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

Ambushes and Thrones

2

Comments

  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomPosts: 1,433Registered Users
    Fossoway said:

    CnConrad said:

    Tsiar said:

    CnConrad said:

    Tsiar said:

    Bolshevik said:

    Tsiar said:

    CnConrad said:

    Well as I said I didn't hate ambushes and wouldn't mind them staying.

    But they were never* used.


    It is exceedingly hard to justify spending time on an unused feature.


    The plain and simple fact is that games as all things in life are a simple function of time and money. Everything that is added takes time and money away from something else. Likewise everything that is removed frees up time and money for something else.


    I only hope that the time and money this freed up went to a good cause.


    * Never used in a figurative sense since literally never is not a useful measure.

    The problem is, the new features shown off in ToB don't look very interesting.

    Well, except supplies.
    Is that a joke? There are so many new features I'm interested in from the new recruitment system to unlocking technologies. Even the new system of minor settlements lacking garrisons seems like it will add a new touch to the campaigns. Thank god spies are being removed. Nobody ever used spies AND priests AND champions and they were just spammed by the AI most commonly. They are now addable characters for your generals .
    They aren't.

    Take the Sea Kings expeditions:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/88c8bl/viking_sea_kings_expedition_event_chain/

    Choose between 2/4 options, get some text and picture, culminates in a 5 turn campaign buff worth +3 public happiness and +12% to markets. Riveting.

    Unit caps. This didn't change Medieval 2s campaign that significantly and will probably not do much for ToB.

    "Addable characters", HA! It's a skill tree in everything but name, agents haven't been rolled into anything. If spamming was a problem, there is this thing you might have heard of, though CA doesn't seem to have: tweaking and reworking a feature. Instead of outright cutting.

    "War fervour" is war weariness with a positive end of the scale.

    Meanwhile, we're missing:

    -Agents
    -Ambush battles
    -Siege escalation
    -Army traditions
    -Dedicated Naval units
    -Culture/Religion

    The game has less interesting features than Attila, and costs nearly as much.

    I get that history-only fans are desperate afters two years of Warhammer but come the **** on.
    You made that list as if it means anything.

    -Agents
    agents are terrible and most people are happy they are gone.

    -Ambush battles
    I am not missing them but they are definitely missing.

    -Siege escalation
    I liked this and I will miss it.


    -Army traditions
    These are completely non historical. Armies lasted for weeks or possibly a year or two. They made sense for Rome because Rome had long standing armies. But you may as well ask for Tanks as ask for army traditions.

    -Dedicated Naval units
    All Vikings are dedicated naval units. Does it really make sense to have Vikings that are afraid to step foot on the ground?

    -Culture/Religion
    Both culture and religion are in the game. I don't know why you say differently. Just because there is no random +3 religion stats doesn't mean religion isn't in the game. It was not handled very well in Rome and Atilla so I am not sure what we are missing.
    None of your subjective opinions on the first four changes the fact they are gone, and in their place we have mechanics that give stat bonuses. Who in their right mind considers that a good trade?

    You do know that Vikings are not the only faction in the game?

    How is religion in the game? Because you can build monasteries?

    What is with the TW fanbase and this "if it wasn't handled well, cut it" mentality? Is it CA rubbing off?
    "It was not handled well earlier, therefore we should cut it instead of trying to improve it." This mentality is what lead to the Warhammer sieges.
    Some things simply do not work. Some things have no business being in the game. They got rid of dates in Warhammer and it was a good idea. Passage of months/vs years meant nothing in that game.

    It is nothing like Warhammer sieges. The sieges are a major part of the game that was severely lacking. They greatly improved that aspect. If they had to cut pointless things like ambush battles I'll take that trade 7 days a week.


    You are not even making arguments. You are just pouting.
    How about the fact that we can no longer hide on the campaign map? Or bait an enemy out of a settlement? How is giving us less strategic diversity a good thing?
    Considering features in isolation is illogical.

    You bait armies out of settlements by occupying the surrounding minors and depriving them of money and food.

    The new settlement mechanics look like they'll provide a lot more strategic diversity than my one ambush battle per campaign.
    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
  • drakeof5ddrakeof5d Junior Member Posts: 235Registered Users
    I think CA can release dlc for thrones and with ambush as free patch would be
  • fredericmeyernfredericmeyern Posts: 231Registered Users
    Mattzo said:

    Fossoway said:

    CnConrad said:

    Tsiar said:

    CnConrad said:

    Tsiar said:

    Bolshevik said:

    Tsiar said:

    CnConrad said:

    Well as I said I didn't hate ambushes and wouldn't mind them staying.

    But they were never* used.


    It is exceedingly hard to justify spending time on an unused feature.


    The plain and simple fact is that games as all things in life are a simple function of time and money. Everything that is added takes time and money away from something else. Likewise everything that is removed frees up time and money for something else.


    I only hope that the time and money this freed up went to a good cause.


    * Never used in a figurative sense since literally never is not a useful measure.

    The problem is, the new features shown off in ToB don't look very interesting.

    Well, except supplies.
    Is that a joke? There are so many new features I'm interested in from the new recruitment system to unlocking technologies. Even the new system of minor settlements lacking garrisons seems like it will add a new touch to the campaigns. Thank god spies are being removed. Nobody ever used spies AND priests AND champions and they were just spammed by the AI most commonly. They are now addable characters for your generals .
    They aren't.

    Take the Sea Kings expeditions:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/88c8bl/viking_sea_kings_expedition_event_chain/

    Choose between 2/4 options, get some text and picture, culminates in a 5 turn campaign buff worth +3 public happiness and +12% to markets. Riveting.

    Unit caps. This didn't change Medieval 2s campaign that significantly and will probably not do much for ToB.

    "Addable characters", HA! It's a skill tree in everything but name, agents haven't been rolled into anything. If spamming was a problem, there is this thing you might have heard of, though CA doesn't seem to have: tweaking and reworking a feature. Instead of outright cutting.

    "War fervour" is war weariness with a positive end of the scale.

    Meanwhile, we're missing:

    -Agents
    -Ambush battles
    -Siege escalation
    -Army traditions
    -Dedicated Naval units
    -Culture/Religion

    The game has less interesting features than Attila, and costs nearly as much.

    I get that history-only fans are desperate afters two years of Warhammer but come the **** on.
    You made that list as if it means anything.

    -Agents
    agents are terrible and most people are happy they are gone.

    -Ambush battles
    I am not missing them but they are definitely missing.

    -Siege escalation
    I liked this and I will miss it.


    -Army traditions
    These are completely non historical. Armies lasted for weeks or possibly a year or two. They made sense for Rome because Rome had long standing armies. But you may as well ask for Tanks as ask for army traditions.

    -Dedicated Naval units
    All Vikings are dedicated naval units. Does it really make sense to have Vikings that are afraid to step foot on the ground?

    -Culture/Religion
    Both culture and religion are in the game. I don't know why you say differently. Just because there is no random +3 religion stats doesn't mean religion isn't in the game. It was not handled very well in Rome and Atilla so I am not sure what we are missing.
    None of your subjective opinions on the first four changes the fact they are gone, and in their place we have mechanics that give stat bonuses. Who in their right mind considers that a good trade?

    You do know that Vikings are not the only faction in the game?

    How is religion in the game? Because you can build monasteries?

    What is with the TW fanbase and this "if it wasn't handled well, cut it" mentality? Is it CA rubbing off?
    "It was not handled well earlier, therefore we should cut it instead of trying to improve it." This mentality is what lead to the Warhammer sieges.
    Some things simply do not work. Some things have no business being in the game. They got rid of dates in Warhammer and it was a good idea. Passage of months/vs years meant nothing in that game.

    It is nothing like Warhammer sieges. The sieges are a major part of the game that was severely lacking. They greatly improved that aspect. If they had to cut pointless things like ambush battles I'll take that trade 7 days a week.


    You are not even making arguments. You are just pouting.
    How about the fact that we can no longer hide on the campaign map? Or bait an enemy out of a settlement? How is giving us less strategic diversity a good thing?
    Considering features in isolation is illogical.

    You bait armies out of settlements by occupying the surrounding minors and depriving them of money and food.

    The new settlement mechanics look like they'll provide a lot more strategic diversity than my one ambush battle per campaign.
    As long as the AI is not totally passive, but very interested to see how this works.
    forces would often ransack areas hoping to draw out the enemy army into open battle.

    https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/history-of-war/michael-wood-on-athelstans-great-war-to-unite-anglo-saxon-england/

    The fields were burned; the ravaging and the looting were terrible-it was horrendous. At some point York submitted and the invading army must have gathered somewhere on the Northumbrian border because the fleet had landed in the Humber. From there the invaders are mounting expeditions into the Midlands but is it just plundering expeditions or an actual invasion? That’s what we don’t know.
    The really interesting thing that then comes from the same quotation (which proves how contemporary it is) is that Æthelstan had previously been swift to act during danger. He was brilliant, invincible and never let his enemies rest but now he seems to have almost wasted the time. It was as if he “deemed his service done” while they ravaged everywhere and caused such destruction. That has to be contemporary and contrasts with rather homiletic sources where the king’s job was to be “seated on a high watchtower ever vigilant.”
    There’s no doubt that that’s a real source telling you that Æthelstan, for all his great reputation, at this moment was strongly criticised for not immediately responding to the invasion. What you guess (and what the source actually says) is that he bided his time, presumably to gather more forces. Harold II did the wrong thing in 1066 by charging down from Stamford Bridge and immediately attacking [at Hastings] but Æthelstan wasn’t going to let that happen. He risked the devastation of stretches of his territory to make sure that he’d got enough forces to combat this. So that’s how I would tentatively reconstruct it but its pure speculation.

    From what've I've read so far, the AI armies will have more "personality", with movement, and other things altered by followers and traits.

    What I'd like is if they responded based on those traits to what you do on the map.
    Say, an impetuous leader will roll out to meet you asap, while one more cautious will wait it out.
    Or if they have bonuses for raiding, to raid you more consistently, ect.

    At any rate, I hope the AI will not be passive on the map,
  • HunorHunor Posts: 132Registered Users
    about spying.
    how we get informations from enemy territory without agent/spy ? its clear the AI super agents spam was very annoying. but why dont just nerfed them ? so they cant poisoning/burning/assasinationing . but what if i need explore enemy area ? just looking where they are ? Or I'm going to hire a generals. I'm not going to add a unit to it. just ride into enemy territory, and then kill the lone Generals?
  • bbeslybbesly Member GermanyPosts: 269Registered Users
    Hunor said:

    about spying.
    how we get informations from enemy territory without agent/spy ?

    your neighbouring territorries are fully vissible.
  • ronmartheonlyronmartheonly Posts: 19Registered Users
    Hunor said:

    about spying.
    how we get informations from enemy territory without agent/spy ? its clear the AI super agents spam was very annoying. but why dont just nerfed them ? so they cant poisoning/burning/assasinationing . but what if i need explore enemy area ? just looking where they are ? Or I'm going to hire a generals. I'm not going to add a unit to it. just ride into enemy territory, and then kill the lone Generals?

    I definitely agree with this sentiment. In fact, I've always been okay with agents (save for the damn merchants in Medieval always buying off my merchants). However, that is getting off the topic of the initial post.
  • KregenKregen Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    Hunor said:

    about spying.
    how we get informations from enemy territory without agent/spy ? its clear the AI super agents spam was very annoying. but why dont just nerfed them ? so they cant poisoning/burning/assasinationing . but what if i need explore enemy area ? just looking where they are ? Or I'm going to hire a generals. I'm not going to add a unit to it. just ride into enemy territory, and then kill the lone Generals?

    If I am reading it properly agent actions are carried out somehow from the war leader as long as he has the right follower. This all happens in the background and you see nothing but get a message at some point that the mission was successful or not.
  • HunorHunor Posts: 132Registered Users
    according to them, I will have no other choice than to sacrifice a generals and to pass on MORE territory to see where hostile hosts are. It is especially true if I want to look at further shores, and tell them to plan an invasion to another island. (England-Irish and vice versa)
  • Nortrix87Nortrix87 Senior Member Posts: 991Registered Users
    Dont do ambushes much, but was nice to have the option. Hope new features makes up for it.
    "We men are the monsters now. The time of heroes is dead, Wiglaf - the Christ God has killed it, leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear, and shame."

    - Beowulf
  • ExarchExarch Posts: 575Registered Users
    Hunor said:

    according to them, I will have no other choice than to sacrifice a generals and to pass on MORE territory to see where hostile hosts are. It is especially true if I want to look at further shores, and tell them to plan an invasion to another island. (England-Irish and vice versa)

    Imperfect knowledge might make the game more interesting. Could also be frustrating, but it might mean playing a bit more cautiously or having a few more setbacks compared to when you know where the all AI are.

    I guess you can also expand your sight as you go by hopping through minor settlements, so you can always see 1 province ahead of your army.
  • HunorHunor Posts: 132Registered Users
    Exarch said:

    Hunor said:

    according to them, I will have no other choice than to sacrifice a generals and to pass on MORE territory to see where hostile hosts are. It is especially true if I want to look at further shores, and tell them to plan an invasion to another island. (England-Irish and vice versa)

    Imperfect knowledge might make the game more interesting. Could also be frustrating, but it might mean playing a bit more cautiously or having a few more setbacks compared to when you know where the all AI are.

    I guess you can also expand your sight as you go by hopping through minor settlements, so you can always see 1 province ahead of your army.
    ok, lets see how going on i this new campaign of ToB :) I hope the best, csnt wait !
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Posts: 3,130Registered Users
    Hunor said:

    about spying.
    how we get informations from enemy territory without agent/spy ? its clear the AI super agents spam was very annoying. but why dont just nerfed them ? so they cant poisoning/burning/assasinationing . but what if i need explore enemy area ? just looking where they are ? Or I'm going to hire a generals. I'm not going to add a unit to it. just ride into enemy territory, and then kill the lone Generals?

    and why on earth do you need to see what is across the map? This isn't chess where you are limited in your moves and you need to play ahead 5 or six moves.
  • alstlalstl Member Posts: 314Registered Users
    It seems to me the problem with ambush battles is implementing them realistically. What some people call ambush are really feigned retreat which is still possible on the battlefield if you are in a forested area and are smart about how you use your troops.

    In Attila you suddenly had several enemy units on either side - didn't seem very realistic. Lack of ambush is not a huge loss for me. I'm wondering if the fortify ability is still in the game with the archery towers.
  • FossowayFossoway Posts: 2,402Registered Users
    edited April 2018
    Mattzo said:

    Fossoway said:

    CnConrad said:

    Tsiar said:

    CnConrad said:

    Tsiar said:

    Bolshevik said:

    Tsiar said:

    CnConrad said:

    Well as I said I didn't hate ambushes and wouldn't mind them staying.

    But they were never* used.


    It is exceedingly hard to justify spending time on an unused feature.


    The plain and simple fact is that games as all things in life are a simple function of time and money. Everything that is added takes time and money away from something else. Likewise everything that is removed frees up time and money for something else.


    I only hope that the time and money this freed up went to a good cause.


    * Never used in a figurative sense since literally never is not a useful measure.

    The problem is, the new features shown off in ToB don't look very interesting.

    Well, except supplies.
    Is that a joke? There are so many new features I'm interested in from the new recruitment system to unlocking technologies. Even the new system of minor settlements lacking garrisons seems like it will add a new touch to the campaigns. Thank god spies are being removed. Nobody ever used spies AND priests AND champions and they were just spammed by the AI most commonly. They are now addable characters for your generals .
    They aren't.

    Take the Sea Kings expeditions:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/88c8bl/viking_sea_kings_expedition_event_chain/

    Choose between 2/4 options, get some text and picture, culminates in a 5 turn campaign buff worth +3 public happiness and +12% to markets. Riveting.

    Unit caps. This didn't change Medieval 2s campaign that significantly and will probably not do much for ToB.

    "Addable characters", HA! It's a skill tree in everything but name, agents haven't been rolled into anything. If spamming was a problem, there is this thing you might have heard of, though CA doesn't seem to have: tweaking and reworking a feature. Instead of outright cutting.

    "War fervour" is war weariness with a positive end of the scale.

    Meanwhile, we're missing:

    -Agents
    -Ambush battles
    -Siege escalation
    -Army traditions
    -Dedicated Naval units
    -Culture/Religion

    The game has less interesting features than Attila, and costs nearly as much.

    I get that history-only fans are desperate afters two years of Warhammer but come the **** on.
    You made that list as if it means anything.

    -Agents
    agents are terrible and most people are happy they are gone.

    -Ambush battles
    I am not missing them but they are definitely missing.

    -Siege escalation
    I liked this and I will miss it.


    -Army traditions
    These are completely non historical. Armies lasted for weeks or possibly a year or two. They made sense for Rome because Rome had long standing armies. But you may as well ask for Tanks as ask for army traditions.

    -Dedicated Naval units
    All Vikings are dedicated naval units. Does it really make sense to have Vikings that are afraid to step foot on the ground?

    -Culture/Religion
    Both culture and religion are in the game. I don't know why you say differently. Just because there is no random +3 religion stats doesn't mean religion isn't in the game. It was not handled very well in Rome and Atilla so I am not sure what we are missing.
    None of your subjective opinions on the first four changes the fact they are gone, and in their place we have mechanics that give stat bonuses. Who in their right mind considers that a good trade?

    You do know that Vikings are not the only faction in the game?

    How is religion in the game? Because you can build monasteries?

    What is with the TW fanbase and this "if it wasn't handled well, cut it" mentality? Is it CA rubbing off?
    "It was not handled well earlier, therefore we should cut it instead of trying to improve it." This mentality is what lead to the Warhammer sieges.
    Some things simply do not work. Some things have no business being in the game. They got rid of dates in Warhammer and it was a good idea. Passage of months/vs years meant nothing in that game.

    It is nothing like Warhammer sieges. The sieges are a major part of the game that was severely lacking. They greatly improved that aspect. If they had to cut pointless things like ambush battles I'll take that trade 7 days a week.


    You are not even making arguments. You are just pouting.
    How about the fact that we can no longer hide on the campaign map? Or bait an enemy out of a settlement? How is giving us less strategic diversity a good thing?
    Considering features in isolation is illogical.

    You bait armies out of settlements by occupying the surrounding minors and depriving them of money and food.

    The new settlement mechanics look like they'll provide a lot more strategic diversity than my one ambush battle per campaign.
    Yeah, sorry but I am not convinced. How is that going to work on high difficulty, when the AI gets a massive bonus to public order and income?
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Posts: 2,386Registered Users
    Fossoway said:

    Mattzo said:

    Fossoway said:

    CnConrad said:

    Tsiar said:

    CnConrad said:

    Tsiar said:

    Bolshevik said:

    Tsiar said:

    CnConrad said:

    Well as I said I didn't hate ambushes and wouldn't mind them staying.

    But they were never* used.


    It is exceedingly hard to justify spending time on an unused feature.


    The plain and simple fact is that games as all things in life are a simple function of time and money. Everything that is added takes time and money away from something else. Likewise everything that is removed frees up time and money for something else.


    I only hope that the time and money this freed up went to a good cause.


    * Never used in a figurative sense since literally never is not a useful measure.

    The problem is, the new features shown off in ToB don't look very interesting.

    Well, except supplies.
    Is that a joke? There are so many new features I'm interested in from the new recruitment system to unlocking technologies. Even the new system of minor settlements lacking garrisons seems like it will add a new touch to the campaigns. Thank god spies are being removed. Nobody ever used spies AND priests AND champions and they were just spammed by the AI most commonly. They are now addable characters for your generals .
    They aren't.

    Take the Sea Kings expeditions:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/88c8bl/viking_sea_kings_expedition_event_chain/

    Choose between 2/4 options, get some text and picture, culminates in a 5 turn campaign buff worth +3 public happiness and +12% to markets. Riveting.

    Unit caps. This didn't change Medieval 2s campaign that significantly and will probably not do much for ToB.

    "Addable characters", HA! It's a skill tree in everything but name, agents haven't been rolled into anything. If spamming was a problem, there is this thing you might have heard of, though CA doesn't seem to have: tweaking and reworking a feature. Instead of outright cutting.

    "War fervour" is war weariness with a positive end of the scale.

    Meanwhile, we're missing:

    -Agents
    -Ambush battles
    -Siege escalation
    -Army traditions
    -Dedicated Naval units
    -Culture/Religion

    The game has less interesting features than Attila, and costs nearly as much.

    I get that history-only fans are desperate afters two years of Warhammer but come the **** on.
    You made that list as if it means anything.

    -Agents
    agents are terrible and most people are happy they are gone.

    -Ambush battles
    I am not missing them but they are definitely missing.

    -Siege escalation
    I liked this and I will miss it.


    -Army traditions
    These are completely non historical. Armies lasted for weeks or possibly a year or two. They made sense for Rome because Rome had long standing armies. But you may as well ask for Tanks as ask for army traditions.

    -Dedicated Naval units
    All Vikings are dedicated naval units. Does it really make sense to have Vikings that are afraid to step foot on the ground?

    -Culture/Religion
    Both culture and religion are in the game. I don't know why you say differently. Just because there is no random +3 religion stats doesn't mean religion isn't in the game. It was not handled very well in Rome and Atilla so I am not sure what we are missing.
    None of your subjective opinions on the first four changes the fact they are gone, and in their place we have mechanics that give stat bonuses. Who in their right mind considers that a good trade?

    You do know that Vikings are not the only faction in the game?

    How is religion in the game? Because you can build monasteries?

    What is with the TW fanbase and this "if it wasn't handled well, cut it" mentality? Is it CA rubbing off?
    "It was not handled well earlier, therefore we should cut it instead of trying to improve it." This mentality is what lead to the Warhammer sieges.
    Some things simply do not work. Some things have no business being in the game. They got rid of dates in Warhammer and it was a good idea. Passage of months/vs years meant nothing in that game.

    It is nothing like Warhammer sieges. The sieges are a major part of the game that was severely lacking. They greatly improved that aspect. If they had to cut pointless things like ambush battles I'll take that trade 7 days a week.


    You are not even making arguments. You are just pouting.
    How about the fact that we can no longer hide on the campaign map? Or bait an enemy out of a settlement? How is giving us less strategic diversity a good thing?
    Considering features in isolation is illogical.

    You bait armies out of settlements by occupying the surrounding minors and depriving them of money and food.

    The new settlement mechanics look like they'll provide a lot more strategic diversity than my one ambush battle per campaign.
    Yeah, sorry but I am not convinced. How is that going to work on high difficulty, when the AI gets a massive bonus to public order and income?
    It's been said about a dozen times already, but TOB AI gets multipliers, not flat bonuses. So if you wipe out half their income/food sources etc. they will lose half their income/food.
  • HunorHunor Posts: 132Registered Users
    CnConrad said:

    Hunor said:

    about spying.
    how we get informations from enemy territory without agent/spy ? its clear the AI super agents spam was very annoying. but why dont just nerfed them ? so they cant poisoning/burning/assasinationing . but what if i need explore enemy area ? just looking where they are ? Or I'm going to hire a generals. I'm not going to add a unit to it. just ride into enemy territory, and then kill the lone Generals?

    and why on earth do you need to see what is across the map? This isn't chess where you are limited in your moves and you need to play ahead 5 or six moves.
    I think it is quite natural if the parties are doing a discovery before embarking on an invasion.
  • BreadboxBreadbox Posts: 785Registered Users
    Appreciate the explanation,but I hope you understand this would open things up for counter-arguements and rants.

    Barely anyone finishes a long campaign,didn’t stop the ultimate campaign victory from been in.
    Barely anyone play on difficulties that higher than hard.
    Didn’t stop higher difficulties from been in.
    Vast majority of the battles are auto-resolve ad-nauseam,well...I think people get the point.

    Literally the only memorable defeats I’ve suffered from the AI is me been reckless and getting ambushed by the AI.
    As are my most memorable victories.
    They are the only battles that I still remember to this day,amongst the thousands of field battles that plays out almost exactly the same.
    Many of my camapign requires little beyond autoreolving my way to victory,does not mean that POTENTIAL depth should be removed.

    Sure,alot of the gametime isn’t terribly exciting,but it is those rare amazing moments,such as an unexpected defeats or victory that kept me playing the series for years.
    They are an important force equaliser/curveball for the campaign,for a series that’s quite lacking in them despite been wargames.
    *Tldr:It is not a detail,its actually one of the most interesting part of TW for me.

    Ambush is far more of a historical plausibility than say,siege assualts with catapults and mobile towers.I don’t remember many famous siege assualts from this time either.But I digress.

    I seriously hope it isn’t something that be would be carried on in the series.
    Where things are removed for no reason other than ‘to make things feel different and consolidated’.

    Where people unironically help the players decide what is ‘miniscule’ or ‘unimpactful’ for them,espacially when no one called it such or asked it to be removed.

    Sorry for this,but sometimes I just don’t understand why the series could regress in important features for no reason.:sad:
  • BreadboxBreadbox Posts: 785Registered Users
    edited April 2018
    CormacSVK said:

    I have to pitch in here.

    IMO the only reason why ambushes were only 0.05% is because they were poorly implemented, nearly impossible to use effectively. You could not move, enemy saw you 60% of the time anyway and even if he didn't, he simply went another way around you. There were barely. Any choke points and enemy armies could move thousand ways, it was very difficult to produce effective trap.

    That's why nobody used them, not because it was boring, it's a great concept. BUT they were useless, ineffective in 99% of situations. It should be reworked, not removed.

    Actually I think they are just basically good with their implementation.
    Ambush isn’t super common in history either,but they are impactful and decisive when they are successful.

    You have to pick the right terrain,predict enemies’ route and chokepoint just like a real commander does.

    The AI is never going to learn to stop falling into the same traps like a human does.
    So its a good compromise otherwise it’d become too exploitative.
    *it could use a better success chance when it does trigger however.

    Its not used for a far more simple reason: you don’t need to use any trickery or strategy to defeat the AI.
    Why bother doing it when something far simpler would do?
  • ShermanSherman Member Posts: 880Registered Users
    Tsiar said:

    Somebody on Reddit made such a good post about this, that sums up my own thoughts, probably better than I could:

    This whole situation reminds me of an old post of a Rome 1 gif*: when that was posted, many users argued it was such a small feature, so relatively unknown, so tangential to gameplay that no one felt it was missing. That it made no change to be removed. That it wasn't lazy never to try and apply them again.

    Here's the thing: stuff like that, or like ambushes, or like agent videos are details. They add something different to the usual gameplay cycle. They are meant to be small and maybe overlooked, but to be there anyway to flesh out the game. And a small bit of context that's missing here: we've been losing small details like these very consistently in the past ~4 releases on the series. So of course some people are not happy with it.

    Your argument is solid number-wise. It obviously would be, it needs to back up a controversial change. It has a flaw though: you talk about streamlining, without mentioning the word because of course it has negative implications around here. Basically, it's OK to remove features when they're used by a minority of players. With that thought in mind, you could streamline the series to its very core: building a couple buildings and battling a couple units. Features that go unnoticed/not fully understood by the blunt of players (Siege Escalation, Hordes, Avatar Customization, etc) often define those titles and add to them rather than subtract them. While it does wonders to explain the motivation for the change, it doesn't make it a positive change for us, the customers/players.

    *https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/5ixb9w/ca_if_you_could_dig_up_the_code_for_this_that/

    I'll not miss the ambush mechanic, but I agree with that post. Reading the things as numbers mean the loss of what there is good in an experience. Even the mere possibility it's something that change your way to feel the game.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,605Registered Users
    Axelrad said:
    It's so good. They look alive moving on their own pace rather than sync like robots. You can really see how dedicated developers are through their games. Hope newer games add more features rather than scrapping.

  • FossowayFossoway Posts: 2,402Registered Users
    So sorry about the incoming rant that I'm about to make, and sorry if I appear whiny, but I just have to say it. Jack, you said you don't want people to feel that something is missing from the game, but I'll definitely feel the absence of the ambush mechanic. Just like how I felt the chokepoints and naval battles that were missing from Warhammer 1. Yes, I put this at the same level.

    I can accept everything else. The disappearance of religion, agents, small settlements, you name it. I knew the unit collision would be fixed eventually. I'm ok with forced march being part of the general level up. I can accept it because it is not a removal of gameplay, it's a different style of gameplay. I'll gladly try it out.

    But not this. The more I think about it, the more I feel frustrated that this was removed. This was legit gameplay that was removed. Forget the 0,05% battles that were played as ambushes, what about the ability to hide on the campaign map? What about the ability to make the AI feel safe, and let them come close?

    I'd gladly take the imperfect ambush stance of Attila over its flat out removal, and I'd gladly have more gameplay diversity over battle-maps eye candy any day. I know my opinion is not the majority, and that most people here are indifferent to it, but at the end of the day, it still amounts to having an entire movement stance removed without any other alternative added in return.

    I know my opinion is not worth much among a sea of players, but to me at least, because of this the hype train came to a screeching halt.
  • KregenKregen Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    In some ways I can see were Fossoway is coming from, although I was never happy that it became a stance in later games. I much prefere the ability to hide on the campaign map in cover which can be either used to ambush or let a stronger force sail by. That I used to use often in old games the stance in later games I did not use quite so much. So the stance I do not miss so much but the ability to hide in cover on the campaign map I would love to have back I found it a more flexible mechanic to use.
  • FossowayFossoway Posts: 2,402Registered Users
    Kregen said:

    In some ways I can see were Fossoway is coming from, although I was never happy that it became a stance in later games. I much prefere the ability to hide on the campaign map in cover which can be either used to ambush or let a stronger force sail by. That I used to use often in old games the stance in later games I did not use quite so much. So the stance I do not miss so much but the ability to hide in cover on the campaign map I would love to have back I found it a more flexible mechanic to use.

    That would be a fair compromise. If the ambush battles have to be cut, then so be it, but at least have a way for players to hide on the campaign map. Through terrain, tech tree, general skills, followers, whatever, but not cut it out entirely...
  • DezziDezzi Posts: 21Registered Users
    edited April 2018
    Forgive the Rant of a Pro Ambusher

    I have to say that you removing the ambush ability is quite ridicules as while it may not be used by any people, it was a great way of changing the entire tide of a war. Let me give you a common example in my attlia matches:
    • I am playing as the Sassanids and only have half a stack and the ERE have a full force with better troops than me marching towards one of my city's which has the army inside it. I cannot send another army to help in time before they defeat the army and take my strategic important city. My other armies are for the sake of it putting down rebellions else where and cannot help.

    • Since my enemy has better troops than me and a bigger army i would surely lose in an open field battle.

    • Therefore, an ambush is the perfect opportunity and my only chance of winning the war. Since I can get the jump on an enemy army due to it being in a snake formation. Why remove this?? Now I have no choice but to lose the battle and have them sack several city's or destroy me all together.

    The point is they allowed another layer of gameplay by letting us make those choices and enabled us a way of defeating a large force with a much smaller one as we could kill the general quickly. Why remove the choice cause it was only used in certain situations? I bet you can say the same thing about fort stances. The main difference between those stances is that there is no RISK to a fort stance like there is with an ambush stance, as the AI will attack you in fort stance if they have an advantage and you have choke points guaranteed whereas with ambush you are taking a chance to kill more enemies with less troops if successful by chopping the head of the snake like a hammer or a failed ambush which means certain defeat.

    They allowed for choice and a way of gambling with the army as history enabling us to defeat a larger force. Although it is flawed in terms of the AI but as a person playing head to head alot with human players, it has been a invaluable feature!!

    Now, many people did not use it for a reason! they did not use because they were not put in a situation like that or they could not get enough choke points to predict the enemies path...Also is this based off all difficulty settings? There is no need to ambush on easy for example but on higher difficulties I would like to see the stats for that.


    From a historical point of view:
    If I remember my history of this time period there were quite a few battles that would be called an ambush or surprise attack. The Irish and Welsh were quite famous for their ambushes and Harold defeated the vikings at Stanford Bridge by ambushing them (alright I guess you can call it a surprise attack), but now there is no way of doing this?

    Also it might not have been recorded in history as people at this time were not very good at righting down historical events (apart from Alfred, who brought learning back). Probably many untold battles happened in this period that were not recorded by the monks (probably because they were captured after the battle). The vikings while not ambushing per say, they relied of surprise to attack a settlement as this allowed them to win.


    Conclusion

    It is very stupid that you removed the ambush stance instead of fixing it. Whats next? "Lets remove navel warfare as it is not used as much as land battle" like Warhammer? (reason semi justifiable but please don't do that for historical games) You seem to be creating a history of removing content form your games instead of adding to it!!

    Ambushes have been in since Rome 1 and to remove them is like cutting a piece of originality from the series. Point is whether people used them or not the option should not be removed for people that do use them. (Honestly they are a life saver on higher difficulties playing weak factions). I also was angry you took the fireballs out of Attlia too!!

    So we now have a game that has no way of surprising the enemy and will make H2H a bore. So much for forward thinking and strategy.....
  • BlackenedLokiBlackenedLoki Junior Member Posts: 159Registered Users
    Dezzi said:

    Forgive the Rant of a Pro Ambusher

    I have to say that you removing the ambush ability is quite ridicules as while it may not be used by any people, it was a great way of changing the entire tide of a war. Let me give you a common example in my attlia matches:

    • I am playing as the Sassanids and only have half a stack and the ERE have a full force with better troops than me marching towards one of my city's which has the army inside it. I cannot send another army to help in time before they defeat the army and take my strategic important city. My other armies are for the sake of it putting down rebellions else where and cannot help.

    • Since my enemy has better troops than me and a bigger army i would surely lose in an open field battle.

    • Therefore, an ambush is the perfect opportunity and my only chance of winning the war. Since I can get the jump on an enemy army due to it being in a snake formation. Why remove this?? Now I have no choice but to lose the battle and have them sack several city's or destroy me all together.

    The point is they allowed another layer of gameplay by letting us make those choices and enabled us a way of defeating a large force with a much smaller one as we could kill the general quickly. Why remove the choice cause it was only used in certain situations? I bet you can say the same thing about fort stances. The main difference between those stances is that there is no RISK to a fort stance like there is with an ambush stance, as the AI will attack you in fort stance if they have an advantage and you have choke points guaranteed whereas with ambush you are taking a chance to kill more enemies with less troops if successful by chopping the head of the snake like a hammer or a failed ambush which means certain defeat.

    They allowed for choice and a way of gambling with the army as history enabling us to defeat a larger force. Although it is flawed in terms of the AI but as a person playing head to head alot with human players, it has been a invaluable feature!!

    Now, many people did not use it for a reason! they did not use because they were not put in a situation like that or they could not get enough choke points to predict the enemies path...Also is this based off all difficulty settings? There is no need to ambush on easy for example but on higher difficulties I would like to see the stats for that.


    From a historical point of view:
    If I remember my history of this time period there were quite a few battles that would be called an ambush or surprise attack. The Irish and Welsh were quite famous for their ambushes and Harold defeated the vikings at Stanford Bridge by ambushing them (alright I guess you can call it a surprise attack), but now there is no way of doing this?

    Also it might not have been recorded in history as people at this time were not very good at righting down historical events (apart from Alfred, who brought learning back). Probably many untold battles happened in this period that were not recorded by the monks (probably because they were captured after the battle). The vikings while not ambushing per say, they relied of surprise to attack a settlement as this allowed them to win.


    Conclusion

    It is very stupid that you removed the ambush stance instead of fixing it. Whats next? "Lets remove navel warfare as it is not used as much as land battle" like Warhammer? (reason semi justifiable but please don't do that for historical games) You seem to be creating a history of removing content form your games instead of adding to it!!

    Ambushes have been in since Rome 1 and to remove them is like cutting a piece of originality from the series. Point is whether people used them or not the option should not be removed for people that do use them. (Honestly they are a life saver on higher difficulties playing weak factions). I also was angry you took the fireballs out of Attlia too!!

    So we now have a game that has no way of surprising the enemy and will make H2H a bore. So much for forward thinking and strategy.....
    Erm...Could you not simply sit in the city and force the ERE into a protracted siege?

    Giving you;

    A. A defensive Siege battle chance to defeat the army
    B. Time to raise a new army or move one from elsewhere

    Saying that an Ambush is your only chance seems a bit strong

    I play on Very Hard and do occasionally (Maybe 3 times a campaign in any total war game that I am playing) use the ambush feature but will not really miss it as I believe the actual battle it generates is unrealistic and really not that much fun to play.

    Surprise attacks will still happen I'm sure, I'm quite often surprised by an enemy army or am able to launch a 'surprise attack' if an army ventures too close. There just isn't a specific mechanic for it.

    Yes, I am one of those people who liked Rome 2 and yes my opinion is still valid.
  • DezziDezzi Posts: 21Registered Users
    edited April 2018

    Dezzi said:

    Forgive the Rant of a Pro Ambusher

    I have to say that you removing the ambush ability is quite ridicules as while it may not be used by any people, it was a great way of changing the entire tide of a war. Let me give you a common example in my attlia matches:

    • I am playing as the Sassanids and only have half a stack and the ERE have a full force with better troops than me marching towards one of my city's which has the army inside it. I cannot send another army to help in time before they defeat the army and take my strategic important city. My other armies are for the sake of it putting down rebellions else where and cannot help.

    • Since my enemy has better troops than me and a bigger army i would surely lose in an open field battle.

    • Therefore, an ambush is the perfect opportunity and my only chance of winning the war. Since I can get the jump on an enemy army due to it being in a snake formation. Why remove this?? Now I have no choice but to lose the battle and have them sack several city's or destroy me all together.

    The point is they allowed another layer of gameplay by letting us make those choices and enabled us a way of defeating a large force with a much smaller one as we could kill the general quickly. Why remove the choice cause it was only used in certain situations? I bet you can say the same thing about fort stances. The main difference between those stances is that there is no RISK to a fort stance like there is with an ambush stance, as the AI will attack you in fort stance if they have an advantage and you have choke points guaranteed whereas with ambush you are taking a chance to kill more enemies with less troops if successful by chopping the head of the snake like a hammer or a failed ambush which means certain defeat.

    They allowed for choice and a way of gambling with the army as history enabling us to defeat a larger force. Although it is flawed in terms of the AI but as a person playing head to head alot with human players, it has been a invaluable feature!!

    Now, many people did not use it for a reason! they did not use because they were not put in a situation like that or they could not get enough choke points to predict the enemies path...Also is this based off all difficulty settings? There is no need to ambush on easy for example but on higher difficulties I would like to see the stats for that.


    From a historical point of view:
    If I remember my history of this time period there were quite a few battles that would be called an ambush or surprise attack. The Irish and Welsh were quite famous for their ambushes and Harold defeated the vikings at Stanford Bridge by ambushing them (alright I guess you can call it a surprise attack), but now there is no way of doing this?

    Also it might not have been recorded in history as people at this time were not very good at righting down historical events (apart from Alfred, who brought learning back). Probably many untold battles happened in this period that were not recorded by the monks (probably because they were captured after the battle). The vikings while not ambushing per say, they relied of surprise to attack a settlement as this allowed them to win.


    Conclusion

    It is very stupid that you removed the ambush stance instead of fixing it. Whats next? "Lets remove navel warfare as it is not used as much as land battle" like Warhammer? (reason semi justifiable but please don't do that for historical games) You seem to be creating a history of removing content form your games instead of adding to it!!

    Ambushes have been in since Rome 1 and to remove them is like cutting a piece of originality from the series. Point is whether people used them or not the option should not be removed for people that do use them. (Honestly they are a life saver on higher difficulties playing weak factions). I also was angry you took the fireballs out of Attlia too!!

    So we now have a game that has no way of surprising the enemy and will make H2H a bore. So much for forward thinking and strategy.....
    Erm...Could you not simply sit in the city and force the ERE into a protracted siege?

    Giving you;

    A. A defensive Siege battle chance to defeat the army
    B. Time to raise a new army or move one from elsewhere

    Saying that an Ambush is your only chance seems a bit strong

    I play on Very Hard and do occasionally (Maybe 3 times a campaign in any total war game that I am playing) use the ambush feature but will not really miss it as I believe the actual battle it generates is unrealistic and really not that much fun to play.

    Surprise attacks will still happen I'm sure, I'm quite often surprised by an enemy army or am able to launch a 'surprise attack' if an army ventures too close. There just isn't a specific mechanic for it.

    @BlackenedLoki Sure I could stay in the city. But it would be a very hard struggle (so would lose ALOT of men) and the enemy can form up properly. I also may not have enough men to choke off every choke point and as stated my enemy has a better army therefore a face to face engagement I would lose. I certainly wouldn't be able to kill the enemy general (proving they are not stupid). Ambush stances gives me these conditions.

    The actual battle is actually fine, what is unrealistic about it? Most armies marched in a column formation as it was quicker. Also how will surprise attacks happen when A) Fog of war is taken out and B) no ambush stances?

    I don't see why they couldn't keep the spy agent that has no inflicting abilities on the enemy just to scout out the fog of war and give buffs to friendly army for example less chance of being ambushed if spy is in your army etc......

    The ambush system is borken and many people would scout more as well as use ambush themselves if the AI used it alot more.....In Rome 1 the AI at least uses the ambush stance!!!
  • YarevYarev Senior Member Posts: 246Registered Users
    Removing the Fog of War is the worst idea ever and we didnt get anything in return. More to say with ambush battles gone all the armies are visible all the time which spoils the gameplay.
    "War does not determine who is right - only who is left" Bertrand Russell
    "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his" George S. Patton
  • BlackenedLokiBlackenedLoki Junior Member Posts: 159Registered Users
    Dezzi said:

    Dezzi said:

    Forgive the Rant of a Pro Ambusher

    I have to say that you removing the ambush ability is quite ridicules as while it may not be used by any people, it was a great way of changing the entire tide of a war. Let me give you a common example in my attlia matches:

    • I am playing as the Sassanids and only have half a stack and the ERE have a full force with better troops than me marching towards one of my city's which has the army inside it. I cannot send another army to help in time before they defeat the army and take my strategic important city. My other armies are for the sake of it putting down rebellions else where and cannot help.

    • Since my enemy has better troops than me and a bigger army i would surely lose in an open field battle.

    • Therefore, an ambush is the perfect opportunity and my only chance of winning the war. Since I can get the jump on an enemy army due to it being in a snake formation. Why remove this?? Now I have no choice but to lose the battle and have them sack several city's or destroy me all together.

    The point is they allowed another layer of gameplay by letting us make those choices and enabled us a way of defeating a large force with a much smaller one as we could kill the general quickly. Why remove the choice cause it was only used in certain situations? I bet you can say the same thing about fort stances. The main difference between those stances is that there is no RISK to a fort stance like there is with an ambush stance, as the AI will attack you in fort stance if they have an advantage and you have choke points guaranteed whereas with ambush you are taking a chance to kill more enemies with less troops if successful by chopping the head of the snake like a hammer or a failed ambush which means certain defeat.

    They allowed for choice and a way of gambling with the army as history enabling us to defeat a larger force. Although it is flawed in terms of the AI but as a person playing head to head alot with human players, it has been a invaluable feature!!

    Now, many people did not use it for a reason! they did not use because they were not put in a situation like that or they could not get enough choke points to predict the enemies path...Also is this based off all difficulty settings? There is no need to ambush on easy for example but on higher difficulties I would like to see the stats for that.


    From a historical point of view:
    If I remember my history of this time period there were quite a few battles that would be called an ambush or surprise attack. The Irish and Welsh were quite famous for their ambushes and Harold defeated the vikings at Stanford Bridge by ambushing them (alright I guess you can call it a surprise attack), but now there is no way of doing this?

    Also it might not have been recorded in history as people at this time were not very good at righting down historical events (apart from Alfred, who brought learning back). Probably many untold battles happened in this period that were not recorded by the monks (probably because they were captured after the battle). The vikings while not ambushing per say, they relied of surprise to attack a settlement as this allowed them to win.


    Conclusion

    It is very stupid that you removed the ambush stance instead of fixing it. Whats next? "Lets remove navel warfare as it is not used as much as land battle" like Warhammer? (reason semi justifiable but please don't do that for historical games) You seem to be creating a history of removing content form your games instead of adding to it!!

    Ambushes have been in since Rome 1 and to remove them is like cutting a piece of originality from the series. Point is whether people used them or not the option should not be removed for people that do use them. (Honestly they are a life saver on higher difficulties playing weak factions). I also was angry you took the fireballs out of Attlia too!!

    So we now have a game that has no way of surprising the enemy and will make H2H a bore. So much for forward thinking and strategy.....
    Erm...Could you not simply sit in the city and force the ERE into a protracted siege?

    Giving you;

    A. A defensive Siege battle chance to defeat the army
    B. Time to raise a new army or move one from elsewhere

    Saying that an Ambush is your only chance seems a bit strong

    I play on Very Hard and do occasionally (Maybe 3 times a campaign in any total war game that I am playing) use the ambush feature but will not really miss it as I believe the actual battle it generates is unrealistic and really not that much fun to play.

    Surprise attacks will still happen I'm sure, I'm quite often surprised by an enemy army or am able to launch a 'surprise attack' if an army ventures too close. There just isn't a specific mechanic for it.

    @BlackenedLoki Sure I could stay in the city. But it would be a very hard struggle (so would lose ALOT of men) and the enemy can form up properly. I also may not have enough men to choke off every choke point and as stated my enemy has a better army therefore a face to face engagement I would lose. I certainly wouldn't be able to kill the enemy general (proving they are not stupid). Ambush stances gives me these conditions.

    The actual battle is actually fine, what is unrealistic about it? Most armies marched in a column formation as it was quicker. Also how will surprise attacks happen when A) Fog of war is taken out and B) no ambush stances?

    I don't see why they couldn't keep the spy agent that has no inflicting abilities on the enemy just to scout out the fog of war and give buffs to friendly army for example less chance of being ambushed if spy is in your army etc......

    The ambush system is borken and many people would scout more as well as use ambush themselves if the AI used it alot more.....In Rome 1 the AI at least uses the ambush stance!!!
    The unrealistic-ness come from the battle map, alot of the time the enemy is in a column (which is fine) but I can then completely surround them and appear a few feet away from the units under no cover what-so-ever! It kinda feels like my units have been teleported into place :)

    I do like a good siege defence, staged retreat to the 'final stand area' etc. So maybe I'm a bit biased but it's definitely possible to defeat a vastly stronger force in this situation. I just find this situation much more enjoyable compared with the ambushes.

    I am going to miss a 'scout' as I do actually use these agents in whatever game I'm playing and I am going to be interested to see how it works with no fog of war... although I know you can make it so your armies can move further through your provinces etc so it might well be possible to surprise an army who's wandered too close.
    Yes, I am one of those people who liked Rome 2 and yes my opinion is still valid.
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Posts: 1,163Registered Users
    I never used ambushes but liked it when the ai ambushed me. Made for some interesting battles. So I will miss being ambushed
  • Grimgor_the_CAkeGrimgor_the_CAke Posts: 1,674Registered Users
    Ambush stance in Total War Warhammer is so powerful that it could potential make your interesting campaign far too easy. It was fun till a point that you sort of suddenly realize you are abusing the AI. That said, I agree that many people do find ambush stance useful and I agree that some people do not use / do not even know how to use ambush stance properly. As Saga is largely an experimental project, I am quite happy it does try things like this out.

Sign In or Register to comment.