempted. (I mean this to be absent of hostility, no wish for **** contest, we can say you won to avoid that)
People are making great points and highlighting reasonable concerns in this thread on the topic of TWW battle pace,I hope it keeps up and others join the conversation ...looking at you @CA & the more introverted of you out there that feel the same way or if you do like pace but would like an alternate battle pace option (to solidify a chunk of support for this game), speak up!
Sorry for long post...not normally like me..lol in the spirit of ...longer battles?
And it would be so easy to implement besides. They just have to check Proper Combat Mod and tweak it. And everyone would be happy. So come on, CA, a little concern for players here would be appreciated. Thanks.
Team Yennefer
"A blinding flash materialised into a transparent sphere, and inside it loomed a shape, assuming contours and shapes at frightening speed. Dandelion recognised it at once. He knew those wild, black curls and the obsidian star on a velvet ribbon. What he didn’t know and had never seen before was the face. It was a face of rage and fury, the face of the goddess of vengeance, destruction and death." - Time of contempt
I wouldn't get your hopes up, guys. The specific issue of variable battle speeds is one I've been arguing for on the forums since 2013. I've raised threads (many times), asked CA staff on the forums direct, peppered chat on Twitch with related questions when they throw it open to a Q&A.... nothing .
I have no idea why it's something they refuse to give the most basic answer about. I assume it's something to do with our Reptilian overlords or the higher echelons of the illuminati preventing them on the basis that too much freedom of choice might give us trogs funny ideas.
It would be refreshing is that policy had suddenly changed, though.
Any chance you can enlighten us to why global options aren't introduced for something as divisive as battle speed? I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation.
And it would be so easy to implement besides. They just have to check Proper Combat Mod and tweak it. And everyone would be happy. So come on, CA, a little concern for players here would be appreciated. Thanks.
Have you thought about not everyone wanting combat to be slowed down? Or is that of no concern to you? I mean, since there's a mod you can use to slow combat down, why try and force it on everyone?
And it would be so easy to implement besides. They just have to check Proper Combat Mod and tweak it. And everyone would be happy. So come on, CA, a little concern for players here would be appreciated. Thanks.
Have you thought about not everyone wanting combat to be slowed down? Or is that of no concern to you? I mean, since there's a mod you can use to slow combat down, why try and force it on everyone?
I may be mistaken, but I think most people are arguing for variable options, so that no set speed is forced on anyone, as is currently the case.
And it would be so easy to implement besides. They just have to check Proper Combat Mod and tweak it. And everyone would be happy. So come on, CA, a little concern for players here would be appreciated. Thanks.
Have you thought about not everyone wanting combat to be slowed down? Or is that of no concern to you? I mean, since there's a mod you can use to slow combat down, why try and force it on everyone?
The discussion was about a optional "slow pace mode"... Like in "choose if you want slow or fast battles like you choose if you want small or large units"-optional...
I wouldn't get your hopes up, guys. The specific issue of variable battle speeds is one I've been arguing for on the forums since 2013. I've raised threads (many times), asked CA staff on the forums direct, peppered chat on Twitch with related questions when they throw it open to a Q&A.... nothing .
I have no idea why it's something they refuse to give the most basic answer about. I assume it's something to do with our Reptilian overlords or the higher echelons of the illuminati preventing them on the basis that too much freedom of choice might give us trogs funny ideas.
It would be refreshing is that policy had suddenly changed, though.
Any chance you can enlighten us to why global options aren't introduced for something as divisive as battle speed? I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation.
To be fair, As much as I would love such option, it would be a **** of work to balance it for different paces... I mean you can just increase meele defense but than ranged units get off-balanced... And magic doesn't make it easier... Even if you play with different unit sizes, magic differes in strength...
Yeah, they're totally going to implement something that will force them to double their balancing work when they already have their hands full doing it with one setting.
Why isn't using the mod sufficient for you? Why do you want CA to waste their time on stuff that's totally superfluous?
Yeah, they're totally going to implement something that will force them to double their balancing work when they already have their hands full doing it with one setting.
Why isn't using the mod sufficient for you? Why do you want CA to waste their time on stuff that's totally superfluous?
it would probably be even more than double since they would need to reconfigure multiplayer matchmaking for people who want regular/slower/slow/extra slow/etc battles unless you're going to force multiplayer at one particular speed
this does really feel like something better handled with mods
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, they're totally going to implement something that will force them to double their balancing work when they already have their hands full doing it with one setting.
Why isn't using the mod sufficient for you? Why do you want CA to waste their time on stuff that's totally superfluous?
Come on, dude, be reasonable. Just because it's "totally superfluous" to you doesn't mean that's the case for people who do find their gameplay negatively affected by battle pace.
The same logic might be applied to difficulty. One vanilla setting could no doubt be modded, giving us hard, very hard and legendary, but CA in that instance have the awareness to realise people like a broad spectrum of challenge when they play the game. So they offer a variety of well-balanced alternatives to cater for that.
To imagine that something similar is not possible for battle speed I think demeans the capability of the good folk at CA, frankly. If modders can knock out something imperfect but serviceable within a matter of days, I doubt it would require the Herculean effort on their behalf that people often make out it will. If it does, then perhaps someone at CA would be so good as to point out how and why - end of discussion.
Mods have numerous drawbacks beyond their actual effectiveness at doing what they're supposed to, accessibility and compatibility being the big ones. The great majority of newcomers or semi-casual players of TW games don't even think to apply mods. I can tell you right now, if I fell into that category when faced with Rome II's initial speeds or this game's, I would have dropped it and perhaps never come back.
CA would do themselves a service and justice to their excellent products if they just made them playable to as broad a spectrum of players as possible, which is best facilitated by them providing a good suite of options out of the box rather than hoping a good alternative is provided by the mod community.
Rather than homing in on one particular playstyle and plugging that for all its worth, CA could take a "broad church" approach and add or strip out certain features according to the tastes of their player and make these optional, either individually or part of a number of different "modes". Because RTS/Grand strategy has an incredibly diverse range of preferences and playstyles. They can't please everyone, but they could try a bit harder to please as many people as possible. Or maybe they couldn't - we'll never know, because it's an issue they absolutely refuse to comment on here or anywhere else.
And it would be so easy to implement besides. They just have to check Proper Combat Mod and tweak it. And everyone would be happy. So come on, CA, a little concern for players here would be appreciated. Thanks.
Have you thought about not everyone wanting combat to be slowed down? Or is that of no concern to you? I mean, since there's a mod you can use to slow combat down, why try and force it on everyone?
I may be mistaken, but I think most people are arguing for variable options, so that no set speed is forced on anyone, as is currently the case.
I think you should read the thread from the beginning. It would save us some explanation we have to give like every page. Thanks.
Team Yennefer
"A blinding flash materialised into a transparent sphere, and inside it loomed a shape, assuming contours and shapes at frightening speed. Dandelion recognised it at once. He knew those wild, black curls and the obsidian star on a velvet ribbon. What he didn’t know and had never seen before was the face. It was a face of rage and fury, the face of the goddess of vengeance, destruction and death." - Time of contempt
The pace of battle is something that people has been complaining since day 1 and CA hasn't change anything so fare so I don't see why they'd change it now. It's very strange though, because they have been listening the customers for other matters but not for this very important point. I hope they change their mind, it's really a pitty how difficult is to enjoy the visuals of the game because you have no time to do anything other than fast click for spells, abilities, charges, potions, units that come back from routing... Most of time the deployment doesn't matter because lines break so quickly that all you can do is rush all forwards and then just control heroes.
Malekith is the true Phoenix King and Wood elves can suck my Widow-maker
double the work...double the pleasure? Double mint gum?!?
Seriously double the work? I get the rationale, but no it would not be DOUBLE the work, the "grunt work" has already been done..with the development of the game. And if people are asking for something...they might change their position.
You know like how they changed their mind on various positions before and after the release of TWW.
I hope they do add, they said they didn't want to alienate their younger fans with blood and gore. I hope their stance to get more people into the game doesn't mean they will forget about a big chunk of long term fans (or new ones) that just like Non-rush battles.
I'm in the slower = better camp but I do think the whole discussion rather misses the point. It's not really slower battles that would improve things, it's more tactical options. It's significant terrain effects and more terrain variation. It's troop formations with meaningful pros and cons. It's varying strategic goals that have a real influence on our choice of battlefield goals. It's all the stuff the great generals of history used to win against superior odds.
Of course, if we had all that stuff we'd need a slower pace to allow us to use them and that would also mean longer battle durations but those things aren't the goal, they're the consequence. And they're fine with me as long as things don't get dull. I'm not seeing many arguments here against a slower pace, I'm seeing arguments against a boring pace and I'm with you 100% on that.
Seriously double the work? I get the rationale, but no it would not be DOUBLE the work, the "grunt work" has already been done..with the development of the game. And if people are asking for something...they might change their position.
Haha, nailed it
People have come up with some fantastically convoluted ideas in the past about what would be needed for CA to rebalance a few other speed settings. It's no Hadron Collider - they have the same personnel and tools they used to balance the game in the first place.
As you say, the grunt work is done; it just needs a series of tweaks which is much easier for them to do than some enthusiast in their spare time who had no part in the original development of the game. The whole "but muh dev resources" argument is an obvious non-starter.
I hope they do add, they said they didn't want to alienate their younger fans with blood and gore. I hope their stance to get more people into the game doesn't mean they will forget about a big chunk of long term fans (or new ones) that just like Non-rush battles.
This. For myself and a few other friends who are vets of the series, it's crunch time in terms of where CA go from here. We like the novelty of the TW setting but gameplay has (by and large) steadily been gravitating towards the fast-click crowd for some time now.
If the series carries on down the same trajectory, I think there'll be a collective sigh of "it was fun while it lasted" and we'll have to finally embrace the onset of middle age
I'm in the slower = better camp but I do think the whole discussion rather misses the point. It's not really slower battles that would improve things, it's more tactical options. It's significant terrain effects and more terrain variation. It's troop formations with meaningful pros and cons. It's varying strategic goals that have a real influence on our choice of battlefield goals. It's all the stuff the great generals of history used to win against superior odds.
Of course, if we had all that stuff we'd need a slower pace to allow us to use them and that would also mean longer battle durations but those things aren't the goal, they're the consequence. And they're fine with me as long as things don't get dull. I'm not seeing many arguments here against a slower pace, I'm seeing arguments against a boring pace and I'm with you 100% on that.
I don't know what your weekend plans are, but I propose we chisel the above into granite and erect it outside the entrance to CA's Horsham studios.
So you really don't want for even one minute consider that there's a hefty pricetag attached to your demands of turning combat into Granny's Tea Party?
1.There's enough varied terrain. I guess you people only ever play in the badlands and avoid going anywhere else on the map. The pace of combat is sufficient to make use of it unless you're 96-year old geezer
2.Slower speed means overpowered heavy melee infantry, just like in Rome2 whose faction viability was severely hampered by the EE update. Let's not encourage CA to make this mistake twice. They thankfully did not listen to the slowpokes when it came to combat in TWA, so you can already see how much success you can look forward to with your demands
3.Yes, putting in two different combat speed settings will double the workload because now you need to balance for two different combat styles. As I showed above, tempering with combat speed will lead to only some troops being viable and the rest becoming chaff. If they release Wood Elves, a faction that's all about low armor and ranged combat a slow combat setting would immediately place them at bottom tier and require tweaking their slo-mo combat campaign so they don't become something only masochists would enjoy to play as. Also, you'd get two tiers of MP with that with two different ladders and more complicated matchmaking routines. So even more work for CA to waste time and resources on.
I don't want additional content to either come out at a slower pace (c wut i did thar?) or cost more just because some people here feel that they're too good for using mods.
Ahh I get it... @Ephraim_Dalton you must be Joey daltons @JoeyCA neglected family member...full of spite &built up anger preventing you from understanding the various laid out examples...I think some brilliant person made a paintball analogy a couple pages back... give it a try lol.
If they add an alternative battle speed, you're right it might slow down new releases...1 1/2 months instead of a month (on average) NOOOOoooOO!!
I'm happy people are excited for this game, but in multiple cases (give it a quick scroll yourself) people ask for new content and do not even realize the units that are in the game. ---maybe that's why fast pace is preferred, sell more with low accountability of product..that can't be it can it @JoeyCA@BartCA?
Serious note: That last point should have all fans concerned regardless of pace preference
adding alternative battle pace would give the game more support and more variance making it more approachable..translating to more $$.
If people are asking for something (the demand) and they are paying customers..resources are NOT wasted.
Are you seriously suggesting that you would pay for a dlc that slowed combat down? How much do you think this hypothetical dlc might cost?
Keeping in mind that it means completely rebalancing the rosters as they stand, for at least one new speed if not more, and balancing every single new unit for however many speed options are available as they come out
boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality or reason burns or acid bruises anyone, stop your gladiator love for agressions.
So you really don't want for even one minute consider that there's a hefty pricetag attached to your demands of turning combat into Granny's Tea Party?
1.There's enough varied terrain. I guess you people only ever play in the badlands and avoid going anywhere else on the map. The pace of combat is sufficient to make use of it unless you're 96-year old geezer
2.Slower speed means overpowered heavy melee infantry, just like in Rome2 whose faction viability was severely hampered by the EE update. Let's not encourage CA to make this mistake twice. They thankfully did not listen to the slowpokes when it came to combat in TWA, so you can already see how much success you can look forward to with your demands
3.Yes, putting in two different combat speed settings will double the workload because now you need to balance for two different combat styles. As I showed above, tempering with combat speed will lead to only some troops being viable and the rest becoming chaff. If they release Wood Elves, a faction that's all about low armor and ranged combat a slow combat setting would immediately place them at bottom tier and require tweaking their slo-mo combat campaign so they don't become something only masochists would enjoy to play as. Also, you'd get two tiers of MP with that with two different ladders and more complicated matchmaking routines. So even more work for CA to waste time and resources on.
I don't want additional content to either come out at a slower pace (c wut i did thar?) or cost more just because some people here feel that they're too good for using mods.
I´m most definitly not a old Tea-Party-Granny, thank you.
1. Most of my campaigns where Empire, so i don´t play much in the Badlands. I don´t see your point here though, beside, yet again, branding everyone with a differend opinion as to old for the game...
2. It doesn´t mean overpowered Heavy Infanfry. If you slow down the battle by adding meele-Defense and lowering meele Attack, you rather get overpowered Ranged units, since they don´t care about higher meele defense. Additionaly cav-Heavy armys would benefit, since you have more time to utilize them propperly. Attila startet with a much slower pace than Rome 2 had at release, so in a way the listened to the complains in Rome 2, leading to attila having much less complains about the pace.
Options like so split the community for multiplayer, just for one. Not that a lot of people care necessarily, but there it is.
But considering all the balance tweaks we've seen thus far, and the changes through patches and such, it would definitely add more to the workload to do a chunk of that again for however many battle speeds there are. Imagine the playtesters...
And to suggest that this would be worth getting slower DLC launches in order to achieve is, in my mind, not just a bad idea generally, but something I am completely hostile to.
I mean, the battle speed is already slower than Rome 1 and Shogun 2, and definitely depends on match up and difficulty played already.
And to suggest that this would be worth getting slower DLC launches in order to achieve is, in my mind, not just a bad idea generally, but something I am completely hostile to.
I mean, the battle speed is already slower than Rome 1 and Shogun 2, and definitely depends on match up and difficulty played already.
I agree on the Balancing and MP-part but not on those two. To people who dislike the current battlespeed, more DLC won´t fix it. If the game is not fun for you, because battles are over in 5 Minutes and you can´t enjoy them, new DLC won´t fix it. I mean imagine battles would last 3 hours for 1 vs 1 stack. Would a DLC with a new Race improve the game for you?
Sure it is slower than rome 1 or shogun but it doesn´t necesserely means it hasn´t a very "fast" pace. Sticking to my example, if you decrease the battletime from 3 to 2 hours, would that be sufficient for you?
I mean i understand that some people like the fast action battlespeed but why is it so hard to udnerstand that some people want to enjoy their battles and they can´t do so with the current speed? Would you realy be so hostile against a DLC-delay so that the others can enjoy themselfs aswell? I mean i would cladly wait if the roles where switched (would need more time with the current content for my longer battles, anyways ^^)
I would be hostile to a DLC delay because I am fine with the current battle pace and I want more content. And now a subset of people are saying "hey, give us LESS content to make some kind of obscure change to the game that many people (including yours truly) won't use!" I would much much much rather have more DLC. The DLC must flow! It is simply a benefit to more users of the game (literally everyone who owns it).
As for the relevancy of battle speed in past games... I included that as a counter to certain levels of hyperbole that seem to get thrown around sometimes. Of the games I've actually played, the only one that is significantly slower than TWW is Medieval 2, though cavalry flanks could end battles pretty fast there too, and Medieval 2's character movement was also slowed down. They actually physically fought slower than other installments would later. So to me I don't see why people are so surprised by TWW's pace. This doesn't stop people from wanting slower battle options, sure, but it is still good to keep in perspective.
@boyfights@Canuovea Never said anything about slow pace dlc, suggesting they implement into the game, perhaps a hotfix beta. Sorry if my "support$$" translated that to some people, what I meant is continued support for the game and series...why alienate one chunk of people for another? You could have both groups ==more passionate fans==$$$
Aww poor game testers...paid to play an awesome game boohoo (kind of joking-work is work)
Would be worth it..some fast pace preference people may even realize the units that are in the game..
I am pretty sure I read someone wanted the pace of DLC to be slowed to accommodate for adding the "slower fights" options to the game. Unless they said "we will pay money for DLC that slows the game" which is similar enough as it would take time away from actual content DLC.
Another thing I'm wondering about... there almost actually are slower battle speeds already in the game, after a fashion. Battles seem to last longer on Hard (morale takes longer to break) than on Normal. I'd wager that the same can be said for Very Hard. I know this isn't necessarily the best response, but it is there, and you can always play the game on a lower setting and fight battles on a higher one. I did that for a bit.
The "harder difficulty, longer battle" approach is not a great solution to the problem, I think it's fair to say. Speed is obviously not the only thing affected when you're changing battle difficulty.
But the point you raised above that about several different speeds needing more balancing tweaks (and potentially delaying DLC) is potentially a valid one. The difficulty is knowing to what extent. CA have developed some sophisticated balancing tools to assist them in this process, as well as being able to draw on an army of SEGA games testers, so it's possible that this may represent almost no time at all in comparison to what's required to produce the actual content for DLCs.
At which point, if it's only adding a few days onto a months long dev cycle but stands to improve the experience for a lot of players, then that's a price worth paying imo. I would say the same even if I wasn't directly affected by the issue of battle pace, as I did when people were lobbying for an alternative to RO (which I was in favour of).
I also think the dev resources argument is a bit of a red herring, as things rarely work in a simple "****-for-tat" way. The programming of game settings and UI functionality that would be required for speed options is unlikely to come at the expense of more units or other DLC-related content, for example.
The point is, there's a lot of guesswork going on here on both sides, which is why it would be great for someone to step in from CA and give a brief rundown of whether it's something they've considered and what were the major obstacles that prevented them from taking it further. And if they're ever likely to overcome those in the future. @Joey CA@CraigTW - any idea who this might be and if they could spare a moment to comment on this?
The changing of difficulty may in certain situations cause games to be a little longer but mainly as a consequence.
It just adds buffs to the opponent (similar to what mods do-alternating a few stats). This can make the game longer, making the opponent harder (and perhaps longer to beat). But the end result is an even more intensified "click fest" doing nothing on pace.
As noted, it's similar to mods-that is why "the problem" can't be solved with mods alone, like @Fredrin mentioned: CA has the insight and other resources to tackle this seemly "small" obstacle that is a HUGE obstacle for enjoyment for many who love this game and series.
But I do appreciate the thought of coming up with suggestions.
I'm in the slower = better camp but I do think the whole discussion rather misses the point. It's not really slower battles that would improve things, it's more tactical options. It's significant terrain effects and more terrain variation. It's troop formations with meaningful pros and cons. It's varying strategic goals that have a real influence on our choice of battlefield goals. It's all the stuff the great generals of history used to win against superior odds.
Of course, if we had all that stuff we'd need a slower pace to allow us to use them and that would also mean longer battle durations but those things aren't the goal, they're the consequence. And they're fine with me as long as things don't get dull. I'm not seeing many arguments here against a slower pace, I'm seeing arguments against a boring pace and I'm with you 100% on that.
I don't think anybody enjoys issuing a few basic orders and then sitting back for minutes on end while your troops slug it out. But if you take reaction speed out of it, I don't think there is enough actual skill involved in winning battles as they stand at the moment. Most tactical decisions asked of a half-competent player are incredibly obvious, it's more a case of how many of these decisions you can make and execute in the very small amount of time given to you.
I would personally much prefer the battles to last longer so that we are presented with harder decisions, based on a wider range of variables, whose outcome would have a greater impact on the margin of win/defeat. Ultimately, it's good judgement that determines the greatness of a general, not how good their reactions are. I understand the temptation to drop this for a fast APM approach in the context of modern gaming, but it does kind of ruin the immersion for a good many players.
Bright side of them ignoring..about alternate battle pace settings..( @Fredrin there HAS been a lot of people bringing this up,-yes you'll see some familiar names but many different ones, and tons of views)
Wood Elves will probably be here by Nov 1st (hopefully a week later to implement battle pace setting @JoeyCA ) I can still hope.
Back to reality lol We'll still be able to set up a badass shootout (empire-Napoleon style battle) with wood elves vs empire vs dwarves , that would be fun until it gets old-still limiting on choice of strategy & units/races
Yes I know... I'm also hoping for ffa style battles
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.
Comments
1st No one(from what I gather), outside of watching replays--says they want to watch two stacks of phalanx crash into each other...
2nd no wonder those take forever that isn't the most balanced army, is it?
3rd difficulty doesn't change battle pace. Although your confusion on battle pace, I do appreciate you tempting to understand and feedback you give to try and make this game enjoyable, even if the suggestions have most likely been attempted. (I mean this to be absent of hostility, no wish for **** contest, we can say you won to avoid that)
People are making great points and highlighting reasonable concerns in this thread on the topic of TWW battle pace,I hope it keeps up and others join the conversation ...looking at you @CA
& the more introverted of you out there that feel the same way or if you do like pace but would like an alternate battle pace option (to solidify a chunk of support for this game), speak up!
Sorry for long post...not normally like me..lol in the spirit of ...longer battles?
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeTeam Yennefer
"A blinding flash materialised into a transparent sphere, and inside it loomed a shape, assuming contours and shapes at frightening speed. Dandelion recognised it at once. He knew those wild, black curls and the obsidian star on a velvet ribbon. What he didn’t know and had never seen before was the face. It was a face of rage and fury, the face of the goddess of vengeance, destruction and death." - Time of contempt- Report
2 · Disagree AgreeI have no idea why it's something they refuse to give the most basic answer about. I assume it's something to do with our Reptilian overlords or the higher echelons of the illuminati preventing them on the basis that too much freedom of choice might give us trogs funny ideas.
It would be refreshing is that policy had suddenly changed, though.
@Joey CA
@Grace CA
@CharlotteB CA
@Bart CA
Any chance you can enlighten us to why global options aren't introduced for something as divisive as battle speed? I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation.
- Report
2 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeWhy isn't using the mod sufficient for you? Why do you want CA to waste their time on stuff that's totally superfluous?
- Report
2 · Disagree Agreethis does really feel like something better handled with mods
or reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
stop your gladiator love for agressions.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThe same logic might be applied to difficulty. One vanilla setting could no doubt be modded, giving us hard, very hard and legendary, but CA in that instance have the awareness to realise people like a broad spectrum of challenge when they play the game. So they offer a variety of well-balanced alternatives to cater for that.
To imagine that something similar is not possible for battle speed I think demeans the capability of the good folk at CA, frankly. If modders can knock out something imperfect but serviceable within a matter of days, I doubt it would require the Herculean effort on their behalf that people often make out it will. If it does, then perhaps someone at CA would be so good as to point out how and why - end of discussion.
Mods have numerous drawbacks beyond their actual effectiveness at doing what they're supposed to, accessibility and compatibility being the big ones. The great majority of newcomers or semi-casual players of TW games don't even think to apply mods. I can tell you right now, if I fell into that category when faced with Rome II's initial speeds or this game's, I would have dropped it and perhaps never come back.
CA would do themselves a service and justice to their excellent products if they just made them playable to as broad a spectrum of players as possible, which is best facilitated by them providing a good suite of options out of the box rather than hoping a good alternative is provided by the mod community.
Rather than homing in on one particular playstyle and plugging that for all its worth, CA could take a "broad church" approach and add or strip out certain features according to the tastes of their player and make these optional, either individually or part of a number of different "modes". Because RTS/Grand strategy has an incredibly diverse range of preferences and playstyles. They can't please everyone, but they could try a bit harder to please as many people as possible. Or maybe they couldn't - we'll never know, because it's an issue they absolutely refuse to comment on here or anywhere else.
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeTeam Yennefer
"A blinding flash materialised into a transparent sphere, and inside it loomed a shape, assuming contours and shapes at frightening speed. Dandelion recognised it at once. He knew those wild, black curls and the obsidian star on a velvet ribbon. What he didn’t know and had never seen before was the face. It was a face of rage and fury, the face of the goddess of vengeance, destruction and death." - Time of contempt- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
2 · Disagree AgreeSeriously double the work? I get the rationale, but no it would not be DOUBLE the work, the "grunt work" has already been done..with the development of the game. And if people are asking for something...they might change their position.
You know like how they changed their mind on various positions before and after
the release of TWW.
I hope they do add, they said they didn't want to alienate their younger fans with blood and gore. I hope their stance to get more people into the game doesn't mean they will forget about a big chunk of long term fans (or new ones) that just like
Non-rush battles.
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeOf course, if we had all that stuff we'd need a slower pace to allow us to use them and that would also mean longer battle durations but those things aren't the goal, they're the consequence. And they're fine with me as long as things don't get dull. I'm not seeing many arguments here against a slower pace, I'm seeing arguments against a boring pace and I'm with you 100% on that.
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreePeople have come up with some fantastically convoluted ideas in the past about what would be needed for CA to rebalance a few other speed settings. It's no Hadron Collider - they have the same personnel and tools they used to balance the game in the first place.
As you say, the grunt work is done; it just needs a series of tweaks which is much easier for them to do than some enthusiast in their spare time who had no part in the original development of the game. The whole "but muh dev resources" argument is an obvious non-starter. This. For myself and a few other friends who are vets of the series, it's crunch time in terms of where CA go from here. We like the novelty of the TW setting but gameplay has (by and large) steadily been gravitating towards the fast-click crowd for some time now.
If the series carries on down the same trajectory, I think there'll be a collective sigh of "it was fun while it lasted" and we'll have to finally embrace the onset of middle age
- Report
2 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree1.There's enough varied terrain. I guess you people only ever play in the badlands and avoid going anywhere else on the map. The pace of combat is sufficient to make use of it unless you're 96-year old geezer
2.Slower speed means overpowered heavy melee infantry, just like in Rome2 whose faction viability was severely hampered by the EE update. Let's not encourage CA to make this mistake twice. They thankfully did not listen to the slowpokes when it came to combat in TWA, so you can already see how much success you can look forward to with your demands
3.Yes, putting in two different combat speed settings will double the workload because now you need to balance for two different combat styles. As I showed above, tempering with combat speed will lead to only some troops being viable and the rest becoming chaff. If they release Wood Elves, a faction that's all about low armor and ranged combat a slow combat setting would immediately place them at bottom tier and require tweaking their slo-mo combat campaign so they don't become something only masochists would enjoy to play as.
Also, you'd get two tiers of MP with that with two different ladders and more complicated matchmaking routines. So even more work for CA to waste time and resources on.
I don't want additional content to either come out at a slower pace (c wut i did thar?) or cost more just because some people here feel that they're too good for using mods.
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeIf they add an alternative battle speed, you're right it might slow down new releases...1 1/2 months instead of a month (on average) NOOOOoooOO!!
I'm happy people are excited for this game, but in multiple cases (give it a quick scroll yourself) people ask for new content and do not even realize the units that are in the game. ---maybe that's why fast pace is preferred, sell more with low accountability of product..that can't be it can it @JoeyCA @BartCA?
Serious note: That last point should have all fans concerned regardless of pace preference
adding alternative battle pace would give the game more support and more variance making it more approachable..translating to more $$.
If people are asking for something (the demand) and they are paying customers..resources are NOT wasted.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeKeep personal comments and innuendo out of the point/counterpoint discussion.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeKeeping in mind that it means completely rebalancing the rosters as they stand, for at least one new speed if not more, and balancing every single new unit for however many speed options are available as they come out
or reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
stop your gladiator love for agressions.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree1. Most of my campaigns where Empire, so i don´t play much in the Badlands. I don´t see your point here though, beside, yet again, branding everyone with a differend opinion as to old for the game...
2. It doesn´t mean overpowered Heavy Infanfry. If you slow down the battle by adding meele-Defense and lowering meele Attack, you rather get overpowered Ranged units, since they don´t care about higher meele defense. Additionaly cav-Heavy armys would benefit, since you have more time to utilize them propperly. Attila startet with a much slower pace than Rome 2 had at release, so in a way the listened to the complains in Rome 2, leading to attila having much less complains about the pace.
- Report
2 · Disagree AgreeOptions like so split the community for multiplayer, just for one. Not that a lot of people care necessarily, but there it is.
But considering all the balance tweaks we've seen thus far, and the changes through patches and such, it would definitely add more to the workload to do a chunk of that again for however many battle speeds there are. Imagine the playtesters...
And to suggest that this would be worth getting slower DLC launches in order to achieve is, in my mind, not just a bad idea generally, but something I am completely hostile to.
I mean, the battle speed is already slower than Rome 1 and Shogun 2, and definitely depends on match up and difficulty played already.
-New Rules: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/287645/new-forum-rules#latest
-Rules FAQ: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/287650/total-war-forum-faq#latest
-Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
-5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
- Report
2 · Disagree AgreeSure it is slower than rome 1 or shogun but it doesn´t necesserely means it hasn´t a very "fast" pace. Sticking to my example, if you decrease the battletime from 3 to 2 hours, would that be sufficient for you?
I mean i understand that some people like the fast action battlespeed but why is it so hard to udnerstand that some people want to enjoy their battles and they can´t do so with the current speed? Would you realy be so hostile against a DLC-delay so that the others can enjoy themselfs aswell? I mean i would cladly wait if the roles where switched (would need more time with the current content for my longer battles, anyways ^^)
- Report
2 · Disagree AgreeAs for the relevancy of battle speed in past games... I included that as a counter to certain levels of hyperbole that seem to get thrown around sometimes. Of the games I've actually played, the only one that is significantly slower than TWW is Medieval 2, though cavalry flanks could end battles pretty fast there too, and Medieval 2's character movement was also slowed down. They actually physically fought slower than other installments would later. So to me I don't see why people are so surprised by TWW's pace. This doesn't stop people from wanting slower battle options, sure, but it is still good to keep in perspective.
-New Rules: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/287645/new-forum-rules#latest
-Rules FAQ: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/287650/total-war-forum-faq#latest
-Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
-5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeNever said anything about slow pace dlc, suggesting they implement into the game, perhaps a hotfix beta. Sorry if my "support$$" translated that to some people, what I meant is continued support for the game and series...why alienate one chunk of people for another?
You could have both groups ==more passionate fans==$$$
Aww poor game testers...paid to play an awesome game boohoo (kind of joking-work is work)
Would be worth it..some fast pace preference people may even realize the units that are in the game..
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAnother thing I'm wondering about... there almost actually are slower battle speeds already in the game, after a fashion. Battles seem to last longer on Hard (morale takes longer to break) than on Normal. I'd wager that the same can be said for Very Hard. I know this isn't necessarily the best response, but it is there, and you can always play the game on a lower setting and fight battles on a higher one. I did that for a bit.
-New Rules: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/287645/new-forum-rules#latest
-Rules FAQ: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/287650/total-war-forum-faq#latest
-Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
-5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThe "harder difficulty, longer battle" approach is not a great solution to the problem, I think it's fair to say. Speed is obviously not the only thing affected when you're changing battle difficulty.
But the point you raised above that about several different speeds needing more balancing tweaks (and potentially delaying DLC) is potentially a valid one. The difficulty is knowing to what extent. CA have developed some sophisticated balancing tools to assist them in this process, as well as being able to draw on an army of SEGA games testers, so it's possible that this may represent almost no time at all in comparison to what's required to produce the actual content for DLCs.
At which point, if it's only adding a few days onto a months long dev cycle but stands to improve the experience for a lot of players, then that's a price worth paying imo. I would say the same even if I wasn't directly affected by the issue of battle pace, as I did when people were lobbying for an alternative to RO (which I was in favour of).
I also think the dev resources argument is a bit of a red herring, as things rarely work in a simple "****-for-tat" way. The programming of game settings and UI functionality that would be required for speed options is unlikely to come at the expense of more units or other DLC-related content, for example.
The point is, there's a lot of guesswork going on here on both sides, which is why it would be great for someone to step in from CA and give a brief rundown of whether it's something they've considered and what were the major obstacles that prevented them from taking it further. And if they're ever likely to overcome those in the future. @Joey CA @CraigTW - any idea who this might be and if they could spare a moment to comment on this?
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeThe changing of difficulty may in certain situations cause games to be a little longer but mainly as a consequence.
It just adds buffs to the opponent (similar to what mods do-alternating a few stats). This can make the game longer, making the opponent harder (and perhaps longer to beat). But the end result is an even more intensified "click fest" doing nothing on pace.
As noted, it's similar to mods-that is why "the problem" can't be solved with mods alone, like @Fredrin mentioned: CA has the insight and other resources to tackle this seemly "small" obstacle that is a HUGE obstacle for enjoyment for many who love this game and series.
But I do appreciate the thought of coming up with suggestions.
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeI would personally much prefer the battles to last longer so that we are presented with harder decisions, based on a wider range of variables, whose outcome would have a greater impact on the margin of win/defeat. Ultimately, it's good judgement that determines the greatness of a general, not how good their reactions are. I understand the temptation to drop this for a fast APM approach in the context of modern gaming, but it does kind of ruin the immersion for a good many players.
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeWood Elves will probably be here by Nov 1st (hopefully a week later to implement battle pace setting
Back to reality lol
We'll still be able to set up a badass shootout (empire-Napoleon style battle) with wood elves vs empire vs dwarves , that would be fun until it gets old-still limiting on choice of strategy & units/races
Yes I know... I'm also hoping for ffa style battles
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
1 · Disagree Agree