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

[campaign][skirmish] will we still be stuck with 20 unit card armies?

ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 370
some ppl are fine with it
some ppl hate these limitations
ofc its mostly a matter of preference. look at at ultimate general civil war. they did a lot of things right. i think the extremely strict unit count restriction is rly holding the tw as a franchise down.

discuss if ure interested
---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

dear CA,
- pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
- as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
- kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
(which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

anyways,
i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
(as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
[update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
(for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



campaign

* replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
* attila unit progression was nice
* keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
* limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
* keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
.........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
.........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
* further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
* keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
* tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
* further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



tactical/3d skirmish

* imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
.........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
.........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

* tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
.........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
.........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
.........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
.........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
.........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
.........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
.........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
.........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
.........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
.........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
.........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
.........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
.........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
.........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
.........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
.........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
.........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
.........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
.........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
.........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
.........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
.........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
.........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

* keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
.........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
.........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

* make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
.........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
.........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
.........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
.........war cry, suebian charge et c.
.........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
.........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
.........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
.........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
.........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
.........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
.........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
.........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
.........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

* re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
......* dug-ins,
......* bamboo-walls
........and other deployables,
......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
......* inside/behind dense vegetation
......* along river banks) et c

* restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
.........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
.........decisive and rewarding
.........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
.........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

* pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
.........and heres why

.........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
.........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
.........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
.........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
.........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
.........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
.........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
.........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
.........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
.........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
.........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

.........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
.........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
.........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
.........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
.........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
.........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
.........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
.........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
.........different period as well require distinction obviously
.........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
.........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
.........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
.........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
.........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
.........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
.........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
.........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
.........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
.........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
.........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
.........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
.........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
.........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
.........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
.........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
.........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
.........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
.........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
.........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
.........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
.........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
.........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
.........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

* add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
......* more strict and developed
.........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
.........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
.........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
.........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
.........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
.........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
.........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
.........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
.........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
.........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
.........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
.........example of diversionist maneuvre
.........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
.........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
.........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
.........another example
.........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
.........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
.........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
.........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
.........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
.........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

......* instead:
.........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
.........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
.........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
.........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
.........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
.........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
.........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
.........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
.........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
.........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
.........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
.........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

- i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity

Comments

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,967
    China is known for having massive battles with lots of soldiers...

    Hope more men per unit and more unit per army.
  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomRegistered Users Posts: 1,433
    I find 20 a nice balance between army size and control.

    More can be very overwhelming. Note that quite a lot of people new to Warhammer have asked if there are mods for lowering it.

    So any change would have to be managed carefully.
    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 370
    i can see how the need of using pause constantly can totally break immersion. in the end though its rly just a matter of getting used to it. whether be it 20 or 40, i for one mostly just draw a double line with some additional forces on the flanks and some forward attachements. truth is though, current ui is not comfortable with 40 unit cards. still i think 40 units is much more enjoyable. also if we want to make things more interesting, with just 20 units at players disposal, one can throw many possible new innovations out the window.
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 370
    perhaps 30 units would b a good compromise most fans would agree with. also perhaps tie unit count with general experience. a 6 star general can have max 30 unit cards while a 1 star general starts with 15 so new players can get used to it.
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • KrilralKrilral Member Registered Users Posts: 910
    I prefer the 20 unit limit. It's roughly the highest number of units I can control at any one time, which seems to be the case for many other players as well; at least from what you can hear around the internet.

    Besides, I don't see the point in having more units to control. It's not likely to increase the number of tactical options available to you. Does it really matter if you are performing your flanking maneuver with one unit or two units?

    I too have played Ultimate General: Civil War and that game did indeed get away fairly well with having a large number of controllable units. But it's also a very different game from the Total War series. Ultimate General is much (much) slower with battles easily lasting over an hour, and many of your units will often be standing idle in reserve. The game is also much less micro-intensive than a Total War game. You are making more large, broad maneuvers and being distracted for a few seconds is rarely punished very hardly. And even then it sometimes still becomes a bit too much, especially during some of the larger campaign battles. UG:CW was a really good game, but unless TW fundamentally changes the way it works, it doubt it can learn much from UG:CW.

    With all that being said though, I fully support larger units, along with larger (but also more interesting) battlefields.
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 687
    edited January 2018
    Yeah, I prefer the 20 unit per army limit too. Forty units per army is just too much micro management I think. If you want 40 units just keep two armies closer together and fight with reinforcements. Kinda like Napoleon and his Army Corps system. :)

    I would like more soldiers per unit though.
    Post edited by Suliot on
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 2,119

    perhaps 30 units would b a good compromise most fans would agree with. also perhaps tie unit count with general experience. a 6 star general can have max 30 unit cards while a 1 star general starts with 15 so new players can get used to it.

    Agreed! Overall more choices means better gameplay. Having higher generals command more troops seems a nice addition. This would effect you're choices were to put your 6 star general's and where to put the lower ones.

    Perhaps also add choices between recruiting local commanders (max force of 10-15) vs army commanders (15-30). Local commanders are used to fight off bandits, patrolling duties and strengthening already present city garrisons when invaded. Army commanders are used for attacking cities and fighting land battles. Each one should have certain campaign effects. For example a local commander improves siege hold out time, provincial happiness and trade & taxe income, has a higher movement bonus but can't recruit elite troops. Recruiting an army commander improves morale, let's you recruit elite troops and more units per army against lower upkeep but is slower and isn't able to garrison cities (due to it's size which drains local resources)

    To expand on the discussion. Ancient China was known for it's massive armies. It would be great if CA could increase the number of men per unit (laboratory style) to create massive armies.
  • LestaTLestaT Senior Member Kuala LumpurRegistered Users Posts: 3,318
    I would prefer 200 units per card x 20 rather than 100 units per card x 40. Warhammer 2 Laboratory gives hope that we'll see 400-500 units per card being normal in the future games.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 370
    Krilral said:

    [...] I don't see the point in having more units to control. It's not likely to increase the number of tactical options available to you. Does it really matter if you are performing your flanking maneuver with one unit or two units?

    more than 20 units imo definitely changes the tactical nature of the game.
    greater numbers change how the environment, movement and stamina take effect on the battlemap. if the player got say 60 units instead of just 20, a choke point indeed becomes a choke point. if the player tries to stack units, terrain effects will influence the game multiple-fold.
    if we assume that combat resolve stays the same, unit deployment/formations and foreplanning will become more important. the bigger the armies become, the harder it gets to reinforce weakened parts and the more prone one is to overpowering pushes.
    with 20, the player wants to spread as wide as possible. unless the pace of the game would slow down threefold, 60 units could expose the player more to breakthroughs. adds a new layer.

    since fiddling with 40 unit cards, that got first introduced in shogun 2, i felt like the TWs r supposed to b played with at least 40 unit cards. mbe its rly just me and some hipster niche guys :C
    Krilral said:

    I prefer the 20 unit limit. It's roughly the highest number of units I can control at any one time, which seems to be the case for many other players as well; at least from what you can hear around the internet.

    dont forget, ur mate will have as much busywork controlling his army and responding to cavalry raids, unless he decides go all elite. anyway, large armies usually make for some hilarious mayhem.

    and people should not make the mistake to take warhammer as reference for how 40vs40 would pan out. the more grounded historical titles in comparison pale in terms of content/stuff to do on the skirmish map. in rome ii i ve probably played 70% of time on large army settings and it would have been 100% if ppl were more open to it. warhammer not so much.

    funnily though, more constraints in unit selection somewhat poses its own funny layer of strategic dilemma in terms of assembling an army but still the trade off is not worth it imo. its just my suspicion, but having large army setting ticked tends to make army selection more forgivable.

    if, say, combat pace would slow down, would u guys still prefer 20 unit armies over 30/40/60?
    i would gladly trade for some juicy 40+ units




    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 370
    edited January 2018
    in historical titles, 20 just feels so wrong. once u go 40 u never go back :V

    also im just a casual player playing random average plebs, some of u know how bad the average tw player is. :smiley: while not 100% accurate i still think my claims somewhere have some practical truth though. but still u may take my observations with a grain of salt.

    whether one gets to control 40 or 60 probably does not make that much of a difference but 20 or 30 more so. if u ask me 20 units is on the low extreme end.
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,967
    The current 20vs20 battle seems small for a game set in China which is known for massive battles.
  • LaindeshLaindesh Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,618
    To give an example. Cao Cao vs Liu - Sun alliance at chi bi.
    Cao Cao is calculated to have an army of roughly 250k - 260k while the Liu - Sun alliance had 50k. (the 1 million troop thingie was fictional)

    So yes, i hope they up the number of soldiers quite abit. And hopefully through army size.
  • LestaTLestaT Senior Member Kuala LumpurRegistered Users Posts: 3,318
    Aryndelin said:

    To give an example. Cao Cao vs Liu - Sun alliance at chi bi.
    Cao Cao is calculated to have an army of roughly 250k - 260k while the Liu - Sun alliance had 50k. (the 1 million troop thingie was fictional)

    So yes, i hope they up the number of soldiers quite abit. And hopefully through army size.

    500 units per card should be the norm if the Laboratory code is used as a based.
  • LaindeshLaindesh Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,618
    LestaT said:

    Aryndelin said:

    To give an example. Cao Cao vs Liu - Sun alliance at chi bi.
    Cao Cao is calculated to have an army of roughly 250k - 260k while the Liu - Sun alliance had 50k. (the 1 million troop thingie was fictional)

    So yes, i hope they up the number of soldiers quite abit. And hopefully through army size.

    500 units per card should be the norm if the Laboratory code is used as a based.
    Even that might be too small scaled in the case of Chi Bi. :P
  • LestaTLestaT Senior Member Kuala LumpurRegistered Users Posts: 3,318
    Aryndelin said:

    LestaT said:

    Aryndelin said:

    To give an example. Cao Cao vs Liu - Sun alliance at chi bi.
    Cao Cao is calculated to have an army of roughly 250k - 260k while the Liu - Sun alliance had 50k. (the 1 million troop thingie was fictional)

    So yes, i hope they up the number of soldiers quite abit. And hopefully through army size.

    500 units per card should be the norm if the Laboratory code is used as a based.
    Even that might be too small scaled in the case of Chi Bi. :P
    Well, not every customers are using super computers :)
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,967
    edited January 2018
    LestaT said:

    Aryndelin said:

    LestaT said:

    Aryndelin said:

    To give an example. Cao Cao vs Liu - Sun alliance at chi bi.
    Cao Cao is calculated to have an army of roughly 250k - 260k while the Liu - Sun alliance had 50k. (the 1 million troop thingie was fictional)

    So yes, i hope they up the number of soldiers quite abit. And hopefully through army size.

    500 units per card should be the norm if the Laboratory code is used as a based.
    Even that might be too small scaled in the case of Chi Bi. :P
    Well, not every customers are using super computers :)
    That is why you can adjust the unit size in options.

    I hope Ultra size to be ultra, its possible proved by Laboratory in Warhammer.
  • wingren013wingren013 Registered Users Posts: 1,011
    edited January 2018
    Its a UI issue. When you have the big 40 v 40 battles your unit display takes up a lot of screen space.

    Units per card is more a performance/pathfinding issue.
  • iceniiicenii Senior Member The PhilippinesRegistered Users Posts: 1,373

    perhaps 30 units would b a good compromise most fans would agree with. also perhaps tie unit count with general experience. a 6 star general can have max 30 unit cards while a 1 star general starts with 15 so new players can get used to it.

    Something which i posted in a previous thread/forum, as i have been playing since S1 i certainly feel it's time for CA too push the envelope on unit count and indeed increase unit size. This is 1 area where CA have never tried too advance the series, they're quite willing to try new ideas in virtually every other aspect of the game.
    I cannot force you to believe the truth but i can allow you to believe a lie. Quote by me " Icenii ".
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,256
    They said before Warhammer was released they experimented with different sizes but still found 20 the most player friendly number. This was during the big controversy pre launch about no option to control reinforcements for 40 unit battles. They eventually gave us the tick box like previous TW's for people who feel they can control 40 units.

    For CA to even consider removing this feature tells me they think most players are not capable of controlling more than 20 so expecting a change in this regard is futile.
    81jt2dj75iky.png


  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 2,119
    I think 20 is perfect without artillery/general counting as a unit. They could make a system where you link three cohorts to one unit. For example an unit of spearman consists of three cohorts of 100 man each. This way you get the look and feel of larger battles while keeping it manageable without pausing every few seconds.

    Furthermore I never got it why artillery and generals/agents are taking up slots. This could better depend on the skill of the general. For example a fully developed skill tree or certain retainers provide a max of three artillery pieces.

Sign In or Register to comment.