Welcome

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.

Categories

Dark Elves Battle Let's Play

1457910

Comments

  • Harddrive44Harddrive44 Registered Users Posts: 616
    edited August 2017
    The thing that bothered me the most was how weak the highs elf archers seemed. In the beginning you can see huge numbers of arrows being fired into the dark elves but you can't see a single model fall. It's like it was having no effect. It was that way almost the entire battle.

    The only time I noticed DE actually falling from archers was when they were showing the unit with crossbows firing. I saw a few die there.

    20 damage is just not enough. CA is acting like giving HE archers 20 more range is this huge thing, when in reality they may be able to fire from that range, but they won't hit anything. HE archers need a buff to their damage to be competitive.
  • AdamYahyaAdamYahya Senior Member Kuala LumpurRegistered Users Posts: 3,318
    I only pause battles if I need to go to the loo. I'm not they type of person who **** on the battlefield.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    HoneyBun, I don't think you have yet managed to show that people not wanting to use pause has contributed at all to CA's change of battle design. It's rather unfair for you to put the burden of proof on other people to make the case that 'how could it have changed if not because of the lack of pausing'.

    I am fine with people using pause if they want to. I strongly disagree with it being made mandatory because of the battle design. On this point I find myself in disagreement with some of the statements CA staff have made on this forum: that toggle abilities for units + preset group formations + unit formations create more work for the player and require more micro. What I think they failed to understand was that all of these features are used before they are needed, not in reaction to a situation where it's clear they would be useful but in anticipation of that situation developing.

    I see melee cavalry on the enemy flanks: I anticipate that my flanks are going to be attacked, I set spearmen or another appropriate unit into a square formation or a thick rank on the edge of my front line.

    I see the cavalry are instead behind the centre: I anticipate the enemy will attempt an envelopment, I pull back my own centre to deny a simultaneous engagement with them and my flanks, which have zone-controlling missiles units(preferably with stakes or a barricade set down) covering them.

    In both cases I also anticipate an appropriate reaction from a smarter opponent, who reads these moves as deterrents and works round them. The flanker would be better holding the cavalry as reserve, the enveloper moving skirmish units into the centre rather than engaging in melee. But as long as I am anticipating and they are reacting, I have a huge advantage. In a design such as this, pausing is not required because I have already made implemented those decisions before they were needed.

    But not in Warhammer. Warhammer does not support conservative tactics.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Izariel said:

    The thing that bothered me the most was how weak the highs elf archers seemed. In the beginning you can see huge numbers of arrows being fired into the dark elves but you can't see a single model fall. It's like it was having no effect. It was that way almost the entire battle.

    The only time I noticed DE actually falling from archers was when they were showing the unit with crossbows firing. I saw a few die there.

    20 damage is just not enough. CA is acting like giving HE archers 20 more range is this huge thing, when in reality they may be able to fire from that range, but they won't hit anything. HE archers need a buff to their damage to be competitive.

    The shooting mechanics need reverting. Right now when you have a unit of 120 troops set to attack 120 troops, it's 1 troop attacking 1 troop x120, rather than a group of 120 attacking a group of 120. They don't fire in volleys but individually, with individual targeting. That works when you have a very high chance of hitting, like at short range which is what most other missile units in the game do. In fact it's absurdly destructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester's_laws

    But beyond a point where accuracy drops-off due to distance, it isn't. The chance of hitting something depends on the amount of missiles and how target-rich the environment is. This is why in older TWs, increasing the unit size to ultra was hugely beneficial to missile units: more targets + more shooters = more dying per volley, with diminishing results in accordance with Lanchester's linear law. In a close-range target-to-target engagement, it's the square law that applies: the more that die, the more concentrated the remaining fire becomes.

    Beyond a certain range, volley-fire is needed and the units need to aim at the area the target unit is standing in rather than the individual troops. It would also mean missile units would be capable of zone-control again.
  • hendo1592hendo1592 Registered Users Posts: 2,475
    edited August 2017
    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun, I don't think you have yet managed to show that people not wanting to use pause has contributed at all to CA's change of battle design. It's rather unfair for you to put the burden of proof on other people to make the case that 'how could it have changed if not because of the lack of pausing'.

    I am fine with people using pause if they want to. I strongly disagree with it being made mandatory because of the battle design. On this point I find myself in disagreement with some of the statements CA staff have made on this forum: that toggle abilities for units + preset group formations + unit formations create more work for the player and require more micro. What I think they failed to understand was that all of these features are used before they are needed, not in reaction to a situation where it's clear they would be useful but in anticipation of that situation developing.

    I see melee cavalry on the enemy flanks: I anticipate that my flanks are going to be attacked, I set spearmen or another appropriate unit into a square formation or a thick rank on the edge of my front line.

    I see the cavalry are instead behind the centre: I anticipate the enemy will attempt an envelopment, I pull back my own centre to deny a simultaneous engagement with them and my flanks, which have zone-controlling missiles units(preferably with stakes or a barricade set down) covering them.

    In both cases I also anticipate an appropriate reaction from a smarter opponent, who reads these moves as deterrents and works round them. The flanker would be better holding the cavalry as reserve, the enveloper moving skirmish units into the centre rather than engaging in melee. But as long as I am anticipating and they are reacting, I have a huge advantage. In a design such as this, pausing is not required because I have already made implemented those decisions before they were needed.

    But not in Warhammer. Warhammer does not support conservative tactics.

    Well, with respect, demanding 'proof' is often just a misunderstanding of what proof is.

    1. I can prove by deductive reasoning

    So when I say "Let's try to make the point another way. More strategic depth literally means more mouse clicking. There is only so much clicking an average player can do in an average period. The minute the player says to CA "I won't use pause, so I only have 10 minutes of time", CA simply has to respond "ok, I'll reduce clicks then"."

    That is a logically coherent argument which is itself proof.

    2. I can prove by reference to effect

    So when we see aspects of battle (unit formations, specific attacks etc.) being changed from an active use event by the player, to triggering automatically; that is proof by reference to effect.

    3. I can prove by reference to what CA say

    So when CA openly state that Dragon Breath attacks (and other attacks like troll vomit) in TW:WH1 were made automatic in order to help the player. I am providing proof by reference to designer statement.

    Having provided that proof, and thus a thoroughly working hypothesis that the cause of streamlining is the unwillingness of the player to use pause, then in reality it is now for others who wish to disagree to demonstrate how my hypothesis is wrong.

    They would ideally do that by providing, and proving, their own theory.

    You say "But not in Warhammer. Warhammer does not support conservative tactics" and I agree with you. As yet you haven't really stated the cause. I have tried and you state I am wrong or just assert I have no proof. That's not I think enough.
    An important note on your conversation. CA measures the battles in "real time," --not the battle timer. Even if the player hits a faster speed, it doesn't matter-they measure it in real time-the actual length it takes to battles to end. This would include pausing. To include pausing in their metric, indicates to me, that CA takes into account of people pausing.

    I don't think the "anti-pause rhetoric" directly has CA designing the games' battle pace to not pause OR pausing in-game is not a concern of theirs--especially if pause is used in their metric on battle length. However, I will say, those who do not pause, imo, are those who like the fast-paced and short battles. And it seems like CA has targeted that group when designing this game GENERALLY speaking.

    disclaimer: I have not conducted a scientific analysis, so the above generalization is from my intuition from my (limited) observations.

    Edit: I actually think including pause in the measurement is beyond ridiculous when calculating the playerbase avg battle length. Battles should be designed not to be highly pause dependent.
    Post edited by hendo1592 on
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun, I don't think you have yet managed to show that people not wanting to use pause has contributed at all to CA's change of battle design. It's rather unfair for you to put the burden of proof on other people to make the case that 'how could it have changed if not because of the lack of pausing'.

    I am fine with people using pause if they want to. I strongly disagree with it being made mandatory because of the battle design. On this point I find myself in disagreement with some of the statements CA staff have made on this forum: that toggle abilities for units + preset group formations + unit formations create more work for the player and require more micro. What I think they failed to understand was that all of these features are used before they are needed, not in reaction to a situation where it's clear they would be useful but in anticipation of that situation developing.

    I see melee cavalry on the enemy flanks: I anticipate that my flanks are going to be attacked, I set spearmen or another appropriate unit into a square formation or a thick rank on the edge of my front line.

    I see the cavalry are instead behind the centre: I anticipate the enemy will attempt an envelopment, I pull back my own centre to deny a simultaneous engagement with them and my flanks, which have zone-controlling missiles units(preferably with stakes or a barricade set down) covering them.

    In both cases I also anticipate an appropriate reaction from a smarter opponent, who reads these moves as deterrents and works round them. The flanker would be better holding the cavalry as reserve, the enveloper moving skirmish units into the centre rather than engaging in melee. But as long as I am anticipating and they are reacting, I have a huge advantage. In a design such as this, pausing is not required because I have already made implemented those decisions before they were needed.

    But not in Warhammer. Warhammer does not support conservative tactics.

    Well, with respect, demanding 'proof' is often just a misunderstanding of what proof is.

    1. I can prove by deductive reasoning

    So when I say "Let's try to make the point another way. More strategic depth literally means more mouse clicking. There is only so much clicking an average player can do in an average period. The minute the player says to CA "I won't use pause, so I only have 10 minutes of time", CA simply has to respond "ok, I'll reduce clicks then"."

    That is a logically coherent argument which is itself proof.

    2. I can prove by reference to effect

    So when we see aspects of battle (unit formations, specific attacks etc.) being changed from an active use event by the player, to triggering automatically; that is proof by reference to effect.

    3. I can prove by reference to what CA say

    So when CA openly state that Dragon Breath attacks (and other attacks like troll vomit) in TW:WH1 were made automatic in order to help the player. I am providing proof by reference to designer statement.

    Having provided that proof, and thus a thoroughly working hypothesis that the cause of streamlining is the unwillingness of the player to use pause, then in reality it is now for others who wish to disagree to demonstrate how my hypothesis is wrong.

    They would ideally do that by providing, and proving, their own theory.

    You say "But not in Warhammer. Warhammer does not support conservative tactics" and I agree with you. As yet you haven't really stated the cause. I have tried and you state I am wrong or just assert I have no proof. That's not I think enough.
    1. None of those are 'proof', in either the mathematical nor philosophical meaning.
    2. That is not 'deductive' reasoning. Deduction takes a lot more work than you have shown. Deduction requires you to eliminate every alternative explanation no matter how absurd and you can't eliminate them by stating yours is better.
    3. None of these link to the use or not of pause.

    I have made many length posts explaining how I think Warhammer does not support or enable conservative tactics. I have made no such assertion about your claims; I have not said that you are wrong, I have said that you have not shown you are right. Based on what you have posted, there is not enough for me to say you are wrong that CA's design for battles is due to the use or not of pausing. I haven't seen any examples of you or anyone else being bullied for using pause either. That's not to say it hasn't happened; you just haven't shown it to be the case.
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If your plan works flawlessly, your opponent was incompetent. Simple as that.

    Almost no plan survives contact with the enemy. In actual fact, when a plan works flawlessly it means you've done what your opponent wanted you to. Sometimes you want to lose because winning would mean almost your entire army being wiped out, so you leave the field; both you and your opponent wants that.

    It has seemed to me that battles are now designed to be self-contained battles and not part of the wider context of a campaign; CA have designed and balanced battles as if they are one-offs. That's almost as if they've been thinking about multiplayer and show-casing over campaign battles. For a campaign, you want to always preserve as much of your force as possible because you might have to use that army again soon after.

    Warhammer as designed does not allow any of this.
    How does it not allow for it? Is it too fast for your preferences? That's what the "it's too fast" boils down to.
    Snip.
    Ok... Only thing I can say here is there's a lot of stuff you expect to work from a realistic perspective. Sadly I don't think it makes sense for Warhammer necessarily. But I do understand why you like the idea of it. I like Rome 2 a lot but the speed is bad, flat out. Cav doesn't get punished except by javelins because it takes too long to kill them in melee since they will just run away. Edit: Rome 2 now is actually faster than the first one, so the idea that total war has gotten faster and faster is blatantly false.

    As for not keeping reserves @Fredrin this really is only true in campaign bud. Most competent players in quick battle have whole spear lines dedicated to flank protection, the only armies that wouldn't do this are factions like Chaos... Which imo makes sense.

    I can't respond to all that stuff atm sorry >.<</p>
    Not entirely sure what you meant to say in that edit: if Rome 2 is faster than the first, then it is faster?

    The issue with the current battle pacing in Warhammer and recent TW games all started in Shogun 2, but it fit the setting because the Japanese didn't use shields and there was still a wide variety of tactical options granted by the unit design and terrain. It did not make sense for the follow-up Rome 2 to be just as fast or even faster, but it happened, then again with Attila and it has peaked with Warhammer. So much so, CA found it hard to show-case battles when they first started doing Let's Plays of them; they struggled to both zoom in to see what was happening and actually play the game. Like the battle time limit option, the changes have made the cinematic camera toggle added in Rome 2 redundant.

    Prior to Shogun 2 though, only the first Rome had super-short battles and CA quickly saw their mistake and corrected it in Medieval 2. The speed at which units die didn't seem to change, but the design of them and how they work as part of an army did and this is what caused all units to have to engage at once and everything finishes quickly. This was always an option in TW, but you would take horrendous losses and even risk losing completely because if the AI held fresh elite troops back they would utterly annihilate a superior number of any kind of unit who were near exhausted. Now stamina does not matter that much in a fight, it doesn't affect movement speed at all and running hardly drains stamina which replenishes to full in about two minutes standing still.
    No, I think it's because people started wanting to see the stats and health of units instead of just cinematics. Doing all that is what caused the let's play issues, not battle speed.

    As for what I meant, Rome 2 emperor edition is slower than the original Rome 1* is what I meant to say.

    And just btw if Shogun 2 is allowed to be fast paced, why not Rome 1? Why not Warhammer with monsters and magic? Again, it boils down to preference.
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If your plan works flawlessly, your opponent was incompetent. Simple as that.

    Almost no plan survives contact with the enemy. In actual fact, when a plan works flawlessly it means you've done what your opponent wanted you to. Sometimes you want to lose because winning would mean almost your entire army being wiped out, so you leave the field; both you and your opponent wants that.

    It has seemed to me that battles are now designed to be self-contained battles and not part of the wider context of a campaign; CA have designed and balanced battles as if they are one-offs. That's almost as if they've been thinking about multiplayer and show-casing over campaign battles. For a campaign, you want to always preserve as much of your force as possible because you might have to use that army again soon after.

    Warhammer as designed does not allow any of this.
    How does it not allow for it? Is it too fast for your preferences? That's what the "it's too fast" boils down to.
    Snip.
    Ok... Only thing I can say here is there's a lot of stuff you expect to work from a realistic perspective. Sadly I don't think it makes sense for Warhammer necessarily. But I do understand why you like the idea of it. I like Rome 2 a lot but the speed is bad, flat out. Cav doesn't get punished except by javelins because it takes too long to kill them in melee since they will just run away. Edit: Rome 2 now is actually faster than the first one, so the idea that total war has gotten faster and faster is blatantly false.

    As for not keeping reserves @Fredrin this really is only true in campaign bud. Most competent players in quick battle have whole spear lines dedicated to flank protection, the only armies that wouldn't do this are factions like Chaos... Which imo makes sense.

    I can't respond to all that stuff atm sorry >.<</p>
    Not entirely sure what you meant to say in that edit: if Rome 2 is faster than the first, then it is faster?

    The issue with the current battle pacing in Warhammer and recent TW games all started in Shogun 2, but it fit the setting because the Japanese didn't use shields and there was still a wide variety of tactical options granted by the unit design and terrain. It did not make sense for the follow-up Rome 2 to be just as fast or even faster, but it happened, then again with Attila and it has peaked with Warhammer. So much so, CA found it hard to show-case battles when they first started doing Let's Plays of them; they struggled to both zoom in to see what was happening and actually play the game. Like the battle time limit option, the changes have made the cinematic camera toggle added in Rome 2 redundant.

    Prior to Shogun 2 though, only the first Rome had super-short battles and CA quickly saw their mistake and corrected it in Medieval 2. The speed at which units die didn't seem to change, but the design of them and how they work as part of an army did and this is what caused all units to have to engage at once and everything finishes quickly. This was always an option in TW, but you would take horrendous losses and even risk losing completely because if the AI held fresh elite troops back they would utterly annihilate a superior number of any kind of unit who were near exhausted. Now stamina does not matter that much in a fight, it doesn't affect movement speed at all and running hardly drains stamina which replenishes to full in about two minutes standing still.
    No, I think it's because people started wanting to see the stats and health of units instead of just cinematics. Doing all that is what caused the let's play issues, not battle speed.

    As for what I meant, Rome 2 emperor edition is slower than the original Rome 1* is what I meant to say.

    And just btw if Shogun 2 is allowed to be fast paced, why not Rome 1? Why not Warhammer with monsters and magic? Again, it boils down to preference.
    I'm not sure how you think it makes a difference: CA could not show off the battles, the animations, the unit card info etc whilst simultaneously playing the game. They never had any such problems with previous TW titles even after they started getting shorter with Shogun 2; Warhammer has taken it to an extreme.

    I acknowledge what you meant to stay and I will reiterate what I have said elsewhere: no one claims there has been a constant trend towards faster-paced and shorter battles over the whole series history. It started after Empire with Shogun 2. Prior to that, only Rome was set so battles were always fast and over quickly with few in-game tactical options for extending the battle and conserving troops. As I've told Ephraim: one is not a trend. CA corrected course with Medieval 2 and now they need to correct course again, preferably during the Warhammer trilogy project rather than after or I am done as a Total War fan since the beginning.

    To answer your last question: Shogun 2's pace fit the setting because the Japanese did not use shields. But Shogun 2 did not mandate short battles; it was possible thanks to all the features and terrific unit design to conserve forces. This became harder with every title following S2 and Warhammer has all but eliminated such tactics, stripping away options to just a handful all based on out-flanking or matching X units to Y units which they are best at killing.

    Far from being about preference, player preferences have been removed in favour of those of the battle designers. Battles are designed now as if they are always one-off encounters, rather than in the context of a wider campaign where you must preserve troops because you could need to fight again soon after. Instead we use fast high-risk tactics because we have to, take terrible losses(heroic and decisive victories are now almost impossible) and then have a boring wait for replenishment because now we can't have armies without Generals/Lords and their is an extravagant tax on having more of them.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If your plan works flawlessly, your opponent was incompetent. Simple as that.

    Almost no plan survives contact with the enemy. In actual fact, when a plan works flawlessly it means you've done what your opponent wanted you to. Sometimes you want to lose because winning would mean almost your entire army being wiped out, so you leave the field; both you and your opponent wants that.

    It has seemed to me that battles are now designed to be self-contained battles and not part of the wider context of a campaign; CA have designed and balanced battles as if they are one-offs. That's almost as if they've been thinking about multiplayer and show-casing over campaign battles. For a campaign, you want to always preserve as much of your force as possible because you might have to use that army again soon after.

    Warhammer as designed does not allow any of this.
    How does it not allow for it? Is it too fast for your preferences? That's what the "it's too fast" boils down to.
    Snip.
    Ok... Only thing I can say here is there's a lot of stuff you expect to work from a realistic perspective. Sadly I don't think it makes sense for Warhammer necessarily. But I do understand why you like the idea of it. I like Rome 2 a lot but the speed is bad, flat out. Cav doesn't get punished except by javelins because it takes too long to kill them in melee since they will just run away. Edit: Rome 2 now is actually faster than the first one, so the idea that total war has gotten faster and faster is blatantly false.

    As for not keeping reserves @Fredrin this really is only true in campaign bud. Most competent players in quick battle have whole spear lines dedicated to flank protection, the only armies that wouldn't do this are factions like Chaos... Which imo makes sense.

    I can't respond to all that stuff atm sorry >.<</p>
    Not entirely sure what you meant to say in that edit: if Rome 2 is faster than the first, then it is faster?

    The issue with the current battle pacing in Warhammer and recent TW games all started in Shogun 2, but it fit the setting because the Japanese didn't use shields and there was still a wide variety of tactical options granted by the unit design and terrain. It did not make sense for the follow-up Rome 2 to be just as fast or even faster, but it happened, then again with Attila and it has peaked with Warhammer. So much so, CA found it hard to show-case battles when they first started doing Let's Plays of them; they struggled to both zoom in to see what was happening and actually play the game. Like the battle time limit option, the changes have made the cinematic camera toggle added in Rome 2 redundant.

    Prior to Shogun 2 though, only the first Rome had super-short battles and CA quickly saw their mistake and corrected it in Medieval 2. The speed at which units die didn't seem to change, but the design of them and how they work as part of an army did and this is what caused all units to have to engage at once and everything finishes quickly. This was always an option in TW, but you would take horrendous losses and even risk losing completely because if the AI held fresh elite troops back they would utterly annihilate a superior number of any kind of unit who were near exhausted. Now stamina does not matter that much in a fight, it doesn't affect movement speed at all and running hardly drains stamina which replenishes to full in about two minutes standing still.
    No, I think it's because people started wanting to see the stats and health of units instead of just cinematics. Doing all that is what caused the let's play issues, not battle speed.

    As for what I meant, Rome 2 emperor edition is slower than the original Rome 1* is what I meant to say.

    And just btw if Shogun 2 is allowed to be fast paced, why not Rome 1? Why not Warhammer with monsters and magic? Again, it boils down to preference.
    I'm not sure how you think it makes a difference: CA could not show off the battles, the animations, the unit card info etc whilst simultaneously playing the game. They never had any such problems with previous TW titles even after they started getting shorter with Shogun 2; Warhammer has taken it to an extreme.

    I acknowledge what you meant to stay and I will reiterate what I have said elsewhere: no one claims there has been a constant trend towards faster-paced and shorter battles over the whole series history. It started after Empire with Shogun 2. Prior to that, only Rome was set so battles were always fast and over quickly with few in-game tactical options for extending the battle and conserving troops. As I've told Ephraim: one is not a trend. CA corrected course with Medieval 2 and now they need to correct course again, preferably during the Warhammer trilogy project rather than after or I am done as a Total War fan since the beginning.

    To answer your last question: Shogun 2's pace fit the setting because the Japanese did not use shields. But Shogun 2 did not mandate short battles; it was possible thanks to all the features and terrific unit design to conserve forces. This became harder with every title following S2 and Warhammer has all but eliminated such tactics, stripping away options to just a handful all based on out-flanking or matching X units to Y units which they are best at killing.

    Far from being about preference, player preferences have been removed in favour of those of the battle designers. Battles are designed now as if they are always one-off encounters, rather than in the context of a wider campaign where you must preserve troops because you could need to fight again soon after. Instead we use fast high-risk tactics because we have to, take terrible losses(heroic and decisive victories are now almost impossible) and then have a boring wait for replenishment because now we can't have armies without Generals/Lords and their is an extravagant tax on having more than one.
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455
    @AricBalrin well tbh it does make a difference. If they're trying to cram in the unit stats and hp bars and what those units are doing and how they're performing, things have a pretty big difference... All the other let's play of previous games didn't do that, so there is a big method change.
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,346
    Reaper49 said:

    Have you people lost your IQ? I wonder......you are argue for the balance of a battle that was to win before it even start. What you expected to see from this battle? Darren loose? Moon dragon whent directly to malekith and hydra with 1 unit of black guard near them. This was sucide attack from AI and even then dark elf army was far more better.

    Stats is the last thing that we should worry about, as it's the most easy thing for CA to change.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Seldkam said:

    @AricBalrin well tbh it does make a difference. If they're trying to cram in the unit stats and hp bars and what those units are doing and how they're performing, things have a pretty big difference... All the other let's play of previous games didn't do that, so there is a big method change.

    I think that is reaching. I don't recall a single Let's Play video where they are showing unit info mid-battle, except for the Battle at the Thundering Falls which was partially scripted. I went and checked some of the pre-release videos and this is what I found:



    In that one unit info is shown before the battle even takes place. Whilst the tooltip info is left on, they don't come back to focus on or talk about it. The battle is lost because several mistakes were made, many of them due to not being able to show what was happening at different parts of the battlefield whilst also playing it. This is what eventually led to Darren pre-playing the battles and just showing replays of them. As soon as he starts losing this one he stops showing off what is happening because now he's trying to win. The only reason it lasts as long as it does is because the way he has his units arranged allows the AI to spread out and assign multiple effective units to gang up against what they are effective against and then they have to travel a distance to attack another suitable unit, only to return to the original target when they stop routing. You can see very clearly towards the start how the AI works and this is how the battles have been designed; to cater to the pre-existing strengths of the AI to put round plugs in round holes and square pegs in square holes.

    Viewer feedback for that video is what led to this one being done differently, with the battle pre-played and replay edited:

    Prior to the Empire VS Chaos Let's Play though, almost all Let's Play videos followed the same pattern: unit info was shown before the battle, not during. Darren also struggled to show-off the events of the battle and the playing of it simultaneously, until they changed it from then on starting with Kholek.



  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Once again, I posted a comment, edited something(literally moved something two lines down) and then it was put in pre-mod.
  • Lord_XelosLord_Xelos Registered Users Posts: 1,806
    edited August 2017

    Even in Starcraft 2, if your reactions and twitch-ability is not good, if you follow 'a build' and a practised strat closely then you will win most of the time even against someone who has practised micro-management: the macro will be king. This is why 'timing-based' strategies are so effective; you know what you are doing and when, regardless of what the opponent is doing because the strategy has been developed around what even the best player can and can not have at a certain point in the match.

    That's not true at all. Timings in StarCraft are based around "what is the earliest moment the optimal counter to what I'm doing can be done". The thing is best players can easily defend against such timing attack with sub-optimal units, at least for long enough to be able to make actual hard counter. And at this point the attacker is at disadvantage, because of how much he invested into this timing attack.

    Does macro-only player automatically win against micro-only player? I say "maybe", but only in lower leagues when people just aren't that good. Once You're diamond or higher, defending "uncounterable" timing attacks with sub-optimal units is done on regular basis and at this point micro becomes far more powerfull. Why? Because You can do multiple drops at the same time and demolish enemy economy, and if he doesn't have micro just as good to pull out drones before more than 1 of them dies - he lost.

    Don't bypass the word filter.

    As far as TW goes, there are lots of strategic decisions and things to do.
    - You need to cycle charge properly,
    - You need to make enemy shooters stop shooting either by scaring them with cavalry or forcing melee with something,
    - You need to manipulate enemy into cluster to nuke them with spells,
    - You need to manage Your big units well enough for them not to get stuck in one place for too long as this is death sentence in most cases,
    - You need to manage Your buff units to be in exactly right spot in heat of battle, as they are usually fragile but need to be close for auras to work.
    - You need to use stealth (and trees and cover) to drag enemies to where You want them to be,
    - You need to snipe or scare enemy heroes before they make too much mess,
    - You need to force rotations favorable for You (making engagements in which You have the counter while enemy does not),
    - And a lot lot more...

    Those are all strategic decisions You have to make AND properly execute. So don't tell me that fast game pace kills the strategy. In fact it makes the strategy because if You had infinite time to make decisions and make all those thing You'd obviously be able to do them.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    edited August 2017

    Even in Starcraft 2, if your reactions and twitch-ability is not good, if you follow 'a build' and a practised strat closely then you will win most of the time even against someone who has practised micro-management: the macro will be king. This is why 'timing-based' strategies are so effective; you know what you are doing and when, regardless of what the opponent is doing because the strategy has been developed around what even the best player can and can not have at a certain point in the match.

    That's not true at all. Timings in StarCraft are based around "what is the earliest moment the optimal counter to what I'm doing can be done". The thing is best players can easily defend against such timing attack with sub-optimal units, at least for long enough to be able to make actual hard counter. And at this point the attacker is at disadvantage, because of how much he invested into this timing attack.

    Does macro-only player automatically win against micro-only player? I say "maybe", but only in lower leagues when people just aren't that good. Once You're diamond or higher, defending "uncounterable" timing attacks with sub-optimal units is done on regular basis and at this point micro becomes far more powerfull. Why? Because You can do multiple drops at the same time and demolish enemy economy, and if he doesn't have micro just as good to pull out drones before more than 1 of them dies - he lost.

    Don't bypass the word filter.

    As far as TW goes, there are lots of strategic decisions and things to do.
    - You need to cycle charge properly,
    - You need to make enemy shooters stop shooting either by scaring them with cavalry or forcing melee with something,
    - You need to manipulate enemy into cluster to nuke them with spells,
    - You need to manage Your big units well enough for them not to get stuck in one place for too long as this is death sentence in most cases,
    - You need to manage Your buff units to be in exactly right spot in heat of battle, as they are usually fragile but need to be close for auras to work.
    - You need to use stealth (and trees and cover) to drag enemies to where You want them to be,
    - You need to snipe or scare enemy heroes before they make too much mess,
    - You need to force rotations favorable for You (making engagements in which You have the counter while enemy does not),
    - And a lot lot more...

    Those are all strategic decisions You have to make AND properly execute. So don't tell me that fast game pace kills the strategy. In fact it makes the strategy because if You had infinite time to make decisions and make all those thing You'd obviously be able to do them.
    To me, my 'complete bull' just sounds like what you said but with less specifics about it.

    But your list of 'strategic decisions' makes me wonder what you think is 'strategic' or 'decisive'. You have it confused with 'micro'. If a strategy game is built on a rule-based system rather than top-down design, then you can anticipate rather than simply react, making lots of micro unnecessary. Micro is what you need when you have failed to have a strategy or tactics laid out.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • Lord_XelosLord_Xelos Registered Users Posts: 1,806
    There is planning and there is executing.

    Strategic decisions refer to both, as no matter how much You plan, You need to be able to execute that plan AND also react to surprises, as no plan ever goes flawlessly.

    Executing refers only to micro and multi-tasking, being able to do everything that You wanted to do in the first place.

    Both of those aspects are equally important in a strategy game. By slowing down battle pace considerably, You completely give up "execution" part, which gives You what can be basically described as chess. All planning, zero execution.
  • hendo1592hendo1592 Registered Users Posts: 2,475
    edited August 2017

    There is planning and there is executing.

    Strategic decisions refer to both, as no matter how much You plan, You need to be able to execute that plan AND also react to surprises, as no plan ever goes flawlessly.

    Executing refers only to micro and multi-tasking, being able to do everything that You wanted to do in the first place.

    Both of those aspects are equally important in a strategy game. By slowing down battle pace considerably, You completely give up "execution" part, which gives You what can be basically described as chess. All planning, zero execution.

    Slowing down the battle pace so full stack matches don't end in 5 min, will not eliminate execution. Regardless of backwards reasoning, battles do not need to be under five minutes to maintain an "execution challenge."
    Post edited by hendo1592 on
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Once we start arguing over what words means rather than mechanics, we've left dialectical discussion behind and are going nowhere.

    For me the literal speed at which things are happening is not relevant to the discussion about battle-pace and length, nor is it relevant to tactical decisions: speed is only a factor relative to the speed at which the units themselves move over distance in the game. If increasing the game speed proportionately increases the speed of all units, then fast units are still faster than slow units even if those slow units are not so slow to our eyes. The application in tactical decisions is whether a unit is in position to react, not the reflexes of the player.

    You are doing tactics when you are anticipating and you should always anticipate a plan not working, in fact that should be part of the plan. If you are simply reacting and relying on micro, you're not doing strategy or tactics at all.
  • Lord_XelosLord_Xelos Registered Users Posts: 1,806
    edited August 2017
    But why "only"? I want to do both. Both reacting with micro (showing perfect execution) and having plan B,C,D,E and plan "all just **** itself up". Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

    What is mutually exclusive though is being able to outmicro opponent and battle playins so slowly that even 2-year old could keep up with doing everything. There need to be "not enough time to do it" factor that:
    a) Forces prioritetization,
    b) Differentiates players with good reactions, multi-tasking and observation/information selection skills and those that are bad at those.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,981
    Posts reflecting inappropriate or off topic comments deleted or edited.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • Nyanko73Nyanko73 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,351
    edited August 2017

    But why "only"? I want to do both. Both reacting with micro (showing perfect execution) and having plan B,C,D,E and plan "all just **** itself up". Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

    What is mutually exclusive though is being able to outmicro opponent and battle playins so slowly that even 2-year old could keep up with doing everything. There need to be "not enough time to do it" factor that:
    a) Forces prioritetization,
    b) Differentiates players with good reactions, multi-tasking and observation/information selection skills and those that are bad at those.

    Alright, good reactions, multitasking, observation. Since when TW has become a shooter game? Because this is exactly what you are describing here.

    Unless I am mistaken, TW is first and foremost a strategy game and thus what should be evaluated to decide who wins a battle is the best use of tactics and shouldn't rely much on reaction time. That's why most strategy games are turn based, you might have noticed.

    Ever played Warhammer Tabletop? If you have, you should be able to understand people who want slower battles.
    Post edited by dge1 on

    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
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455
    edited August 2017

    Once again, I posted a comment, edited something(literally moved something two lines down) and then it was put in pre-mod.

    Ok this is objectively not true though. As I've said, during those times when we had pre release footage, there were frustrations at the apparent lack of skill Darren was displaying and he made a statement explaining as I've said that he doesn't really feel the need to crush the ai since it isn't necessary and it looks bad(he only said the first part).

    No, it really has nothing to do with the battle pace. Shogun 2 and Rome 1 are both extremely fast too, but I don't see anyone crying for battle pace adjustments to allow for more strategic gameplay.

    I realize the first Rome is old but people still play it, and plenty still play Shogun 2.
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • az88az88 Registered Users Posts: 3,065
    I'm let wondering if there is a micro/macro split between people who play mostly for campaign or mostly for MP.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Seldkam said:

    Once again, I posted a comment, edited something(literally moved something two lines down) and then it was put in pre-mod.

    Ok this is objectively not true though. As I've said, during those times when we had pre release footage, there were frustrations at the apparent lack of skill Darren was displaying and he made a statement explaining as I've said that he doesn't really feel the need to crush the ai since it isn't necessary and it looks bad(he only said the first part).

    No, it really has nothing to do with the battle pace. Shogun 2 and Rome 1 are both extremely fast too, but I don't see anyone crying for battle pace adjustments to allow for more strategic gameplay.

    I realize the first Rome is old but people still play it, and plenty still play Shogun 2.
    I've explained repeatedly how Shogun 2 is different and how Rome 1 was a blip among the older TW games and CA course-corrected for Medieval 2, too much according to some who rely so much on zerging they end up with 20+ minutes of melee blob grinds. Every TW game allowed for battles to be ended quickly depending on the tactics and unit composition you used and how you strategically engaged on the campaign map. Rome 1 and Warhammer are the only games in the series though which force you to play in one certain way with a very narrow range of tactics based on flanking and killing quickly over any consideration of preserving your own forces.

    Shogun 2, despite beginning the actual trend towards shorter and faster-paced battles in modern TW games, is considered by many including myself to be the series' highest point because the unit design enables as wide as possible range of tactics that fit the setting. S2 has the smallest unit roster, but possibly the largest unit role diversity, making it the utter opposite of Warhammer.

    I don't think artificially increasing or decreasing the speed or length of battles will affect the tactical/strategic layers of gameplay; it's where I think modders trying to address the issue have misunderstood what the problem is. I think the reason for the short battles in Warhammer are because the variety of tactics are so narrow, favouring shock-assaults over force-conservation. If the tactical options were widened, battles would naturally become longer because armies would be better able to protect themselves.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539

    But why "only"? I want to do both. Both reacting with micro (showing perfect execution) and having plan B,C,D,E and plan "all just **** itself up". Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

    What is mutually exclusive though is being able to outmicro opponent and battle playins so slowly that even 2-year old could keep up with doing everything. There need to be "not enough time to do it" factor that:
    a) Forces prioritetization,
    b) Differentiates players with good reactions, multi-tasking and observation/information selection skills and those that are bad at those.

    I appreciate that some micro is necessary, but a lot of it is unnecessary due to units being out of position: even in Starcraft 2 all the micro in the world will not save units caught out of position because their move speed is limited regardless of the reflexes of the player.
  • KobayashimaruKobayashimaru Member Registered Users Posts: 223
    Nyanko73 said:



    Alright, good reactions, multitasking, observation. Since when TW has become a shooter game? Because this is exactly what you are describing here.

    Unless I am mistaken, TW is first and foremost a strategy game and thus what should be evaluated to decide who wins a battle is the best use of tactics and shouldn't rely much on reaction time. That's why most strategy games are turn based, you might have noticed.

    Ever played Warhammer Tabletop? If you have, you should be able to understand people who want slower battles.

    I completely agree. Strategy ad "microing" are two different things. War should be about strategy, not microing and click-festing. When I watch youtube battles of TWW, with commentary, it feels like a sports match, rather than a battle. Counter this, counter that, this ability, that ability, clicks flying around like crazy. There's no battle line, no formations, no real strategy. It all quickly dissolves into brawls of individual units or blobs of units where counters and fast reactions mean everything. Maybe it's perfectly fine in a game like League of Legends or DOTA. It just doesn't feel right for a strategy game. Just read about any ancient battle and compare it to how battles look and feel now in TW. There are similarities, but also too huge dufferences. And that's just one component of that "arcade" inclination of TW some people are talking about. Other problems I found include changes to he strategy map, economy etc. It just doesn't feel anymore like those are armies that you are leading or that those are cities, provinces and huge distances that you are seeing on the map. It's all so clumped together, simplified, polished to look good at first, but leave a bitter aftertaste since the depth is lost.
    That's just my opinion. I see that TW has attracted certain type of players that are fine with all this and the rest of changes in TW that I personally dislike, and if CA want's to keep going in that direction, that's fine. I guess I'll just have to stick with older TW titles and overhaul mods (which can never remedy all the bad things, but well...).
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455
    @ArecBalrin you can say they're not worth the time to talk about by dismissing them as exceptions to the rule, doesn't exactly help your argument tho.

    Frankly the idea you think there's only 1 tactic allowed is just absurd especially since it's factually not true. Maybe in campaign where you just steamroll the ai with red line buffs...
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Seldkam said:

    @ArecBalrin you can say they're not worth the time to talk about by dismissing them as exceptions to the rule, doesn't exactly help your argument tho.

    Frankly the idea you think there's only 1 tactic allowed is just absurd especially since it's factually not true. Maybe in campaign where you just steamroll the ai with red line buffs...

    That is literally what I did not do. I didn't dismiss them at all, I talked about them. If you don't want to discuss it, don't invent things I never said or conversations that never happened.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,076

    Nyanko73 said:



    Alright, good reactions, multitasking, observation. Since when TW has become a shooter game? Because this is exactly what you are describing here.

    Unless I am mistaken, TW is first and foremost a strategy game and thus what should be evaluated to decide who wins a battle is the best use of tactics and shouldn't rely much on reaction time. That's why most strategy games are turn based, you might have noticed.

    Ever played Warhammer Tabletop? If you have, you should be able to understand people who want slower battles.

    I completely agree. Strategy ad "microing" are two different things. War should be about strategy, not microing and click-festing. When I watch youtube battles of TWW, with commentary, it feels like a sports match, rather than a battle. Counter this, counter that, this ability, that ability, clicks flying around like crazy. There's no battle line, no formations, no real strategy. It all quickly dissolves into brawls of individual units or blobs of units where counters and fast reactions mean everything. Maybe it's perfectly fine in a game like League of Legends or DOTA. It just doesn't feel right for a strategy game. Just read about any ancient battle and compare it to how battles look and feel now in TW. There are similarities, but also too huge dufferences. And that's just one component of that "arcade" inclination of TW some people are talking about. Other problems I found include changes to he strategy map, economy etc. It just doesn't feel anymore like those are armies that you are leading or that those are cities, provinces and huge distances that you are seeing on the map. It's all so clumped together, simplified, polished to look good at first, but leave a bitter aftertaste since the depth is lost.
    That's just my opinion. I see that TW has attracted certain type of players that are fine with all this and the rest of changes in TW that I personally dislike, and if CA want's to keep going in that direction, that's fine. I guess I'll just have to stick with older TW titles and overhaul mods (which can never remedy all the bad things, but well...).
    Yeah so sad they can't slow the speed for a deeper game.

    I play on slow speed vs friends but for games with strangers it's way too much about micro management and a lot of the depth of the game is wasted.
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455
    edited August 2017

    Seldkam said:

    @ArecBalrin you can say they're not worth the time to talk about by dismissing them as exceptions to the rule, doesn't exactly help your argument tho.

    Frankly the idea you think there's only 1 tactic allowed is just absurd especially since it's factually not true. Maybe in campaign where you just steamroll the ai with red line buffs...

    That is literally what I did not do. I didn't dismiss them at all, I talked about them. If you don't want to discuss it, don't invent things I never said or conversations that never happened.
    You don't discuss it, you just repeat what you'd already said which is exactly what I said was factually not true since none of these games force you to use any kind of strategy. Are certain strategies encouraged? Yes, because greenskins are greenskins after all. But all you have to do is either get better or choose a faction that matches your playstyle, instead of choosing from the functionally 1-4 factions the historical games offered.

    Warhammer isnt the only one to limit choices since frankly it does the exact opposite.
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
Sign In or Register to comment.