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

2

Comments

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 9,040Registered Users
    edited September 2017
    compare
    verb (used with object), compared, comparing.
    1. to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences: to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations.
    2. to consider or describe as similar; liken: “Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?”.
    3. Grammar. to form or display the degrees of comparison of (an adjective or adverb).
    CnConrad said:

    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?
    I have heard of that term, it's asinine. I can compare apples to oranges, I would do so now but I've already done that to illustrate my point, I could also make a joke, but alas this is very much a G rated forum.

    They're two dissimilar? How similar do things need to be before a comparison is valid? They're both in the same genre, they're both made by the same company, they're both in the same series, they both have 20 unit maximums, they both have infantry, they both have artillery, they both have ranged units, the controls are the same, the campaign maps function in a quite similar fashion. This is like saying "I can't compare this German sausage to this Italian sausage! One has herbs in it! Wait, I just compared them, bugger!".

    You say the word you want to use is comparison, but you don't think a comparison between two quite similar things is valid, despite the fact that that's literally what comparison is for; comparing two things.

    Regardless, the OP has already done a nice job of explaining why the comparison is valid, a job which nobody here has even tried to counter.
    Game 3 must come with Demons as 1 undivided race as a core with any Monogod races only as DLC. Anything less will only hurt the game.

    It's a fact that game 2 is superior to game 1. Steam reviews prove this.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,034Registered Users
    If it were 'more decisive', we would see a lot more heroic and decisive victories. We don't; we see a lot of close and pyrrhic victories because they are scraped in by intensive micro-management, which is made necessary by there being no way to protect your units; the army does not function as an army. Never has there been a Total War where the ratio of decisions per command issued been so skewed: it used to be that when you made one click it involved multiple decisions, now it's the multiple clicks to make one.

  • endurendur Posts: 2,407Registered Users
    edited September 2017
    I agree that Napoleon and Shogun 2 were more strategic than Warhammer total war. The slower movement made the battles last longer, and deployment was much more important. As the original poster mentioned, you couldn't move fast to fix a poor deployment in Napoleon like you can in Warhammer.

    I like the greater deployment areas for scouts in Warhammer. And I think the battle speed is better in Warhammer, Napoleon was too slow.

    The perfect speed would probably be inbetween Warhammer and Napoleon, and closer to Warhammer.
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Posts: 2,501Registered Users
    edited September 2017
    I still havent played napolean or empire.
  • TheokolesOfRomeTheokolesOfRome Senior Member The Highlands in me kilt.Posts: 1,466Registered 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.
    Yes they did. Sadly this is an old argument.

    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
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Posts: 9,505Registered Users
    I couldn't disagree more. The battles in Napoleon are a chore of wasted time and endless movement with a defending AI that will often walk away from you for a good 15 minutes just to have it's battle line sync up with your perfectly.
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 9,040Registered Users
    I don't remember Napoleon being that strategic. I enjoyed the battles more than I should have, but all I did was bring my artillery, put some kinks in my line, and that was that. While I had some properly epic battles I wouldn't consider them strategic so much as I would consider them knock em down, drag em out brawls.
    Game 3 must come with Demons as 1 undivided race as a core with any Monogod races only as DLC. Anything less will only hurt the game.

    It's a fact that game 2 is superior to game 1. Steam reviews prove this.
  • Jappie87Jappie87 Posts: 164Registered Users

    I don't remember Napoleon being that strategic. I enjoyed the battles more than I should have, but all I did was bring my artillery, put some kinks in my line, and that was that. While I had some properly epic battles I wouldn't consider them strategic so much as I would consider them knock em down, drag em out brawls.

    Well, I'd be lying if I said my experience was different. But that could be us rather than the game.

    If you compare the MP video of Napoleon with one from WHTW its quite noticeable that terrain, planning reserves and local superiority are a factor in one game and not in the other. WHTW is more like a regular RTS where NOT commiting a unit means the rest is dying faster. The difference in WHTW is made in microakills and not in planning.

    Perhaps the difference is neglible to the average player anyway. The AI in Napoleon didnt force you to play as that guy did in MP. So yeah, we kinda played it like we do WHTW.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,034Registered 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.
    Yes they did. Sadly this is an old argument.

    A lot of people complained, CA pretended to have never noticed. It was accepted though because it fit the setting of Japan in the middle-ages where shields were rarely used if at all and Shogun 2 had near-perfect unit design: there was not a single useless or redundant unit, they all did something which another couldn't not whilst being able to perform different ones to a lesser degree as was logical. If you played conservatively, battles could still last longer. Warhammer does not give the conservative tactician that option.
  • Phoenix99Phoenix99 Senior Member Posts: 1,036Registered Users
    CnConrad said:

    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.

    That's the point... you should get punsihed for excessive running. Running is needed when you start the charge to get the momentum and in absolute dire need and to gain the tactical advantage when the time is right.

    That slow movement allows skirmishers and artillery to be actually effective and part of the overall tactics...
  • DeuzerreDeuzerre Member Posts: 939Registered Users
    Jappie87 said:

    I don't remember Napoleon being that strategic. I enjoyed the battles more than I should have, but all I did was bring my artillery, put some kinks in my line, and that was that. While I had some properly epic battles I wouldn't consider them strategic so much as I would consider them knock em down, drag em out brawls.

    Well, I'd be lying if I said my experience was different. But that could be us rather than the game.

    If you compare the MP video of Napoleon with one from WHTW its quite noticeable that terrain, planning reserves and local superiority are a factor in one game and not in the other. WHTW is more like a regular RTS where NOT commiting a unit means the rest is dying faster. The difference in WHTW is made in microakills and not in planning.

    Perhaps the difference is neglible to the average player anyway. The AI in Napoleon didnt force you to play as that guy did in MP. So yeah, we kinda played it like we do WHTW.
    I point out this issue in my OP: When I was a child, I played it like that, full gunline frontally. But I found MP to be crap because I got wasted by opponents I never could reach: My tactic of long line (or crecent to be more precise) didn't work and I found it frustrating. I never put my tactics to doubt when I should have, because players that played properly, with skirmishers and stuff knew how to do it and did it well, countered my absolute lack ofstrategy and I got promptly encircled, never could reach the opponent that either outranged me, ran away or outgunned me locally.

    The AI has always been sort of a weakpoint of the series, and it does pretty huge mistakes in napoleon too (I have only had heroic victories against AI since I installed it again, despite trying to give them better armies) but it's still interesting and fulfilling to play. But in MP, where people tend to chesse pretty hard (and it's easy to cheese in napoleon too in MP, which is why many people apply lobby rules), against a human of average ability, the matches seem more interesting overall.
  • uriakuriak Posts: 2,441Registered Users
    edited September 2017
    Arec still spouting nonsense about the stamina I see. Take pack file manager, open the fatigue tables and see for youself. The only thing that is true is that running doesn't exaust troops as much as in some older TW. It lowers speed/armor/morale/attack/defence/reload speed.

    The whole TW:WH game is balanced around the actual speed of fight and movement, you can't wish it away. You don't have to like it, but a fait share of the player do, and it makes sense probably with a game that don't pit armies of similar troops and tactics in front of each other.

    Movement is important in the TT, but the TT only spans a few turns. Even the shortest TW battles simulate a way longer interval (just consider how many times an artillery piece will fire in the game compared to the 1 or less shot per turn of the TT)

    Finally people can't complain that movement is not important and that the battles are short at the same time. if the battles are short that means that actions in a short timespan are of an upper importance. That means the placement when armies collide is.

    You could argue that people should be punished/rewarded by their deployment at start. Tthis doesn't seem to be a choice here, at least not in most cases. Yes historical battles have been decided by central and wings choices. This isn't a historical game. even in the TT it was not about doing lenghty bloc vs bloc infantry fights. The good stuff happened with flanking, rear charges, magic, missile and heroes. Because once two infantry blocks were in contact there was little more to do besides hoping for good dice rolls.

    TL; DR. There are choices made for TW:WH that may not please players used to a different rythm (or at least the way they remember it/modded the game). Their criticism should be directed at the next historical games.
  • wingren013wingren013 Posts: 849Registered 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.

    The range on ranged units in Warhammer is actually more realistic than in the older titles. Archers didn't do huge arcing volleys over long distances like you see in the movies.
  • DeuzerreDeuzerre Member Posts: 939Registered Users
    edited September 2017

    The range on ranged units in Warhammer is actually more realistic than in the older titles. Archers didn't do huge arcing volleys over long distances like you see in the movies.

    Well, there was long range fire, and bows can actually shoot very far, but it was actually more like in MTW where you could do arcing fire that was particularly inaccurate and frankly a waste of ammo because it was spread around and mostly guesswork.

    In theory, bows are actually superior to early firearms: They shot faster, they penetrated armour pretty well, had better range, and could indirect fire. But firearms replaced them because they scare the enemy, did pretty horrific wounds and require minimal training when used in volleys.

    uriak said:

    Arec still spouting nonsense about the stamina I see. Take pack file manager, open the fatigue tables and see for youself. The only thing that is true is that running doesn't exaust troops as much as in some older TW. It lowers speed/armor/morale/attack/defence/reload speed.

    The whole TW:WH game is balanced around the actual speed of fight and movement, you can't wish it away. You don't have to like it, but a fait share of the player do, and it makes sense probably with a game that don't pit armies of similar troops and tactics in front of each other.

    Movement is important in the TT, but the TT only spans a few turns. Even the shortest TW battles simulate a way longer interval (just consider how many times an artillery piece will fire in the game compared to the 1 or less shot per turn of the TT)

    Finally people can't complain that movement is not important and that the battles are short at the same time. if the battles are short that means that actions in a short timespan are of an upper importance. That means the placement when armies collide is.

    You could argue that people should be punished/rewarded by their deployment at start. Tthis doesn't seem to be a choice here, at least not in most cases. Yes historical battles have been decided by central and wings choices. This isn't a historical game. even in the TT it was not about doing lenghty bloc vs bloc infantry fights. The good stuff happened with flanking, rear charges, magic, missile and heroes. Because once two infantry blocks were in contact there was little more to do besides hoping for good dice rolls.

    TL; DR. There are choices made for TW:WH that may not please players used to a different rythm (or at least the way they remember it/modded the game). Their criticism should be directed at the next historical games.



    The fact that running is the primary mean of moment is in itself wrong then, because sprinting has way fewer drawbacks compared to walking in game. You accumulate fatigue (and as you said way less than before), but 1) Your units are where they should be 2) They get shot at for a shorter time span. So there really are no reasons to walk in WHTW.

    "A fair share do": That's guesswork at best, and using the same argument as you: "It's your opinion, man". I do not know the "perfect" unit speed, I can't mod for crap and as such haven't had the occasion to compare different speeds, but if I could I would. And then we'd have a mean for people to build an opinion instead of simply saying things like "it's there to stay, deal with it" if you enjoy it and "It sucks! Change this instant!" if you disapprove.

    The rate of fire argument: Look at artillery rate of fire. Look at infantry rate of fire. In the tabletop, they're the same, in game they aren't. This isn't a measuring tool, the game simply brings to "life" a universe, in a coherent fell. It isn't a transcription. But there is a good reason why this tabletop game (and all tabletop games in fact) have a deployment phase of great importance: It is often how battles have been won and lost through history, from 5000BC to nowadays. We don't get this at all in WHTW, because WHTW looks like a modern battle where every regiment is mechanised or motorised and thus can move wherever it wants, completely losing the inherent natures of each unit.

    For your argument about "Finally people can't complain that movement is not important and that the battles are short at the same time. if the battles are short that means that actions in a short timespan are of an upper importance. That means the placement when armies collide is. " you just don't see strategy the same way people who complain about the game do: The TACTICS to make the right unit face the right opponent is pure micro and as such is a skill that should be rewarded. But it' like playing rock papers scissors: There's no depth to it, it's shallow, there's no reinforcements, limited impacts for ambushes, no way to stall an enemy advance (except net of amyantok or however it's spelled), all of which are supposed to be part of strategy and tactics. And most of it is due to the fact that it's really easy and fast to make every unit a homing missile for the unit you want it to beat.

    "even in the TT it was not about doing lenghty bloc vs bloc infantry fights. The good stuff happened with flanking, rear charges, magic, missile and heroes. Because once two infantry blocks were in contact there was little more to do besides hoping for good dice rolls". In the (overly long) OP, I state that even in Napoleon, melee was extremely fast and bloody. It was even faster and blooodier (By several scales) than in Warhammer. If you put trolls in Napoleon, they would crush elite regiments in a matter of seconds. Once again, it is not the length of melee fights that made battles longer. It was that in order to make the crushing blow, you had to move around properly, wither the opponent enough until you felt it was time to strike.
  • RodentofDoomRodentofDoom Posts: 447Registered Users
  • WakelessrexWakelessrex Junior Member Posts: 33Registered Users
    As long as its moddable, let the plebs have their benny hill arcade version with 3 minute egagements. Hahaha!
  • uriakuriak Posts: 2,441Registered Users
    edited September 2017
    Of course it's a subjective opinion (the length of battles and element to reward) The game is not trying to be a simulation, especially with regards to walking or running. I mean charcters, even wizards, routinely make several men fly with each melee cleave. In this context there is no arguing about "believable" levels of fatigue.

    I's true that once in fire range, there is no real point to walking. Stamina as a ressource is mostly spent in melee or firing. Walking is useful when traversing large distances (where the time difference is important too) or for units that are already a bit spent. There is a paradigm shift where most actions generate running motion by default so walking is the voluntary command here.
    That doesn't mean stamina is not important. But the way players are supposed to manage this resource is different. Walking is a tool for resting or avoiding to spend it for long distances. Keeping reserves, avoiding ladders, avoiding to use armies in march/raid stance are the big elements. And of course some units have fatigue imminity or buffs which allows to use them in ways that cost more to most armies (grail knights, centigors, any hero with foe seeker..)

    So some people don't like it and other do, but afaik this specific game was made with this in mind. Minor struggles are fast to conclude and well I appreciate it for avoiding AR while advancing a campaign. Asking for slower movement/stamina change is basically asking for all combat parameters to be modified. Because the time spent under fire changesn the time locked in combat should to, you may have to change the moral penalties of some maneouvers if you want to keep them relevant, as well as the duration of most buffs and debuffs.

    The melee component in Napoleon isn't really comparable to warhammer. In the napoleonic times, the melee was the last blow, the win it or lose it manoeuver, still possible because of the limitation of firearms, but not the main event. Of course it should have been a crucial choice to take on "prepared" targets. In warhammer, infantry vs infantry is not a shock and awe tactic. It's important because often it's when melee lines rout that the battle is lost, but they are seldom a fast event. Even goblins with enough friends and moral support can stay stunningly long in melee if they aren't rear charged or shot at.

    I'll admit there is some demand for slower battles, but slitghly slower. The game won't become a simulation.
    There was a post from CA quoted above where they try to avoid the increasing in damage vs resilience as units tech up in the game. The impact of this remains to be seen.
    I think with battles that include reserves that have to enter the fray, the speed is quite adequate.

    But ultimately it's a personnal preference one way or another.





  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,034Registered 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.

    The range on ranged units in Warhammer is actually more realistic than in the older titles. Archers didn't do huge arcing volleys over long distances like you see in the movies.
    Here you're just contradicting what I am saying, but not explaining anything. What is your point of comparison? What game, period and place? The one I most tend to bring up is that of the longbow in the European middle-ages, which did fire up to 200 metres on even ground. Even for conscripts with shorter bows, English laws required every male from the age of five to practice for a set number of hours every day such was the reliance that we had on it. Wood Elves currently have the greatest range in the game with bows and it looks to fall far short of what the English and Welsh longbows could do when I would have expected a fantasy race known for bows that could even be magical to be a lot better. Call it the 'Legolas effect'.

    Any unit of bowmen organised into ranks will fire in volleys and engage at the furthest distance possible because wind-permitting that is also going to allow the bow to hit harder than it would at a shorter distance fired directly into a target: anything an arrow hits after it has been fired upwards at a 45 degree angle will be hit with the same force that pushed the arrow into the air plus any gained from favourable wind and gravity if fired from a higher elevation. At these distances it is pointless to try and hit an individual target; the arrows hit because of the sheer number of them in the air and because they are being fired in the same direction at the same time, usually one arrow is left off first and the rest are instructed to aim for it.

    Lastly, 'archers' do exactly what you say they don't; the clue is in the name. They are not 'marksmen', they are 'archers'. Archers perform an army-pattern role, marksmen are specialist. In Warhammer though, every unit has been made into a specialist(of only four types) and the problem with everyone being special is that it ends up being that no one is.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,034Registered Users
    uriak said:

    Arec still spouting nonsense about the stamina I see. Take pack file manager, open the fatigue tables and see for youself. The only thing that is true is that running doesn't exaust troops as much as in some older TW. It lowers speed/armor/morale/attack/defence/reload speed.

    The whole TW:WH game is balanced around the actual speed of fight and movement, you can't wish it away. You don't have to like it, but a fait share of the player do, and it makes sense probably with a game that don't pit armies of similar troops and tactics in front of each other.

    Movement is important in the TT, but the TT only spans a few turns. Even the shortest TW battles simulate a way longer interval (just consider how many times an artillery piece will fire in the game compared to the 1 or less shot per turn of the TT)

    Finally people can't complain that movement is not important and that the battles are short at the same time. if the battles are short that means that actions in a short timespan are of an upper importance. That means the placement when armies collide is.

    You could argue that people should be punished/rewarded by their deployment at start. Tthis doesn't seem to be a choice here, at least not in most cases. Yes historical battles have been decided by central and wings choices. This isn't a historical game. even in the TT it was not about doing lenghty bloc vs bloc infantry fights. The good stuff happened with flanking, rear charges, magic, missile and heroes. Because once two infantry blocks were in contact there was little more to do besides hoping for good dice rolls.

    TL; DR. There are choices made for TW:WH that may not please players used to a different rythm (or at least the way they remember it/modded the game). Their criticism should be directed at the next historical games.

    If this were not an obvious bluff, you could have posted the tables, or you could have told me which pak file and which table to open, anything to have been useful rather than aimlessly trying to score-points in a playground game only you care about playing. In any case, am I right or aren't I? You don't actually seem sure about what I said that you are disagreeing so confrontationally with. Looking at these tables, all I'm seeing is that what I said is right. Really, shooting uses up more stamina than fighting, the difference between running(+3) and walking(-1) is four damn points. Fatigue only affects morale when they reach Tired(-2) and the most it will impact on them when Exhausted(-8) is tiny compared to almost everything else on the Fatigue value table. Losing 10% of units(-12) affects morale more than this, even if 'expandable'. Getting hit just once by artillery(-8) matches the worst that Fatigue can damage morale. Well maybe morale has lots of effects across lots of tables which add up? Yeah, but so does almost everything else and numbers are a lot bigger than them than they are for Fatigue.

    There is no single table though that can tell us the full-effect on any value because they affect many things across all the tables. So 'look at the tables' is not an argument, use them to make your case, don't depend on others to do it for you. Balanced around 'the actual speed of fight and movement' indeed. Once more: shooting, regardless of whether it is a gun, bow, throwing weapon or crossbow, increases Fatigue faster than being on a front line with an axe/spear/sword/shield hacking away desperately. I don't care what species you are, that's bull.
  • uriakuriak Posts: 2,441Registered Users
    edited September 2017
    I haven't said that morale was the most affected, it was a number among others.

    Morale is just basically baseline + buffs + friendlies - flank/rear attack - routing ennemis - fear - fatigue - number of casualties - lord present. Add to these terror and "shock" (aka many casualties in a short timespan)
    Fatigue has not a lot of impact there, the major one being routing army and a unit losses. Still, when you look at the difference in moral between average and elite units you may go from 60 to 80 baseline. A penalty of 8 is almost half of this. Fear penaly is 10.

    So the tables (or if somethone uses DAVE, just look at the 2 fatigue tables)

    in data.pack/ db/ kv_fatigue_table : for each hum, time tick (I dunno if they are second, these numbers are relative)
    charging 30
    ladders 10000 (basically you instant tire a unit)
    combat 15 shooting 21
    idle -14
    running 3 and walking -1 (artillery is 12)
    So basically, but we agree on this, running and walking have little impact Being idle restore stamina at the same rate than fighting (if you can keep idle units)

    Then in data.pack/db/unit_fatigue_effect
    At exhausted level
    speed = 85%
    armor = 65% (one third less)
    melee attack = 80% and defense 85%
    releading 65%

    An exhausted unit is not halved but all these things are cumulative : on average such a unit will underperform in equal conditions. Like morale, this doesn't mean the unit is useless, but since the morale tends to work in cascade, adding penalties tends to have a decisive effect.

    Now, you may consider an exhausted unit should perform even less and that running should more exhausting. (since charging is at 30 cost, I'd say that charging is the actual running, the "running" mode is basically power walk or jogging)
    It's fine and I'm not advocating anything about the way it should work in historical games. In the end it's up to CA to choose what they want to represent and the gameplay that emerges from the rules. They did a call for warhammer 1, they may alter it, but it's - and that's my position - uncalled for to change the game in deeper ways.
    I'm sorry if I am somewhat coarse here, because my sentiment is, from the unit abilities topic mostly, that you strive for an ideal kind of battle that hasn't been present in the serie for some time, and is basically quite different in its scope, and objectives. A rule set that allows the player to make a difference in a setting where similar troops and tactics exists and evoques a different kind of war. (which one depends of the era)

    In the end, since both fatigue effects and fatigue cause and stuff like chance to hit are available and changeable, the pace of the fights is moddable. What is probably extremely difficult to do is making everything work the same, but slower.
    Worse, the Battle AI, which is not moddable - I don't mean the number but they it controls units - could clearly be really weakened by this, unless the mods adds fatigue resistance to all AI armies (which is feasible with scripts) In WH1 the Ai bonus in battle aren't visible and moddable, but they will be in WH2





  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,034Registered Users
    I got confused over the morale thing, apologies.

    Yes, I do think that the adjustments for the exhausted state are nowhere near good enough, but no, I do not think it is simply a matter of opinion. There can be arguments here over what is and is not good game design and not all of them are subjective. Far from demanding an 'ideal that hasn't been present for some time', I'm wanting a trend towards mediocrity to be reversed. This wasn't something that happened years ago, but which has happened incrementally for about six years and is still happening. Total War was at it's best when each new title mean improvements over the previous, so I do not want a return to anything as it was in the past but for a return to the series progressing again. I have lost hope that CA remember how to do this and this has made arguments about the gameplay design necessary. There is absolutely no future in arcade-style gameplay; Sega should know this if they ever bothered learning.

    CA should maybe explain some of the decisions they make also, because seeing it plain as day in the database values is shocking. The higher drain for shooting over fighting I would guess is due to CA making missile units fire rapidly now rather than in volleys, when really what that needs is to completely go and volley-firing brought back in.
  • FinishingLastFinishingLast Posts: 2,681Registered Users

    There is absolutely no future in arcade-style gameplay; Sega should know this if they ever bothered learning.

    "Most pre-ordered Total War to date". Yeah, clearly no future for them here.

    You should also stop comparing a fantasy game with the historical series. I would be more upset if the next historical game was watered down in terms of campaign features, but I doubt that the historical series will follow the Warhammer series in that regard. They've been open that they removed features and simplified thingd to make the Warhammer games more accessible. This isn't a hidden secret. Now if they do that with the next historical title, that'd be a reason to be up in arms.
    RIP
  • wingren013wingren013 Posts: 849Registered Users
    edited September 2017

    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.

    The range on ranged units in Warhammer is actually more realistic than in the older titles. Archers didn't do huge arcing volleys over long distances like you see in the movies.
    Here you're just contradicting what I am saying, but not explaining anything. What is your point of comparison? What game, period and place? The one I most tend to bring up is that of the longbow in the European middle-ages, which did fire up to 200 metres on even ground. Even for conscripts with shorter bows, English laws required every male from the age of five to practice for a set number of hours every day such was the reliance that we had on it. Wood Elves currently have the greatest range in the game with bows and it looks to fall far short of what the English and Welsh longbows could do when I would have expected a fantasy race known for bows that could even be magical to be a lot better. Call it the 'Legolas effect'.

    Any unit of bowmen organised into ranks will fire in volleys and engage at the furthest distance possible because wind-permitting that is also going to allow the bow to hit harder than it would at a shorter distance fired directly into a target: anything an arrow hits after it has been fired upwards at a 45 degree angle will be hit with the same force that pushed the arrow into the air plus any gained from favourable wind and gravity if fired from a higher elevation. At these distances it is pointless to try and hit an individual target; the arrows hit because of the sheer number of them in the air and because they are being fired in the same direction at the same time, usually one arrow is left off first and the rest are instructed to aim for it.

    Lastly, 'archers' do exactly what you say they don't; the clue is in the name. They are not 'marksmen', they are 'archers'. Archers perform an army-pattern role, marksmen are specialist. In Warhammer though, every unit has been made into a specialist(of only four types) and the problem with everyone being special is that it ends up being that no one is.
    First ylou are overataing English reliance on the bow. While that law dod exist in various forms throughout the years it was never practically enforced as proper warbows were expensive and the purview of the middle class and noble retainers. Most Longbowmen were drawn from the retinues of various nobility and sometimes included minor nobility among them.

    Secondly long range fire was ineffective as anything beyond harrassment. Arrows lose their energy too fast to be effective weapons over long distances, an arrow fored at 45 degrees will not reatin all the energy ised to fire it, only an amoint porportional to the angle it was directed upwards at. Its physics. Most fire that caused casaulties was at shorter ranges whsre the trajectory was effectively flat. This isn't an accuracy thing, archers still didn't fire at individuals, this was a matter of the amount of energy the arrow had and the fact a basic gambeson was enough to stop a shot from a longbow (or crossbow) also angled shots are just generally less effective for penetration purposes.

    But this isn't the right place for this debate.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,034Registered Users

    There is absolutely no future in arcade-style gameplay; Sega should know this if they ever bothered learning.

    "Most pre-ordered Total War to date". Yeah, clearly no future for them here.

    You should also stop comparing a fantasy game with the historical series. I would be more upset if the next historical game was watered down in terms of campaign features, but I doubt that the historical series will follow the Warhammer series in that regard. They've been open that they removed features and simplified thingd to make the Warhammer games more accessible. This isn't a hidden secret. Now if they do that with the next historical title, that'd be a reason to be up in arms.
    'Most pre-ordered' is the latest 'best-selling' meme. If you don't know; CA and Sega have been a broken record for years with 'best-selling' being used to describe each new title in the series. To some people this was often confused for 'highest-selling', but no- that belongs to the turkey that was Empire. It's marketing-speak, like 'Free-LC' which if anyone bothered thinking about it stands for 'free-load content'; almost a Freudian slip by whoever came up with it though I suspect they didn't think anyone would realise. It took Warhammer six months to catch up even to Attila's near-flop sales count and it only passed a million after a sale. Rome 2 had a similar issue: 'best-selling TW ever', was on-sale 3 months after release at 50% discount.

    Pre-orders do not mean much. CA-Sega are one of those companies who genuinely believe that higher pre-orders mean more overall sales, that higher early sales mean longer-term consumer interest and that means more DLC will be sold if released within some arbitrary six month window. It's in their interest to get potential customers to believe it too because the sense of missing-out is what most exploitative marketing plays on.

    You have not given any reason why this Total War should not be compared with others. I have absolutely no interest in remaining a fan of the series if improvements don't happen during the Warhammer trilogy. The whole reason to be excited in the first place by a trilogy of connected 'expand-alones' was that it would draw on the same advantage given to Shogun 2 when it was combined with Fall of The Samurai: linking them together in development problems with the first could be fixed during the post-release support cycle of the second, except now there would be a support cycle of almost four or five consecutive years.
  • RenegadeKnightRenegadeKnight Posts: 155Registered Users
    edited September 2017
    The pacing may all you to quickly redeploy, but you also have less time to reinforce a bad engagement.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,034Registered 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.

    The range on ranged units in Warhammer is actually more realistic than in the older titles. Archers didn't do huge arcing volleys over long distances like you see in the movies.
    Here you're just contradicting what I am saying, but not explaining anything. What is your point of comparison? What game, period and place? The one I most tend to bring up is that of the longbow in the European middle-ages, which did fire up to 200 metres on even ground. Even for conscripts with shorter bows, English laws required every male from the age of five to practice for a set number of hours every day such was the reliance that we had on it. Wood Elves currently have the greatest range in the game with bows and it looks to fall far short of what the English and Welsh longbows could do when I would have expected a fantasy race known for bows that could even be magical to be a lot better. Call it the 'Legolas effect'.

    Any unit of bowmen organised into ranks will fire in volleys and engage at the furthest distance possible because wind-permitting that is also going to allow the bow to hit harder than it would at a shorter distance fired directly into a target: anything an arrow hits after it has been fired upwards at a 45 degree angle will be hit with the same force that pushed the arrow into the air plus any gained from favourable wind and gravity if fired from a higher elevation. At these distances it is pointless to try and hit an individual target; the arrows hit because of the sheer number of them in the air and because they are being fired in the same direction at the same time, usually one arrow is left off first and the rest are instructed to aim for it.

    Lastly, 'archers' do exactly what you say they don't; the clue is in the name. They are not 'marksmen', they are 'archers'. Archers perform an army-pattern role, marksmen are specialist. In Warhammer though, every unit has been made into a specialist(of only four types) and the problem with everyone being special is that it ends up being that no one is.
    First ylou are overataing English reliance on the bow. While that law dod exist in various forms throughout the years it was never practically enforced as proper warbows were expensive and the purview of the middle class and noble retainers. Most Longbowmen were drawn from the retinues of various nobility and sometimes included minor nobility among them.

    Secondly long range fire was ineffective as anything beyond harrassment. Arrows lose their energy too fast to be effective weapons over long distances, an arrow fored at 45 degrees will not reatin all the energy ised to fire it, only an amoint porportional to the angle it was directed upwards at. Its physics. Most fire that caused casaulties was at shorter ranges whsre the trajectory was effectively flat. This isn't an accuracy thing, archers still didn't fire at individuals, this was a matter of the amount of energy the arrow had and the fact a basic gambeson was enough to stop a shot from a longbow (or crossbow) also angled shots are just generally less effective for penetration purposes.

    But this isn't the right place for this debate.
    An estimated 5/6ths of the English army at Agincourt were lonbowmen, that seems pretty reliant. At the battle of Politers a few decades earlier they made up 1/3rd. Yew trees grow all over the British isles; chop a branch, carve it along the grain into a 6-foot shaft with elongated flat ends and tie a string. There was a culture of using bows for hunting and sport, the longbow is a simple thing to make. They were not rare, nor were those who could use them with skill.

    Ok just picture this for a second: a rank formation of longbowmen, firing forwards directly at targets. How many of them can do it? That would be only the first rank; anyone else shooting would risk hitting those in front. Unless that front rank is aiming at individual targets or firing pretty damn rapidly they aren't going to hit much. I happen to think your physics on this is terribly wrong but you are right that this isn't the place to debate that.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 15,855Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Wondering what the OP is trying to do since there is a specific reference to Napoleon. Be that as it may, moved to the correct location.
    "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
  • GoslingGosling Senior Member Posts: 1,887Registered Users
    Where noone else will now go.
    "I'm gonna stomp 'em to dust. I'm gonna grind their bones. I'm gonna burn down dere towns and cities. I'm gonna pile 'em up inna big fire and roast 'em. I'm gonna bash heads, break faces, and jump up and down on the bits that are left.


    An' den I'm gonna get really mean."

    Grimgor Ironhide, Black Orc Warboss.
  • DeuzerreDeuzerre Member Posts: 939Registered Users
    dge1 said:

    Wondering what the OP is trying to do since there is a specific reference to Napoleon. Be that as it may, moved to the correct location.

    Well, if you even bothered to look at the post, it was clearly to compare napoleon mechanics to Warhammer total war. But no, let's kill the conversation.

    For christ sake, I'm not the kind to criticize moderation, but this one is particularly special.
  • GoslingGosling Senior Member Posts: 1,887Registered Users
    Deuzerre said:

    dge1 said:

    Wondering what the OP is trying to do since there is a specific reference to Napoleon. Be that as it may, moved to the correct location.

    Well, if you even bothered to look at the post, it was clearly to compare napoleon mechanics to Warhammer total war. But no, let's kill the conversation.

    For christ sake, I'm not the kind to criticize moderation, but this one is particularly special.
    lol
    "I'm gonna stomp 'em to dust. I'm gonna grind their bones. I'm gonna burn down dere towns and cities. I'm gonna pile 'em up inna big fire and roast 'em. I'm gonna bash heads, break faces, and jump up and down on the bits that are left.


    An' den I'm gonna get really mean."

    Grimgor Ironhide, Black Orc Warboss.
2
Sign In or Register to comment.