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!

2456

Comments

  • EK5000EK5000 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 153
    The current battle speed is just fine in my opinion, I sure as hell wouldn't want to go back to Med2 or Empire battle pace, with some battles lasting close to an hour.

    Even with "fast" battle pace, I can find the time to zoom in occasionally, and if I've fought an epic battle, I can always save a replay and watch it later.
  • NemoxNemox Registered Users Posts: 2,901
    Boy, CA gonna love the feedback on this...

    Honestly, if the community is divided evenly on this, then CA won't be opted to change much. Especially when you have mods that can solve adding a few more minutes on (or longer if you fancy that).

    As for the bigger issues people have, lets be honest, it is one of the biggest problems many RTS' face: AI. CA are pretty damn aware of that, and many decisions they take in handling game speeds and sieges are a direct consequence of that.


  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited August 2017
    Sherman said:


    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.

    I'm talking about SP where slow battles translate to easy as hell snoozefests. Battle pace is no topic in MP at all.
  • Lord_XelosLord_Xelos Registered Users Posts: 1,806
    Valkaar said:

    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.

    That's what speed toggle is for. Slow down as much as You want and see Your "soldier's story" for as long as You like. It has nothing to do with default battle speed, as this is fine.

    I'd rather have intensive 5-10 minutes of battle (as it is now, length depends on how "tricky" You wanna play) than boring 30 minutes where everything feels like waiting. Times have changed, people don't like waiting and observing, people want action. This by no means lower strategic value of a game, it just requires more micro-skills and multi-tasking from the player, which is good. Games should be demanding.

    This being said, my gaming roots are in StarCraft series and Supreme Commander series so "actions-per-minute" is my second name.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001

    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.
    Yeah, on vanilla settings R1/M2 aren't slow at all when it comes to fighting. Once you pull the thread the entire enemy line chainroutes which can happen after seconds. RTS/SS have slowed down battles but those are mods and so don't count as "TW canon".
  • HighRoller64#8823HighRoller64#8823 Registered Users Posts: 304
    Maybe... just like 10% slower...?


    i'd enjoy being able to watch a few more charges in my battles.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    Infantry just crumbles and routs too fast. Whatever the mod Steel Faith does it really makes the "battle pace" fun. It gives you time to do more strategic movement as well as the AI. The units don't rout 10 seconds in to a fight. The pool of magic is increased as well. And terror and fear units actually have a part in the battle instead of being overpowered and flip flopping the battle. I find it becomes more strategic where the shock units are and where they hit.

    I recommend CA do that as well. If they are actually reworking battle pace.
  • DolorousEddDolorousEdd Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 555
    Agreed.

    Also I don't know what you guys are doing wrong, but no unit of mine routs 10 seconds after getting into a fight. Not even my gobbos.
    Team Dwarfs
    Team Bretonnia
    Team Crooked Moon
    Team Cult of Pleasure
    Team Clan Pestilens
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,701

    Valkaar said:

    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.

    That's what speed toggle is for. Slow down as much as You want and see Your "soldier's story" for as long as You like. It has nothing to do with default battle speed, as this is fine.

    I'd rather have intensive 5-10 minutes of battle (as it is now, length depends on how "tricky" You wanna play) than boring 30 minutes where everything feels like waiting. Times have changed, people don't like waiting and observing, people want action. This by no means lower strategic value of a game, it just requires more micro-skills and multi-tasking from the player, which is good. Games should be demanding.

    This being said, my gaming roots are in StarCraft series and Supreme Commander series so "actions-per-minute" is my second name.
    no... that's not what the toggle is for... it puts the game into slo mo, so that you can enjoy an epic charge hollywood style... it doesn't slow down the battle itself... it's like saying "you think the movie was too short? Watch it on 1/2 speed"...
    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    It would cool if the main clash lasted a bit longer.
  • gladonosgladonos Registered Users Posts: 772
    I like it as is. Because i like that monsters and cavalry feel like they have an impact.

    So +1 OP
  • ZerglesZergles Member Registered Users Posts: 3,014
    I'm ok with battle pace now. Heck. I still speed through parts to get to where I feel is more important.

    If they slow it down, and it looks like they plan on doing that by nerfing units overall, it will make small battles needlessly long. And huge battles into 15-20 minute commitments.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,278
    edited August 2017
    The battles as they are have no room for the effects of fatigue to take effect. Furthermore, the speed of their resolution means that the use of reserves and skirmishing are neglected in favour of an all out brawl that forces the commitment of all troops at the same time in order to win. This is the opposite of strategic depth.

    The basic elements of strategy that are missing from battle (that come to mind) are; the use of reserves, the consideration for fatigue, the skirmishing phase of battles and (the most unforgivable) the importance of deception (All warfare is based on deception).
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    @KGpoopy
    @cool_lad

    Disagree. Clashes last ample of time enough to be meaningful. Grinds between certain armies last already excruciatingly long (undead vs undead or anything vs dwarfs) and would be unbearable if fighting lasted longer. Fatigue heavily weighs into battles especially against those factions so I'm not seeing it.
  • RiddlebickRiddlebick Registered Users Posts: 254
    Hi,

    Why always look at things all so black and white? :D

    If we get half the speed that would be too much of cause. But increase battle lengh just by a sexy margin, cant see the downside to this. ;) (My opinion)

    But like this.
    Sometimes even the biggest of battles seem just unepic. :(

    "Ohhh boy! Giant battle, here we go!! .. Aaand it's over ... Well atleast watch the statistics! ... Aaand stats 'r gone"
    :/


    But if it stays that way, I wont be bothered, there are superb mods to fix it for ME. B)
    If it gets changed there will be a battle speed up mod to fix it for OTHERS. B)

    So it only counts what new, inexperienced players say and want, in order to make the first steps a good experience for them.
    Don't know what's best for them. :|
    Better trust CA, i guess. :)
    :#
  • ZerglesZergles Member Registered Users Posts: 3,014
    cool_lad said:

    The battles as they are have no room for the effects of fatigue to take effect. Furthermore, the speed of their resolution means that the use of reserves and skirmishing are neglected in favour of an all out brawl that forces the commitment of all troops at the same time in order to win. This is the opposite of strategic depth.

    What are you talking about? Units get tired and even exhausted in current medium to long battles. And low tier units tire in short battles. Units that have really good endurance and who don't tire easily, would require battles so long that all lesser units would become useless. Yours included. If that is strategic depth, and not being a masochist, well I'm even more against longer battles.

    And your enemy can *still* commit all their troops at once to create a brawl/blob. It would just be a longer and more drawn out brawl. They want to lower stats to make battles longer my dude. If it takes units longer to kill other units, but speed and time are virtually the same or maybe slightly adjusted, you end up with the exact. Same. Thing. Just longer and more drawn out and the next battle (I personally play aggressively so my battles come one after the other.) Is not something to look forward to.

  • FlyingWarPigWithPawsFlyingWarPigWithPaws Registered Users Posts: 871
    +1 Dont change the battle speed.
    #TzeentchLivesMatter

  • Jam#4399Jam#4399 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,068
    How about a poll?
  • Krunch#7448Krunch#7448 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,478
    edited August 2017
    Just going to repost this here:

    I will say it is true that even going back to Rome 1 the melee, what I will refer to as the "Clash" when your infantry fights theirs has always been fairly quick, excluding Medieval 2 which had long fights IF you just had 2 lines clashing, the caveat being that the clash could range from only a little slower than they are now to some being even quicker if you properly used the Heavy Cavalry in that game(Though generally 20v20's were a little longer, but not by that much if you had a decent number of Heavy Cavalry). However this is all referring to only one facet of the battle, as I call it, the clash. The thing is that while the clash has roughly stayed simmilar in length with some exceptions and variation(as I recall, I may be misremembering but I believe that EE Rome 2 was actually quite lengthy which was nice), the quickest clash being by far Shogun 2's, everything up to that point has been either sped up or near removed.

    In Warhammer I find that basically after deployment you usually run up to the enemy to play out a standard clash, which lasts usually about 5 minutes. Either that or you wait for the enemy to run up to you if you have arty and aren't feeling particularly agressive or are defending. The maps in Warhammer 1 can very often feel very small so you have little room for redeployment, though some can be fairly large I'd say they are on average smaller than the ones you would get in past Total Wars. In Warhammer there is very little skirmish phase if any, often I find as soon as I start shooting their skirmishers the enemy charges me. Battle maps are smaller so your troops start closer together which means that the battle feels shorter, however it often means there also aren't so many tactical positions to use, though as I have said that is not always the case. The lack of a skirmish phase also makes the game feel much shorter as well, it is since an entire phase of battle has been cut out. Another thing is often I find there is little room for redeployment after the actual deployment phase. You don't really feel the need to get as much of advantage with territory as possible I feel, and neither does the AI attempt to do so often either.

    In shogun 2 a few months ago I had what was maybe my favourite Total War battle in quite a while, in which I was attacking a Chosokabe army with my full Oda stack and attacking their army whichwas like 4 troops that was being reinforced by a full stack. I had some Oda long yari, Katana samurai, Yari Cavalry, Bow Warrior Monks and Matchlock Samurai. As the battle started I deployed my troops on an advantageous looking hill and started the fight. I noticed immediately that both the 4 stack and the 20 stack reinforcing were both trying to make it to a forested hill near where they were coming in from. Using my Bow monks and Yari Cav I harrassed the 4 stack and killed their archers and also shot up their yari ashigaru before they could make it to the hill, only I believe some depleted bow ashigaru and some Yari ashigaru making it up before my cav were driven off. Seeing that the enemy was determined to hold their forested hill I redeployed my entire army to where there was another "hill"(More a lump compared to the imposing steep hill they were on) and moved up my bow monks backed up by my Long Yari, trading with their archers and eventually moving up my matchlock samurai and firing up at them. We skirmished back and forth until their ranged units were all but dead and my bow monks ammo was depleted. I was not trying to use my matchlocks to provoke the enemy to charge or else make them take as many casualties for their infantry as possible, attempting to maximise what little advantage I had since they had far superior terrain. Eventually one flank of the enemy made a charge which was quickly dealt with by my reserved Katana samurai however the main force still held, I believe that unit was provoked since they had taken so many casualties and my Matchlocks were a little too close. This was cool as I was able to engage some of their infantry with my infantry but the battle itself had not yet begun, it felt like we were proper skirmishing. Eventually the AI had enough and made a full charge downhill which I countercharged with my Katana samurai, and we were able to defeat the depleted and bullet-riddled enemy forces in the end. I have many stories like this from across the TW games, often the S2 and prior ones.

    That clash at the end lasted I believe a little less than 2 minutes, but the battle itself lasted around 20, and would have lasted a bit more in real time had I not slightly sped up the marching(I believe it would have come to about 30 minutes? ). In TW:WH meanwhile there is little room and the game is not really designed or intended to allow for proper skirmishing phases, long marching, redeployment and taking advantage of terrain. One of the big reasons for not having to worry about terrain is actually since the game is so diverse as was mentioned the battles do often come to unit v unit fights which you usually know you will either win or lose, though I personally do think this is a bit overblown IMO. Though there is also not as much extreme terrain to take advantage of so often, though it can appear however even then I usually don't see the AI taking as much advantage of it as they could and it is so easy to provoke them into charing while as I said in S2 it is incredibly hard to get them to abandon an advantageous position. Like in S2 I often see impassible cliffs or extremely steep hills and stuff. Thankfully we have seen some WH2 maps have stuff like that which should be commended, though most look pretty normal.

    TL;DR @Ephraim_Dalton is right that indeed the clash itself has largely stayed the same speed and infact goes by slower than what you could get in Rome 1 and Shogun 2, however ultimately what makes the battles feel so much quicker is that there is an utter lack of a skirmish phase MOST OF THE TIME, maps are smaller WITH QUITE A FEW EXCEPTIONS and often redeployment is not a thing, usually you are just moving forward towards the enemy(There is a difference I feel, another time perhaps).

    PS:I should note that while that battle occurred in S2, there are many other battles I have had which have been much quicker with limited skirmishing(usually my fault) and quick clashes that could be about 5 minutes or less just like Warhammer.
  • dodge33cymru#1936dodge33cymru#1936 Registered Users Posts: 3,372
    I'm definitely on the side of battles needing to be longer, the way they currently are gives no time for reaction and manuevering, especially when a lot of the game is having to remember which timer has just reached 0.

    Fatigue takes hold almost instantly and there's no real sense of 'anvil' in the hammer and anvil approach.

    It's not terrible at the moment, I'd just prefer it otherwise. My most memorable (online) battles in Rome and Attila were ones where myself and my opponent changed formations and unit match-ups several times before committing to an assault.

    Personal preference, obviously, but too much of a click-fest which ends in a blob around a surviving LL.
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,197
    There is a world of difference between 15-20 min battles and asking that they list a minimum of 5 min after contact. .

    I would love an method of gameplay that rewarded holding back troops and reinforcing weak spots.


    Right now the speed makes battles too easy.
  • Sebor02Sebor02 Registered Users Posts: 387
    Disagree. Battles are too fast and need to be slowed down
  • FlyingWarPigWithPawsFlyingWarPigWithPaws Registered Users Posts: 871

    I'm definitely on the side of battles needing to be longer, the way they currently are gives no time for reaction and manuevering, especially when a lot of the game is having to remember which timer has just reached 0.

    Fatigue takes hold almost instantly and there's no real sense of 'anvil' in the hammer and anvil approach.

    It's not terrible at the moment, I'd just prefer it otherwise. My most memorable (online) battles in Rome and Attila were ones where myself and my opponent changed formations and unit match-ups several times before committing to an assault.

    Personal preference, obviously, but too much of a click-fest which ends in a blob around a surviving LL.

    Triple post
    #TzeentchLivesMatter

  • TubTubTubTub Registered Users Posts: 46
    IMO the battle speed is pretty nice as it is right now and doesn't have be changed.

  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited August 2017
    Krunch said:



    TL;DR @Ephraim_Dalton is right that indeed the clash itself has largely stayed the same speed and infact goes by slower than what you could get in Rome 1 and Shogun 2, however ultimately what makes the battles feel so much quicker is that there is an utter lack of a skirmish phase MOST OF THE TIME, maps are smaller WITH QUITE A FEW EXCEPTIONS and often redeployment is not a thing, usually you are just moving forward towards the enemy(There is a difference I feel, another time perhaps).


    There is no skirmish phase in S2. It's just that the defensive AI will not budge at all when defending and offensive AI will always go for the all-out bumrush with no exception. That is not a good thing, that just means it makes the battles easier since you can bombard them to hell before you attack them in melee and the AI is incapable of assuming loose formation for its skirmisher to boot, so the player always has the advantage. From R2 onwards if the AI doesn't have the ranged advantage it will go for the player once the firing begins. If it has range advantage however, it will stay put and favourable exchange fire. Happened often enough to me.

    Maps in S2 also aren't bigger than in R2 and follow-up titles.

    S2's battles are also the shortest in the series because units, once broken, never rally. That makes the most simplistic of the lot.

    I'm definitely on the side of battles needing to be longer, the way they currently are gives no time for reaction and manuevering, especially when a lot of the game is having to remember which timer has just reached 0.

    Fatigue takes hold almost instantly and there's no real sense of 'anvil' in the hammer and anvil approach.

    It's not terrible at the moment, I'd just prefer it otherwise. My most memorable (online) battles in Rome and Attila were ones where myself and my opponent changed formations and unit match-ups several times before committing to an assault.

    Personal preference, obviously, but too much of a click-fest which ends in a blob around a surviving LL.

    I find plenty of time for maneuvers. Especially when it's something extremely lopsided like early game Skarsnik against Dwarfs.

    I really don't know how people can say these things because the game doesn't bear it out.
  • ZerglesZergles Member Registered Users Posts: 3,014
    To make battles longer, if they are going to, I would rather then just make maps bigger and make Vanguard Deployment actually useful again. Right now VG is a little underwhelming on maps that aren't heavily forested.

    That's my only complaint that could connect to longer battles. If you started further away and had to worry about moving your artillary more than 3 feet forward, and worrying about something actually sneaking up on you, battles would be a lot better. Imo of course.
  • ShermanSherman Member Registered Users Posts: 954
    EK5000 said:

    The current battle speed is just fine in my opinion, I sure as hell wouldn't want to go back to Med2 or Empire battle pace, with some battles lasting close to an hour.

    Even with "fast" battle pace, I can find the time to zoom in occasionally, and if I've fought an epic battle, I can always save a replay and watch it later.

    No replay can be like feel the battle and the decision when it happens, actually many battles are simply forgettable because too quick. As I said, in my opinion the need of a quick battle to have more difficult battles is that the AI is limited and can't deal with a longer battle with more complex manouvers. But to be honest a more longer battle its only difficult when you don't react at the very start against AI manouver against the first line and the rears.

    After the inital struggle, in a campaign you have a good army composition usually, and every battle is forgettable because quick and easy. At least I want to see the epicness of the battle, with shouts, clashing etc, instead of a slowmo everytime ..
  • MatmannenMatmannen Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,235
    edited August 2017
    I don't see how a battle concisting of a charge and one or the other side running away after a 2 minute grind constitutes battle tactics...

    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.

    It's actually the other way around. Fast battles basically makes the idea of units being out of position a figment of the past. This is because fast battle paces also comes with fast movement speeds. Need a cavalry unit that is on the other side of the map? No worries, it's be in position within 20 sec or so.
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,082
    I played a battle speed mod for a few hundred hours. While I loved it all it really did was prioritise flanking. In the end I won battles about as quick as I win them in TWW now because I learned how to reduce morale quickly. I wouldn't say it took any more skill, or tactics than TWW does.
    "It's no fun fighting people weaker than you." - The Beast

    "There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Disciple of the Drybrush

  • DracoknightDracoknight Registered Users Posts: 281
    I am the supporter of leaving the "time to kill" and the general pace of the battle where it is.
    The speed settings changes nothing in terms of quick battles or multiplayer battles, slowing down the combat more than this is most likely going to make infantry blobs and similar battles a hell of a lot more dreadful than it is now.

    Just what do you gain from prolonged battles? In campagins you are having hundres of battles anyway so prolonging them is just going to make the same problem as Endless legend that takes hours just to finish a turn, and in multiplayer its just going to be dragged out for no real reason.
Sign In or Register to comment.