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

Please, do NOT slow down battles!

Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior MemberPosts: 19,629Registered Users
Contrary to what some people assert, slower battles remove tactics and strategy from the fighting as everything is decided by infantry grinds and units that rely on shock and morale effects are nerfed into oblivion as is any sort of damaging magic. Having only one effective tactic makes for a poor battlefield experience. I've played Rome Total Realism with its snail pace battles, it sucks.

Also, I don't see how "you can't watch your men fight" is a thing unless your reaction time has been crippled by weed abuse or something. I can zoom in in battles just fine and still not lose sight of the bigger picture.

Tagged:
«13456

Comments

  • for_bretonniafor_bretonnia Posts: 1,616Registered Users
  • FifthOfSpaghettiFifthOfSpaghetti Posts: 1,627Registered Users
    I'm quite happy with the battle pace, I liked it in the other Total wars too, but this one really allows me to enjoy the large monster units shocking into infantry
  • MemnonMemnon Senior Member Posts: 576Registered Users
    If battle too slow-always can play on triple speed.Dont like watch battle and like fast clcik-play on triple speed-lose nothing...
  • SakuraHeinzSakuraHeinz Junior Member Posts: 2,055Registered Users
    If you have to do a lot of battles by yourself, that you know you would win anyway, long battles get really annoying.

    I own and have played all total wars and I think the fast battles are good, if I liked a battle I saved them and watched them later.

    Also you can actually play more of the game instead of making two long battles, look at the clock and well 1 hour past.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 19,629Registered Users
    Memnon said:

    If battle too slow-always can play on triple speed.Dont like watch battle and like fast clcik-play on triple speed-lose nothing...

    If battle too fast-always can play on half speed.Dont like watch battle and like slow clcik-play on half speed-lose nothing...

  • makar55makar55 Posts: 1,533Registered Users
    +1 no need to slow them down
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 19,629Registered Users
    Battles as they are punish poor positioning and tactics. In slower battles you'd get ages to correct blunders. I think if you slow battles down you also dumb them down.

  • MemnonMemnon Senior Member Posts: 576Registered Users

    Memnon said:

    If battle too slow-always can play on triple speed.Dont like watch battle and like fast clcik-play on triple speed-lose nothing...

    If battle too fast-always can play on half speed.Dont like watch battle and like slow clcik-play on half speed-lose nothing...
    Im like watch for fighting units.If im play on half speed my warriors make move like tourtles-did You try understain its make a really big different?If dont like watch for battle-play on triple speed-lose nothing-if like watch-cant use half speed becouse soldiers moving like phlegmatic!
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 19,629Registered Users
    edited August 2017
    Memnon said:

    Memnon said:

    If battle too slow-always can play on triple speed.Dont like watch battle and like fast clcik-play on triple speed-lose nothing...

    If battle too fast-always can play on half speed.Dont like watch battle and like slow clcik-play on half speed-lose nothing...
    Im like watch for fighting units.If im play on half speed my warriors make move like tourtles-did You try understain its make a really big different?If dont like watch for battle-play on triple speed-lose nothing-if like watch-cant use half speed becouse soldiers moving like phlegmatic!
    They need to do way instain mother, who kill thier babby because these babby can't frigth back.

  • Galvinized_IronGalvinized_Iron Posts: 822Registered Users
    You are confusing multitasking ability with reflexes. TW requires good multitasking ability not quick reflexes
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 19,629Registered Users

    You are confusing multitasking ability with reflexes. TW requires good multitasking ability not quick reflexes

    So if you left a unit of skirmishers exposed and a regiment of heavy cavalry is bearing down on them, you don't need reflexes to save the situation?

  • Galvinized_IronGalvinized_Iron Posts: 822Registered Users
    edited August 2017

    You are confusing multitasking ability with reflexes. TW requires good multitasking ability not quick reflexes

    So if you left a unit of skirmishers exposed and a regiment of heavy cavalry is bearing down on them, you don't need reflexes to save the situation?
    No because:

    1) You need to see that this is happening. Meaning you need a good overview. Reflexes won't do **** for you if you are not paying attention.

    2) The solution is not a see-react one, but a complex one. You will need to coordinate actions simultaniously of several units to counter it and those actions must be synchronized. If anything too quick reflexs would be negative there as the key is to react calmly. This is different from fighters or shooters where reacting by instinct is the right call. Which ironically means one would play TW better on a modest amount of weed.
  • NeoYasNeoYas Posts: 601Registered Users
    I agree, also it would take lot of time to watch replays if they slow down the pace.


  • totalromefantotalromefan Senior Member Posts: 526Registered Users
    no lets not, I mean why actually enjoy the battle.
    in fact, lets make it even faster so we can spend even more time on the exciting and in dept campaign map gameplay
    as for making fighting battles that are to heavilly in your favor even longer, we have autoresolve for that
  • Lord_XelosLord_Xelos Posts: 1,806Registered Users
    I very rarely do so, but Dalton just got a Like from me.
  • for_bretonniafor_bretonnia Posts: 1,616Registered Users
    I also agree that it's more multi tasking related than actual reflexes.

    60% of these games is just knowing the efficient way to move your armie and not biting off more than you can chew with army management
  • HarconnHarconn Posts: 834Registered Users
    +2-3 minutes longer wouldn't harm anyone and would make more people happy probably. For me battles are indeed too fast.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    My German Youtube-Channel - Let's Plays (Strategy, RPG, Indie,...): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChwblqvwr8XxKP0GzCcUb8Q
  • Galvinized_IronGalvinized_Iron Posts: 822Registered Users
    edited August 2017
    Personally I want the debug camera back. Because the current camera doesn't quite give a satisfying overview. I think the reason the battles are feeling too fast is because you constantly have to shift the camera back and forth. If you could just control evertything from a birds eye perspective it would be a lot more relaxing regardless of the battle speed.

    And they should remove that pointless tactical overview in the process...
  • IcestrugleIcestrugle Junior Member Posts: 1,132Registered Users
    agree but maybe a little longer like 1-2 minutes or such. I like that i can do a lot of battles, not like in medieval 2 just one battle per playthrought ( from when opening the game) because they were lasting even an hour and that was to much.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,466Registered Users
    edited August 2017

    Contrary to what some people assert, slower battles remove tactics and strategy from the fighting as everything is decided by infantry grinds and units that rely on shock and morale effects are nerfed into oblivion as is any sort of damaging magic. Having only one effective tactic makes for a poor battlefield experience. I've played Rome Total Realism with its snail pace battles, it sucks.

    Also, I don't see how "you can't watch your men fight" is a thing.

    You've played a mod, ergo what people like me want must resemble that mod? No, I don't think so.

    Right now the ability to conserve forces is nil, that is the great bulk of potential tactics that exist not being available in Warhammer where their potential could be huge, in favour of shallow arcade-ness where the winner has the most out-flanking, nukes or matches the most X to Y units they are effective against. There are no tactics in that, just click-fest.

    If YOU played older TW and got infantry grinds, blobs and such, that's because you don't know how to play any other way. Far from making shock units less effective, a proper battle design would make them stand out as they should because right now almost every unit works like shock units in previous games, so what is called a specialised shock unit in Warhammer is little different from anything else.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • Lord_XelosLord_Xelos Posts: 1,806Registered Users

    agree but maybe a little longer like 1-2 minutes or such. I like that i can do a lot of battles, not like in medieval 2 just one battle per playthrought ( from when opening the game) because they were lasting even an hour and that was to much.

    Yeah I played those on full speed-up from UI. Playing it on normal speed was making me so sleepy...
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,466Registered Users

    Memnon said:

    If battle too slow-always can play on triple speed.Dont like watch battle and like fast clcik-play on triple speed-lose nothing...

    If battle too fast-always can play on half speed.Dont like watch battle and like slow clcik-play on half speed-lose nothing...
    You're reinforcing his point by simply reiterating the daft argument which he is lampooning. The reason why you didn't take it head-on is because then you would be arguing against the very same talking-point pushed by those who think the battle-pace is fine.
  • Galvinized_IronGalvinized_Iron Posts: 822Registered Users
    edited August 2017

    agree but maybe a little longer like 1-2 minutes or such. I like that i can do a lot of battles, not like in medieval 2 just one battle per playthrought ( from when opening the game) because they were lasting even an hour and that was to much.

    Yeah I played those on full speed-up from UI. Playing it on normal speed was making me so sleepy...
    Sure you did :D

    You guys only remember playing M2TW with mods apperently, because vanilla M2TW was faster than Warhammer on average. Except for during sieges when infantry kinda had a tendency to stand in line to fight rather than fighting each other.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,466Registered Users

    You are confusing multitasking ability with reflexes. TW requires good multitasking ability not quick reflexes

    So if you left a unit of skirmishers exposed and a regiment of heavy cavalry is bearing down on them, you don't need reflexes to save the situation?
    No because:

    1) You need to see that this is happening. Meaning you need a good overview. Reflexes won't do **** for you if you are not paying attention.

    2) The solution is not a see-react one, but a complex one. You will need to coordinate actions simultaniously of several units to counter it and those actions must be synchronized. If anything too quick reflexs would be negative there as the key is to react calmly. This is different from fighters or shooters where reacting by instinct is the right call. Which ironically means one would play TW better on a modest amount of weed.
    He doesn't understand that if skirmishers are out of position and being approached by cavalry, then it's too late because of the difference in move speeds and nothing to do with player reflexes. Ephraim literally thinks the issue over battle-pace is solved by pausing or changing the game speed or using mods(whilst having just highlighted the problems of such a mod, but his arguments are rarely joined-up).

    The problem is not reaction, but that the current design does not enable anticipation: a skirmisher out of position could be quickly covered by a proper missile infantry unit denying a free zone of movement for approaching cavalry, as is realistically the case, or the skirmisher can move through an existing zone of control. But Warhammer doesn't have properly designed missile units. Units are only good against units which CA explicitly says they must be good against. In a system designed to consider the bottom-up(like the real world is), ranged units can be catastrophic to horses or similar large animals which are easier targets, but how CA have done things that couldn't work without missile units explicitly being given 'anti-large' stat profiles.
  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Posts: 1,746Registered Users
    Strategy "depth" aside, I preferred the slower battles.

    I understand CA doesn't care, and is going for fast battles all the time in every title these days.

    But for me, it always was just so I could take a breath, and enjoy engagements. I sometimes liked to pick a guy out of a unit, and "root" for him, see how many guys that model could kill before he died, or you really did have to start paying attention.

    In modern titles, you only have a few seconds you can zoom in before you have to zoom out again, and even when you're zoomed in, the moshpit style fighting instead of formation vs formation style fighting makes it hard to appreciate anything that's going on anyway.

    The moshpit thing is more of a Warhammer problem than a recent Total War problem. Even Rome 2 (after many patches) allowed for decent formation engagements. Formation battles added both tactical depth and visual cohesion imo.

    In any case, since it's clear what direction CA wants to go with battle speed, my only recourse could maybe a StarCraft 2 style compromise?

    In SC2 for online ranked battles you of course had a single, locked, fast game speed.

    But for campaign/custom battles you actually had 2 speed options. I'm not talking about fast forward vs slo motion. It just an optional, slightly slower game speed. Would make a 6 minute mission take 8 or 9 minutes for example.

    Maybe for campaign/custom battles they could add a button or slider similar to the difficulty button for speed? CA could just balance the game for one speed (Blizzard obviously didn't balance things differently for each speed)...and ranked matches could be locked in at the faster speed.

    But having at least two options I think could appease both segments of the fan base, as well as help ease people who are new to RTS into the game.

  • Horus168Horus168 Posts: 578Registered Users

    Contrary to what some people assert, slower battles remove tactics and strategy from the fighting as everything is decided by infantry grinds and units that rely on shock and morale effects are nerfed into oblivion as is any sort of damaging magic. Having only one effective tactic makes for a poor battlefield experience. I've played Rome Total Realism with its snail pace battles, it sucks.

    Also, I don't see how "you can't watch your men fight" is a thing unless your reaction time has been crippled by weed abuse or something. I can zoom in in battles just fine and still not lose sight of the bigger picture.

    There have been 3 threads on battle speed on battle speed in the last day, with a 50/50 split on whether they'd prefer faster battles or not. Did we really need another one?
  • SaitohSaitoh Posts: 259Registered Users

    You are confusing multitasking ability with reflexes. TW requires good multitasking ability not quick reflexes

    So if you left a unit of skirmishers exposed and a regiment of heavy cavalry is bearing down on them, you don't need reflexes to save the situation?
    Average human reaction time is .2 second. Even the fastest cavalry in the game would take at least 10 seconds to clear the firing range of most missile infantry.
  • Phoenix99Phoenix99 Senior Member Posts: 1,036Registered Users
    A bunch of 'pros' who could not get out of bronze league in SC2... please tell me more how good of RTS the battlescape is...

    People here remind me of people claiming that PvP in MMOs is good, but could not ever win in a more competitive game like CS.

  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,466Registered Users
    I think comparisons with SC2 are always going to be awkward, I try to avoid them mostly. One thing SC2 gets right though; the reason why matches last longer than they do in modern TW(especially Warhammer) is because players have the option to make it so using the tactics available and these tactics are different depending on what race you play but they are available for all of them.

    All the best army compositions too are based on the army being able to protect itself rather than quickly decimate the enemy; it's why below the pro level Zerg has suffered throughout because their only protection for their units is speed. Meanwhile Terran and Protoss have their own variations on 'death-balling', all their army units organised into a circle which reduces the outer surface area available for them to be attacked and maximising the zone of control immediately around that surface area: the closer an enemy is, the more under fire they are. All my winning Zerg plays as a result were starvation plays; it's the only conservative strategy and set of tactics available to that race and consistently successful.

    The only thing that really beats conservative tactics is deception, but that's quite hard to simulate with AI, so no wonder CA did away with all conservative tactics, leading to short and unsatisfying battles.
  • ShermanSherman Member Posts: 873Registered Users

    We have all these monster units, this all well equipped halbardies, and without playing in slowmotion I can't see a thing because the battle end around a minutes and half, yeah great battle pace!

    If someone want to feel better doing quick clicks and see how good it was, he can choose the fastest speed. But I can't feel the epicness of battle in fantasy world if the battle is only a *click* *click* *click* ->END OF BATTLE.

    About strategy... well I don't agree, if you have more time, even your enemy have more time and can try also more hazardous manouver. If we are talking about singleplayer, maybe the problem can be that in a game more slow the AI can be more easy because you have more time for you, and instead the AI can't use this time to do more smart things. Instead a quick battle is artificially difficult because you have to deal quickly against the AI or all will be a mess. If we are talking about multiplayer, well in my opinion its another kind of problems, it should be an option.
Sign In or Register to comment.