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

So I played some Napoleon again

DeuzerreDeuzerre MemberPosts: 939Registered Users
edited September 2017 in Napoleon: Total War
TLDR: Lower movement speed for units is good for battles.

After watching a youtuber's recent battle in NTW , I went to install the game again, inspiring myself from his gameplay to have the kind of battles I enjoyed back then and see how the game evolved. Now, the campaign was pretty... Yuck... and I couldn't get back into it (between the AI doing whatever and the UI, it was hard. The game improved quite a bit) so instead I went and did a big bunch of battles again.

Aforementioned video:



The first thing I noticed when playing these battles again was that the base movement is "walk". Not run. Unit don't generally run in this game, unless you tell them to (it was somewhat clunky by the way, sometimes the double click doesn't quite register) and fatigue lasts quite a while, so you are really "recommended" to make your units save their breath for a while.

The second thing I noticed, albeit it took some time, was that units... Moved very slowly compared to Warhammer Total war. I realized this after going on the wide flank of the enemy with two horse artillery and three other cav units to seize a hill, while my militia in the middle held some ground with the moral support of the general and most of my forces were on the other flank with skirmishers in front and line infantry behind. First off: My artillery, that is notoriously slow to deploy in this game, still had time to deploy and almost had time for a shot before the enemy cav' came around from a quarter of the map away (I screwed up my interception with lancers). In Warhammer, this would have never happened, because by the time my artillery would have started to turn, they'd have already been charged by a unit way farther on the map.

An other effect of this was that when some bits of my line collapsed, I couldn't immediately fill the hole and instead had to... TADDADADA... plan ahead. I had to keep reserves. I had to anticipate the enemy actions, and not react to them. Sure, I reacted to some, but the reaction had to be within a certain margin, a certain proximity, and I couldn't simply divert a unit from the other side of my line to fill a gap in the middle and 10 second tops after that it would have been fine again.

Basically, I think you can say all you want about melee being too fast, (melee is extremely fast in napoleon; albeit pretty bloody), but from my experience over a dozen battles, even against the admittedly pretty poor AI, my battles lasted about 50% to 100% longer than in WHTW, but at the same time:
- They started right during deployment because you can't just decide to reorganise your troops at the start of the battle: You're either commited to your plan or you give up the ground to your opponent while you reorganise your line
- They had action and decisions during the whole battle: There was a flow to it, and you either ride the flow or get drowned by it
- It wasn't a clickfest for APM gods, but at the same time still required occasional split second decisions (reacting to an enemy cavalry that snuck through my lines, declaring a charge after an enemy volley while he's low on morale, falling back with half of your line to draw the enemy in a crossfire....)
- Combat never was in a single line decided by who had the best local counter to the unit directly in front of it with minor flanking attacks and hammer and anvil abuse: Very often, I could engage my units in one area while retreating in an other, threatening the enemy so he wouldn't be able to reinforce his line on a specific point, I had broad flanks, etc...
- When things go wrong, you can really "save" things up by sacrificing a minor unit to save others so they can fight just a bit later

I realize now that how I played napoleon and Empire when I were a child was totally wrong: I made huge thin lines of troops and went into a shooting contest, just like nowadays I see MP combat in WHTW being fought frontally. Except that in warhammer, I never have the occasion to have a broad front with normal funds. I can't keep my eyes away even one second because every time you blink you miss an action. You don't NEED to plan ahead because you can jsut reorganize your troops on the fly, I didn't ahve a massive collapse that I can't save.

Maybe I'm an old fart already at 30yo that's not suited for the kind of gameplay of nowadays, but I found in Napoleon the "feel" of battles I don't get in warhammer: A strategic feel, and that's almost all thanks to the speed at which units move: Slower.

EDIT: To answer this:
Deuzerre said:

CnConrad said:

It was a totally different type of game gunpowder lines vs monsters.


You can't even compare the two.

I have to disagree. As I point out in my wall of text, it's not the combat that matters: It's the strategy around the decisive movements that matter. If during deployment, I realize that my counter to your, say, giant, is totally wrongly placed, in warhammer, it's just a matter of saying "move fast" and boop my mistake is corrected. With the movement speed of Napoleon, that counter would have a harder time to get there. It really isn't matter of gunpowder VS fantasy on this one.

Let's put it in practice: Let's say that in a Greenskin army there's a bunch of boar boyz on the left flank, a strong line of orcs and Trolls in the centre, some areer' boys in the front and a bunch of vanguard wolfs in a forest near the front. Against them, there's many imperial spearmen, some halberds, a unit of demigryphs on the right (so not facing the boar boyz) and a mix of guns and crossbows + 1 artillery. In the current gameplay, with the current speed of units, what basically happens is that the demis will go manage the boars, the main lines will clash, the ranged units will duel (though I doubt a greenskin would bother with arrer boys at all because they would be pointless: Better have more grunts), and the wolves would try to flank and get the artillery.

With slower speed units, you could instead have the wolves harrass the demigriphs, which would allow the boars to roam pretty much freely. If the demis seem to come, the boars can just move away by the time the demis get around. The ranged units could harrass each other and the main units, forcing one side or the other to commit to an offensive. But the imperial guy (who'd have the fire superiority) could still decide to move back in echelons so that he could fire for longer until he feels confident he can engage the trolls and orcs. At the same time, the wolves would always menace the archers, without necessarily charging them, to limit their impact on the battlefield.

It really isn't that different. It isn't about gunlines, magic or whatever, 'tis about local force, mobility, anticipation and making the correct call at the right time. Sun Tze, even if overused for argument's sake, made general principals that still totally suite nowadays battlefields. But for some reason, they don't apply to WHTW because there is basically a very tiny fraction of the strategic opportunities in a battlefield that are offered to us.
Post edited by Deuzerre on
«13

Comments

  • jhandjhand Posts: 388Registered Users
    why?


    sorry didn't even read, but the question remains.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 2,007Registered Users
    The units moved realistically up until Rome 2, where things got weird. Funny thing is they say the battle animations were the cause, but Napoleon, Empire and Shogun 2 had elaborate battle animations which were very fluid and the units clashed well.

    What happened?

    I mean, warhammer's clashes work very well. But only because there is no synced animations. Which is contrary to other titles where synced animations and clashes worked perfectly.

    But I'm just happy one of the devs seemed excited about combat animations in the next historical title.
  • TheokolesOfRomeTheokolesOfRome Senior Member The Highlands in me kilt.Posts: 1,465Registered Users
    Who was the youtuber? I'd like to see the battle.
    My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/brightbluejacket1
    Watch if you like high quality, edited and cinematic videos with informed content.
    My Rig:
    i7 4790k @ 4ghz
    1 x Titan X Pascal
    16GB 2400Mhz Ram
    1TB SSD Drive
    34" Curved Monitor 3440x1440p
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Posts: 3,072Registered Users
    edited September 2017
    It was a totally different type of game gunpowder lines vs monsters.


    You can't even compare the two.


    I don't understand anyone who wants slower movement, I can understand slightly longer battles but movement speed on everything pre Rome 2 was painful.

    I had to put in in 4x speed all the way up to the start of the battle. You were punnished so hard for running troops you were stuck waiting 5-7 mins with nothing at all but slow paced walking nothing was not fun tactical on interesting in the least bit.
  • ValeliValeli Senior Member Posts: 1,874Registered Users
    edited September 2017
    @OP
    CnConrad said:

    You can't even compare the two.

    Sure you can. Magic is just mobile artillery, and monsters are just elite combat units with different skins. I have no idea why you couldn't compare them.

    Even, for the sake of argument, supposing you limited the comparison to handgunners and thunderers vs ranged units in earlier titles, most of the OP's points still stand. ... and they're not limited to Napoleon at all. Plenty of earlier TW games played a bit differently and can be compared to each other or to WH.

    As far as whether slower movement per se is good... I think I'm happy with the slightly faster movement speeds we have now for games that aren't designed around line infantry shoot outs. I certainly wouldn't want it any faster, and would be ok with it being a /tiny/ bit slower, but like CnConrad I foundmyself fast forwarding during movement a good bit vs the AI in med 2 and empire/napoleon.

    That said, I disagree with CnConrad on fatigue penalties. I'd like them to remain/return to being important.

    @OP - can't you change the default WH move setting to walk somewhere? I think you could. Not that that really addresses anything. Just saying, since you brought it up. I'd look around a bit if that's something getting under your skin.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 7,682Registered Users
    edited September 2017
    CnConrad said:

    It was a totally different type of game gunpowder lines vs monsters.


    You can't even compare the two.

    Comparing two things that are different to eachother is the whole point of comparing.
    The best, most original, and funniest way to troll me is to insult the Ogres.
    The second best, super duper original, and l33t way is to insult me.
    The third best is to say "The Despoiler is a beautiful unit that fits perfectly into the Fantasy setting". Bonus points if you type that without throwing up.
  • ValeliValeli Senior Member Posts: 1,874Registered Users
    edited September 2017

    Comparing two things that are different to eachother is the whole point of comparing.

    ^ This. So much this.

    Which, again, isn't to say the two games should/shouldn't play identically. Having one centered on long range shoot-offs almost necessitates a few differences. Absolutely. But one can still look at the two and see what you liked in one, and how it might/might not be usable in the other.

    Just because a few things in Napoleon were probably implemented just to deal with that game's unique situation does not mean that /all/ things in Napoleon were implemented to deal with that game's unique situation.
  • FlyingWarPigWithPawsFlyingWarPigWithPaws Posts: 653Registered Users
    Now that was a game where sieges were even worse than in Warhammer. Properly placing your units on the walls or getting them out of the fort was usually more of a challenge than beating the enemy.
    Ungrim is no longer homesick.
  • DeuzerreDeuzerre Member Posts: 939Registered Users

    Who was the youtuber? I'd like to see the battle.

    CnConrad said:

    It was a totally different type of game gunpowder lines vs monsters.


    You can't even compare the two.

    I have to disagree. As I point out in my wall of text, it's not the combat that matters: It's the strategy around the decisive movements that matter. If during deployment, I realize that my counter to your, say, giant, is totally wrongly placed, in warhammer, it's just a matter of saying "move fast" and boop my mistake is corrected. With the movement speed of Napoleon, that counter would have a harder time to get there. It really isn't matter of gunpowder VS fantasy on this one.

    Let's put it in practice: Let's say that in a Greenskin army there's a bunch of boar boyz on the left flank, a strong line of orcs and Trolls in the centre, some areer' boys in the front and a bunch of vanguard wolfs in a forest near the front. Against them, there's many imperial spearmen, some halberds, a unit of demigryphs on the right (so not facing the boar boyz) and a mix of guns and crossbows + 1 artillery. In the current gameplay, with the current speed of units, what basically happens is that the demis will go manage the boars, the main lines will clash, the ranged units will duel (though I doubt a greenskin would bother with arrer boys at all because they would be pointless: Better have more grunts), and the wolves would try to flank and get the artillery.

    With slower speed units, you could instead have the wolves harrass the demigriphs, which would allow the boars to roam pretty much freely. If the demis seem to come, the boars can just move away by the time the demis get around. The ranged units could harrass each other and the main units, forcing one side or the other to commit to an offensive. But the imperial guy (who'd have the fire superiority) could still decide to move back in echelons so that he could fire for longer until he feels confident he can engage the trolls and orcs. At the same time, the wolves would always menace the archers, without necessarily charging them, to limit their impact on the battlefield.

    It really isn't that different. It isn't about gunlines, magic or whatever, 'tis about local force, mobility, anticipation and making the correct call at the right time. Sun Tze, even if overused for argument's sake, made general principals that still totally suite nowadays battlefields. But for some reason, they don't apply to WHTW because there is basically a very tiny fraction of the strategic opportunities in a battlefield that are offered to us.

    Now that was a game where sieges were even worse than in Warhammer. Properly placing your units on the walls or getting them out of the fort was usually more of a challenge than beating the enemy.

    Yeah... The campaign is pretty atrocious too. Total war really came a long way since then.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,011Registered Users
    All very good points OP.

    I wouldn't say the units move faster in Warhammer because of a generally higher base movement speed, but because of other mechanical and design differences. First of all, Warhammer unit models are very small compared to other games. This makes the battle map seem larger when the view is close, when we know many of them are a lot smaller and the deployment zones much closer. There's also the fatigue issue: stamina plays almost no role any more. In the older games, stamina could be used up just by getting units to walk somewhere depending on terrain, their armour, the weather and their base stamina. It would take ages to recover too. In Warhammer it hardly gets used running about, recovers in about a minute even from tired, barely influences combat effectiveness and I have tested- it doesn't affect movement speed one bit. All these things together make the overall speed of Warhammer's units a bit absurd, so it's not a case that changing the base movement speed is the solution(as many mods seem to do) but the affecting mechanics and design of maps.

    The range on missile units is also terrible. Typically a pre-industrial army would have ranged to protect the whole army: zone-control, skirmishing and a few specialists meant to take out important targets. In Warhammer, all missile units fire like snipers. Not super-accurate long-ranged snipers, because their range is awful, but they fire rapidly, they fire individually(not in volleys) and they aim to shoot at individual enemy troops. This is not how most missile units are supposed to fight; that's only how soldiers in modern warfare fight, not massed units ordered into ranks.
  • Galvinized_IronGalvinized_Iron Posts: 821Registered Users
    Never heard of conveyor belts? You know like the ones on airports for quicker travel. Well the Waehammer world is covered in them, this is according to lore
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 2,007Registered Users
    CnConrad said:



    I don't understand anyone who wants slower movement, I can understand slightly longer battles but movement speed on everything pre Rome 2 was painful.

    No it wasn't. You don't understand because it was not appallingly slow movement. You have to be very impatient to think that. That was not even a concern. The main concern was the fights ended wayyyy too fast even in Napoleon as the OP says.

    By the way Rome 2 didn't have much more fast movement so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Rome 2 introduced weird movement and pathing. (Most of this stuff is fixed in Emperor Edition) In fact Shogun 2 probably had the most fine tuned movement speed and fluidity.
  • SurielSuriel Posts: 111Registered Users
    Funny thing is that in tabletop movement and planning were essential. It was not possible to suddenly move a regiment from one flank to another like in TWW.
  • FlyingWarPigWithPawsFlyingWarPigWithPaws Posts: 653Registered Users
    KGpoopy said:

    CnConrad said:



    I don't understand anyone who wants slower movement, I can understand slightly longer battles but movement speed on everything pre Rome 2 was painful.

    No it wasn't. You don't understand because it was not appallingly slow movement. You have to be very impatient to think that. That was not even a concern. The main concern was the fights ended wayyyy too fast even in Napoleon as the OP says.

    By the way Rome 2 didn't have much more fast movement so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Rome 2 introduced weird movement and pathing. (Most of this stuff is fixed in Emperor Edition) In fact Shogun 2 probably had the most fine tuned movement speed and fluidity.
    Well Shogun 2 battles were very short as well and nobody complained.
    Ungrim is no longer homesick.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 2,007Registered Users

    KGpoopy said:

    CnConrad said:



    I don't understand anyone who wants slower movement, I can understand slightly longer battles but movement speed on everything pre Rome 2 was painful.

    No it wasn't. You don't understand because it was not appallingly slow movement. You have to be very impatient to think that. That was not even a concern. The main concern was the fights ended wayyyy too fast even in Napoleon as the OP says.

    By the way Rome 2 didn't have much more fast movement so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Rome 2 introduced weird movement and pathing. (Most of this stuff is fixed in Emperor Edition) In fact Shogun 2 probably had the most fine tuned movement speed and fluidity.
    Well Shogun 2 battles were very short as well and nobody complained.
    I surely didn't.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 2,007Registered Users

    KGpoopy said:

    CnConrad said:



    I don't understand anyone who wants slower movement, I can understand slightly longer battles but movement speed on everything pre Rome 2 was painful.

    No it wasn't. You don't understand because it was not appallingly slow movement. You have to be very impatient to think that. That was not even a concern. The main concern was the fights ended wayyyy too fast even in Napoleon as the OP says.

    By the way Rome 2 didn't have much more fast movement so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Rome 2 introduced weird movement and pathing. (Most of this stuff is fixed in Emperor Edition) In fact Shogun 2 probably had the most fine tuned movement speed and fluidity.
    Well Shogun 2 battles were very short as well and nobody complained.
    Right, I surely didn't.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,011Registered Users
    Suriel said:

    Funny thing is that in tabletop movement and planning were essential. It was not possible to suddenly move a regiment from one flank to another like in TWW.

    Another reason why the 'this game is adapting from the tabletop' is a terrible excuse for some of the worst design choices. Funny how few features of tabletop which make for more tactical depth seem to make the transition.
  • Red_GeneralRed_General Member Posts: 181Registered Users
    Did i read somewhere that CA are reducing battle speeds by 15%!?!*
  • DeuzerreDeuzerre Member Posts: 939Registered Users

    Well Shogun 2 battles were very short as well and nobody complained.

    Actually, in Shogun, other factors came in too: Ranged combat was lethal, so you wouldn't just "get in" because by the time your guys got to the enemy, they'd have suffered crippling losses. The time to target VS ranged lethality forced people to just move and plan ahead, once again not just "X vs Y because X > Y" all that along the whole line. You had to skirmish a bit, bait the opponent for the proper attack to take place, and unit mobility was still sufficiently low to allow for whole refused flanks and retreats (while in warhammer by the time your unit turned around, the enemy is already on their heels)
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Posts: 3,072Registered Users
    edited September 2017
    To everyone who says you can compare the two, I honestly don't see how.

    You can't compare call of duty and Mario so how on Earth do you compare a fight of zombies black coaches and varghiests vs Mammoths ice dragons and trolls and a fight between 2 nearly identical human factions fighting with the same weapons only differentiated by +1 or -2 stat points?
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 7,682Registered Users
    edited September 2017
    CnConrad said:

    To everyone who says you can compare the two, I honestly don't see how.

    You can't compare call of duty and Mario so how on Earth do you compare a fight of zombies black coaches and varghiests vs Mammoths ice dragons and trolls and a fight between 2 nearly identical human factions fighting with the same weapons only differentiated by +1 or -2 stat points?

    Call of Duty is a First Person Shooter (FPS) franchise with a realistic style that focuses on Multiplayer, but also has a story mode. Mario is one of Nintendo's most valuable Intellectual Properties (IP's) who has featured in games ranging from Mario kart, to super smash bros to a plethora of platforming games that form his base.

    There, I just compared them, which is exactly what comparison is for. The word you're looking for isn't comparison, it's equivalent.

    I'm not even commenting on the validity of OP's conclusions, but I will say that in this debate he's presented a far better argument than you, you've just repeated the same argument again instead of arguing against his counters or even his initial points, all you've done is misuse the word comparison.
    The best, most original, and funniest way to troll me is to insult the Ogres.
    The second best, super duper original, and l33t way is to insult me.
    The third best is to say "The Despoiler is a beautiful unit that fits perfectly into the Fantasy setting". Bonus points if you type that without throwing up.
  • Ashbery76Ashbery76 Senior Member Posts: 587Registered Users
    The battles are static and lacking variety or tactical options compared to Warhammer .

    This is what Fantasy allowed and I wonder how static lines of samey humans can ever match it.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,011Registered Users

    Did i read somewhere that CA are reducing battle speeds by 15%!?!*

    A post was made by a CA staff member, I think CA Ato, but I wasn't encouraged by what I had read. They didn't seem to have a strong grasp of the underlying causes of the issue by proposing artificially making battles longer by making units more durable was a solution. In a nutshell, the main issues causing short and superficial battles are:

    1. The shooting mechanics. Every missile unit in Total War: Warhammer fires rapidly, has a short range for the weapons they tend to be using and they seem to aim at individual enemy troops as targets. That is how modern soldiers shoot; as marksmen, but that is not how it was done when they were organised into ranks for centuries nor does it make sense in the Warhammer setting. This shooting style suits snipers, making every missile unit a sniper. They can not effectively skirmish or control enemy movement. If they fired in volleys, targeted whole units or the ground the enemy moves through and shot further, they could do this.

    2. The above example shows how the role of missile units is restricted to what is normally considered a specialist role rather than as part of an army. The same applies to other units: there are no melee units whos porpose is to simply hold ground, to relieve tired units, to be good all-rounders serving in reserve etc. They are instead all designed as if they belonged to the specialist category of 'shock troop', except that rather than being generally effective for it they are specifically effective against units they are designed to be overpowered against. That comes in the form of traits and stat profiles rather than tactics they are able to apply like advancing spear/shield-walls, unit formations, throwing weapons prior to engaging etc. That last one is something which Dwarfen Miners with satchel charges can do, but unlike Kisho Ninja in Shogun 2 it hardly makes them better in combat- it exists to do a one-off nuke or take down a gate quickly. I call this 'X beats Y' design because unlike the cycle of rock-paper-scissors, going from X to Y is a cul-de-sac, it is linear: the gameplay expresses itself as you sending your X to attack their Y and they send their Y to attack your X. You can't simply keep your Y away from their X because then they have a spare X to throw at something else. The game punishes force-preserving conservative tactics.

    3. The map designs for battles. They are simultaneously uninteresting but even if they were to change, I've tested it: elevation no longer provides any benefits so even if more hills and inclined terrain were introduced, without a subsequent design change to the unit fighting system in recognition of the map change there would be no point. Two units shooting, one uphill and the other down, produces results too similar to show any difference. I haven't checked for melee, I think hills do effect their effectiveness, but I dread seeing for myself.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,011Registered Users
    CnConrad said:

    To everyone who says you can compare the two, I honestly don't see how.

    You can't compare call of duty and Mario so how on Earth do you compare a fight of zombies black coaches and varghiests vs Mammoths ice dragons and trolls and a fight between 2 nearly identical human factions fighting with the same weapons only differentiated by +1 or -2 stat points?

    You're confusing the wall-paper for the wall.
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Posts: 3,072Registered Users

    CnConrad said:

    To everyone who says you can compare the two, I honestly don't see how.

    You can't compare call of duty and Mario so how on Earth do you compare a fight of zombies black coaches and varghiests vs Mammoths ice dragons and trolls and a fight between 2 nearly identical human factions fighting with the same weapons only differentiated by +1 or -2 stat points?

    Call of Duty is a First Person Shooter (FPS) franchise with a realistic style that focuses on Multiplayer, but also has a story mode. Mario is one of Nintendo's most valuable Intellectual Properties (IP's) who has featured in games ranging from Mario kart, to super smash bros to a plethora of platforming games that form his base.

    There, I just compared them, which is exactly what comparison is for. The word you're looking for isn't comparison, it's equivalent.

    I'm not even commenting on the validity of OP's conclusions, but I will say that in this debate he's presented a far better argument than you, you've just repeated the same argument again instead of arguing against his counters or even his initial points, all you've done is misuse the word comparison.

    The word I am looking for is indeed comparing. Not equivalent considering equivalent has nothing to do with the discussion.

    Perhaps I did not fully explain my stance, I assumed people would understand that I meant comparing two things that are so dissimilar that you can not expect equivalent results between the two of them.

    Yes, I can compare the game of Total War I played yesterday to the bratwurst I ate yesterday, but it would be a completely pointless exercise just like this thread.

    Have you never heard of the term comparing apples and oranges?
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,011Registered Users
    We're comparing a Total War game to a Total War game. It's an apple to another different variation of apple, not even a pear. Or an orange to another citrus.
  • ValeliValeli Senior Member Posts: 1,874Registered Users
    edited September 2017
    Suriel said:

    Funny thing is that in tabletop movement and planning were essential. It was not possible to suddenly move a regiment from one flank to another like in TWW.

    True. And I like that style of play (although I didn't like some of the shenanigans it led people to use in order to "win" the deployment game. But deployment being important/critical was great, and the importance of angling and charge baiting to get a flank charge with another unit was even greater.

    To be devil's advocate though, WHF was WHF, and total war is just a total war set in the WHF world. The mechanics will, to one extent or another, resemble TW mechanics much more than WHF ones. Maybe we can make deployment matter a bit more by slowing somethings down, but we'll almost certainly never get to the level of immobility brought by a you-go i-go six turn game.
    CnConrad said:

    Have you never heard of the term comparing apples and oranges?

    As much wisdom as I'm sure there is to be had in pithy folk idioms, the matter of fact is that one actually can compare apples and oranges if they're so inclined. Noting the differences is an important part of that comparison. And they're /not/ so dissimilar I can't expect similar consequences.

    With the fruits, I expect to bite into both and get a solid mouthful of tasty nutritious flesh (shiver, that sounds wrong), while being careful to avoid the seeds. The texture and vitamins might differ, but both should be tasty and nutritious.

    With the games, they have a patently absurd amount of similarities to each other in everything from the underlying mechanics to the general sets of unit statistics, roles, and the company creating the titles. I mean, I could go on forever here about how both use battle maps and campaign maps, involve constructing buildings to unlock new units, price units with initial recruitment costs alongside upkeep fees, etc, etc, etc.... Pointing out the relatively far fewer dissimilarities as being somehow enough to make the comparison irrelevant.... I think that's bad logic.
  • KayosivKayosiv Senior Member Posts: 2,261Registered Users
    Their both total war games with infantry units. Monsters or not the infantry of both games is very different and can be compared.
  • BeermachineBeermachine Posts: 48Registered Users
    edited September 2017
    CnConrad said:

    To everyone who says you can compare the two, I honestly don't see how.

    You can't compare call of duty and Mario so how on Earth do you compare a fight of zombies black coaches and varghiests vs Mammoths ice dragons and trolls and a fight between 2 nearly identical human factions fighting with the same weapons only differentiated by +1 or -2 stat points?

    A FPS compared with a racing game has far fewer areas of similarity. The OP wasn't doing this, he's comparing two games in the same genre (RTS), and both have been made by the same company.

    Many underlying mechanics which may appear superficially different are based on the same basic principles, which are common to most strategic RTS games. These specifics have been made by posters before me.

    In an FPS, whether you use a thrown rock or a laser gun, the underlying systems are the same. In RTS, whether it's units of cave dwellers or MechWarrior armoured exoskeletons, the same principles apply.
  • FrontlinerDeltaFrontlinerDelta Senior Member Posts: 3,544Registered Users
    Everyone here must be playing a different game from me.

    Sure the units move faster-ish, especially units like monstrous infantry and lighter infantry like wardancers, but the combat is correspondingly more decisive.

    Having to shift your ranged units around a flank can take a painfully long time when your frontline is being chewed up and will break in about 20 seconds.

    I actually remember liking the slower combat precisely because it allowed me to shift forces around and plug holes much better than in Warhammer...
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.