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

Macro vs. Micro

2»

Comments

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 6,955Registered Users
    the game should not be dumed down because people dont have time to practice, if your brother practiced more he could achieve same win rate
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Posts: 776Registered Users

    the game should not be dumed down because people dont have time to practice, if your brother practiced more he could achieve same win rate

    It has nothing to do with dumbing the game down or not. Its a different type of game, that requires different set of skills

    Even taking it to the extreme and turning it into a turn based game wouldn't remove the skill component, theres plenty of skill that goes into multiplayer turn based strategy games. You can't write off another players experiences because they don't play the game the same way you do.

    Obviously that's an extreme, nor do I think anyone here wants the game to run at half speed. But the point is reducing the speed doesn't necessarily lower the skill cap, it simply shifts the importance of skills.

    I personally don't want the game that slow. But the reality is that its a matter of preference and not some objective fact.
  • Green0Green0 Posts: 4,344Registered Users
    it's an objective fact that historical battles were played at normal speed and not half speed. Since TW is an emulation of historical battles, it's only natural that micro and on the spot decision making play an important role.
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Posts: 776Registered Users
    edited January 18
    Green0 said:

    it's an objective fact that historical battles were played at normal speed and not half speed. Since TW is an emulation of historical battles, it's only natural that micro and on the spot decision making play an important role.

    Really? I thought it was a historical fact that Warhammer fantasy battles was played on a turn based board with little painted armies.

    Gameplay mechanics and speed are a matter of developer and player preference, the historical basis has nothing to do with it. I doubt Total War Battles happen at the actual speed real life battles took place. I doubt Medieval battles had a 20 minute time limit either.

    Again, not advocating for half speed. But I'm just saying that tuning the speed is literally a matter of preference.


  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,817Registered Users
    edited January 18
    There be a schism growing in the community and it is looking good.
    Lead by the craven, torn apart by the greedy, weaken and exposed.
  • BlissBliss Posts: 487Registered Users
    Well : the game is a total war. I didn't play all total war, but I remember that in Napoleon Total War, micro was much less important, the tactical part was way more important than in Warhammer, and I enjoyed this. But it's a matter of taste. I'd personnally like that TW : warhammer was more like that.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Posts: 3,609Registered Users

    the game should not be dumed down because people dont have time to practice, if your brother practiced more he could achieve same win rate

    *sigh*

    The game is not "dumbed down" if there is a slow speed option. He plays it very well at his preferred speed. Having to practice to play well is a bug, not a feature.

    If we could select slow speed as an option in multiplayer games we could have tourneys at that speed. I think the quality of play would be excellent and the tactics superior by all involved. Of course, we'd watch the replays at full speed for the cinematic fun.

  • Wyvern2Wyvern2 Posts: 1,206Registered Users
    Except the game does get dumbed down if its in slow mo. Responding quickly to a changing situation is far too easy when you're playing in slow mo, it borders on turn-based strategy at that point and basically undermines the potential for a player to crush their opponent from multiple angles because they have more than enough time to respond.

    Saying having to practice to play well is a bug rather than a feature just sounds laughable, a person has to practice to get good at just about anything, and why a game should be different is beyond me.
    Regularly publish Total War: Warhammer 2 content on my YT channel

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPI93p-X2T4YKD18O16bhPw
  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Posts: 796Registered Users
    Green0 said:

    it's an objective fact that historical battles were played at normal speed and not half speed. Since TW is an emulation of historical battles, it's only natural that micro and on the spot decision making play an important role.

    Wow really? Comparing real life battles and games? Real time doesn't mean ''real time''. It means things are happening at the same time instead of taking turns. Real life battles would seem glacial to us, even slower than turn based games. Generals would form the battle lines in the given battlefield and then basically would let things unfold. It was difficult to change the battleplan amidst combat. If your idea for medieval battles is Total War then I don't know what else to say.
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,817Registered Users
    edited January 18

    the game should not be dumed down because people dont have time to practice, if your brother practiced more he could achieve same win rate

    This is very narrow sighted and self serving. The argument is not just about making the game more accessible to players who can't jump from normal campaign to fighting harden MP vets, that is simply an added benefit. One I would argue is desperately needed giving the state of the game.

    What I want is to open up more tactical options to the player while attempting to insure units can fulfill their designed roles. It is a shift in what kind of skill is important, and if I had my way it wouldn't be one that completely undermined the players need micro in Real Time.

    Higher pace and higher micro games have less tolerance for balancing and play style divergences, it forces the game and the player to be more obedient to the meta, to what is min/max. Which is why MP is only good for a month after a major patch, then game just becomes stale and boring and being able to click fast doesn't change that.

    You being the best player of 100 players or how ever many players are left playing MP is not glorious or romantic in the least bit, and your push to reduce the player count even further down because "Skirmish Mode" "Pacing isn't fast enough" or "not enough micro" is nothing short of destructive for the game mode and to a lesser extent, the game as a whole.
    eumaies said:

    the game should not be dumed down because people dont have time to practice, if your brother practiced more he could achieve same win rate

    *sigh*

    The game is not "dumbed down" if there is a slow speed option. He plays it very well at his preferred speed. Having to practice to play well is a bug, not a feature.

    If we could select slow speed as an option in multiplayer games we could have tourneys at that speed. I think the quality of play would be excellent and the tactics superior by all involved. Of course, we'd watch the replays at full speed for the cinematic fun.


    This, is why I can't agree with you either. You're too extreme the other way. Yes, you're brother should practice if he wants to play well. And half speed or slow mo or what ever it is, is a absolutely horrible starting point for this issue.

    The ability to assess the situation, make decisions and act those decisions out in a timely manner is what makes an RTS an RTS.

    I know this looks contradicting to you and Lotus but I don't know how else it would look to the two extremes. The game needs to have BOTH Real Time micro AND organic Strategy to be an RTS worth playing.



    Lead by the craven, torn apart by the greedy, weaken and exposed.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Posts: 3,609Registered Users
    edited January 18
    Wyvern2 said:

    Except the game does get dumbed down if its in slow mo. Responding quickly to a changing situation is far too easy when you're playing in slow mo, it borders on turn-based strategy at that point and basically undermines the potential for a player to crush their opponent from multiple angles because they have more than enough time to respond.

    Saying having to practice to play well is a bug rather than a feature just sounds laughable, a person has to practice to get good at just about anything, and why a game should be different is beyond me.

    There’s nothing dumb about even a turn based game. If anything they’re much more cerebral. You don’t crush people by overwhelming their micro you crush them by having a better plan.

    And they both take practice actually. But practicing micro in an rts is less interesting than practicing tactics and strategy.

    Of course it’s all preference but the total war can exist anywhere on a continuum from fast to slow, just depends what you want the game to emphasize.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Posts: 3,609Registered Users

    Green0 said:

    it's an objective fact that historical battles were played at normal speed and not half speed. Since TW is an emulation of historical battles, it's only natural that micro and on the spot decision making play an important role.

    Wow really? Comparing real life battles and games? Real time doesn't mean ''real time''. It means things are happening at the same time instead of taking turns. Real life battles would seem glacial to us, even slower than turn based games. Generals would form the battle lines in the given battlefield and then basically would let things unfold. It was difficult to change the battleplan amidst combat. If your idea for medieval battles is Total War then I don't know what else to say.
    In a real battle you’d have thousands of soldiers. He’s confusing real time imaginary fights between small bands (what total war shows) with what it’s meant to simulate, which is battles.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Posts: 3,609Registered Users
    edited January 18

    the game should not be dumed down because people dont have time to practice, if your brother practiced more he could achieve same win rate

    This is very narrow sighted and self serving. The argument is not just about making the game more accessible to players who can't jump from normal campaign to fighting harden MP vets, that is simply an added benefit. One I would argue is desperately needed giving the state of the game.

    What I want is to open up more tactical options to the player while attempting to insure units can fulfill their designed roles. It is a shift in what kind of skill is important, and if I had my way it wouldn't be one that completely undermined the players need micro in Real Time.

    Higher pace and higher micro games have less tolerance for balancing and play style divergences, it forces the game and the player to be more obedient to the meta, to what is min/max. Which is why MP is only good for a month after a major patch, then game just becomes stale and boring and being able to click fast doesn't change that.

    You being the best player of 100 players or how ever many players are left playing MP is not glorious or romantic in the least bit, and your push to reduce the player count even further down because "Skirmish Mode" "Pacing isn't fast enough" or "not enough micro" is nothing short of destructive for the game mode and to a lesser extent, the game as a whole.
    eumaies said:

    the game should not be dumed down because people dont have time to practice, if your brother practiced more he could achieve same win rate

    *sigh*

    The game is not "dumbed down" if there is a slow speed option. He plays it very well at his preferred speed. Having to practice to play well is a bug, not a feature.

    If we could select slow speed as an option in multiplayer games we could have tourneys at that speed. I think the quality of play would be excellent and the tactics superior by all involved. Of course, we'd watch the replays at full speed for the cinematic fun.


    This, is why I can't agree with you either. You're too extreme the other way. Yes, you're brother should practice if he wants to play well. And half speed or slow mo or what ever it is, is a absolutely horrible starting point for this issue.

    The ability to assess the situation, make decisions and act those decisions out in a timely manner is what makes an RTS an RTS.

    I know this looks contradicting to you and Lotus but I don't know how else it would look to the two extremes. The game needs to have BOTH Real Time micro AND organic Strategy to be an RTS worth playing.



    To be clear I’m not suggesting they make the game slow speed. It obviously has to appeal as an rts. But If they had speed options it would hurt no one and invite more players to play at their preferred pace. Remember that single players (the vast majority of the games players) take advantage of tools to slow their battles down a lot.

    Honestly though you should try slow mo games. There’s still a ton of decision making in a pretty short amount of time. It’s just that instead of first deciding which small part of your army you’re going to prioritize you have time to give smart orders to your whole army. And you’re playing an opponent who is doing the same. It’s great with a friend.
  • Wyvern2Wyvern2 Posts: 1,206Registered Users
    eumaies said:

    Wyvern2 said:

    Except the game does get dumbed down if its in slow mo. Responding quickly to a changing situation is far too easy when you're playing in slow mo, it borders on turn-based strategy at that point and basically undermines the potential for a player to crush their opponent from multiple angles because they have more than enough time to respond.

    Saying having to practice to play well is a bug rather than a feature just sounds laughable, a person has to practice to get good at just about anything, and why a game should be different is beyond me.

    There’s nothing dumb about even a turn based game. If anything they’re much more cerebral. You don’t crush people by overwhelming their micro you crush them by having a better plan.

    And they both take practice actually. But practicing micro in an rts is less interesting than practicing tactics and strategy.

    Of course it’s all preference but the total war can exist anywhere on a continuum from fast to slow, just depends what you want the game to emphasize.
    Sure TBS isnt dumb, but it's not RTS, and the point of RTS is that everything is happening in real-time, forcing the player to make split second decisions rather than taking their sweet time thinking things through.

    I also don't see how reducing micro results in improved strategy or tactics, I seriously doubt any of those things would play any more of a factor if TW was slowed down, and by slowed down I mean the whole game happens slower.

    The one good argument I've seen is that turn speeds should be reduced, which I could agree with, especially for cavalry/monsters, since it would reduce their ability to cycle charge infantry formations to death, but that has nothing to do with the pacing of the game/macro vs micro, and more to do with just reducing the efficiency of a set of units being overly efficient.
    Regularly publish Total War: Warhammer 2 content on my YT channel

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPI93p-X2T4YKD18O16bhPw
  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Posts: 796Registered Users
    eumaies said:

    Green0 said:

    it's an objective fact that historical battles were played at normal speed and not half speed. Since TW is an emulation of historical battles, it's only natural that micro and on the spot decision making play an important role.

    Wow really? Comparing real life battles and games? Real time doesn't mean ''real time''. It means things are happening at the same time instead of taking turns. Real life battles would seem glacial to us, even slower than turn based games. Generals would form the battle lines in the given battlefield and then basically would let things unfold. It was difficult to change the battleplan amidst combat. If your idea for medieval battles is Total War then I don't know what else to say.
    In a real battle you’d have thousands of soldiers. He’s confusing real time imaginary fights between small bands (what total war shows) with what it’s meant to simulate, which is battles.
    Still you can't have the level of TW real time ''micro'' irl even with small armies. The difference would be that huge armies probably were left with whatever orders were given at the pre-combat phase, while smaller armies has better chances to pass updated orders. Still it would be impossible to look anything like TW because irl there isn't a god above to see that there are muskets at that flank covering the current target of the cav charge, to give an example.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Posts: 3,609Registered Users
    edited January 18
    Wyvern2 said:

    eumaies said:

    Wyvern2 said:

    Except the game does get dumbed down if its in slow mo. Responding quickly to a changing situation is far too easy when you're playing in slow mo, it borders on turn-based strategy at that point and basically undermines the potential for a player to crush their opponent from multiple angles because they have more than enough time to respond.

    Saying having to practice to play well is a bug rather than a feature just sounds laughable, a person has to practice to get good at just about anything, and why a game should be different is beyond me.

    There’s nothing dumb about even a turn based game. If anything they’re much more cerebral. You don’t crush people by overwhelming their micro you crush them by having a better plan.

    And they both take practice actually. But practicing micro in an rts is less interesting than practicing tactics and strategy.

    Of course it’s all preference but the total war can exist anywhere on a continuum from fast to slow, just depends what you want the game to emphasize.
    Sure TBS isnt dumb, but it's not RTS, and the point of RTS is that everything is happening in real-time, forcing the player to make split second decisions rather than taking their sweet time thinking things through.

    I also don't see how reducing micro results in improved strategy or tactics, I seriously doubt any of those things would play any more of a factor if TW was slowed down, and by slowed down I mean the whole game happens slower.

    The one good argument I've seen is that turn speeds should be reduced, which I could agree with, especially for cavalry/monsters, since it would reduce their ability to cycle charge infantry formations to death, but that has nothing to do with the pacing of the game/macro vs micro, and more to do with just reducing the efficiency of a set of units being overly efficient.
    I agree with you about the turn speeds, and that things like that and arrow velocity are more to the OP's point.

    That said, regarding slower vs faster game and tactics, do you really think you'd execute the same quality tactics if you played this game at 2x speed setting? I suspect you'd be very sloppy and have simplistic tactics like "send the infantry line forward" and "charge the cav in that general direction".

    By the same logic, when you play at a slow speed, you end up doing more flanking attacks, more kill-boxes, more bracing against charges, more retreats and advances with portions of your line. I can definitely see the fun of both faster and slower play, but the game is rich enough that at slower speeds, and with you and your opponent both making all those nuanced decisions, it's not at all dull or easy. Often deeper.

    When i see showcase expert games by Ondjage and Soothsayer I'm impressed by how many important details they are able to get *right* and execute skillfully, in addition to their good army compositions and overall strategies. The truth is that more players would play just as skillfully in the details if that didn't require a lot of micro skill right now. It's not that people don't want to flank, for example, they just don't have time to prioritize giving the command.
  • Green0Green0 Posts: 4,344Registered Users

    Green0 said:

    it's an objective fact that historical battles were played at normal speed and not half speed. Since TW is an emulation of historical battles, it's only natural that micro and on the spot decision making play an important role.

    Wow really? Comparing real life battles and games? Real time doesn't mean ''real time''. It means things are happening at the same time instead of taking turns. Real life battles would seem glacial to us, even slower than turn based games. Generals would form the battle lines in the given battlefield and then basically would let things unfold. It was difficult to change the battleplan amidst combat. If your idea for medieval battles is Total War then I don't know what else to say.
    this is nit-picking, I don't know if I want to respond to this. Of course you can find a situation where my post is wrong but what I meant was clear I hope.
  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Posts: 796Registered Users
    Green0 said:

    Green0 said:

    it's an objective fact that historical battles were played at normal speed and not half speed. Since TW is an emulation of historical battles, it's only natural that micro and on the spot decision making play an important role.

    Wow really? Comparing real life battles and games? Real time doesn't mean ''real time''. It means things are happening at the same time instead of taking turns. Real life battles would seem glacial to us, even slower than turn based games. Generals would form the battle lines in the given battlefield and then basically would let things unfold. It was difficult to change the battleplan amidst combat. If your idea for medieval battles is Total War then I don't know what else to say.
    this is nit-picking, I don't know if I want to respond to this. Of course you can find a situation where my post is wrong but what I meant was clear I hope.
    Well stating that something is an objective fact, just to pass smthing that is completely preferential isn't quite right imho. And to clarify, I'm not even sure how and if the pace has to change. I admit I love the tactical aspects more, but slow mo and the like don't look nice, optically speaking. So dunno. In any case it's up to CA how inviting they want this game to be, just as how sp or mp they want it to be.
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Posts: 407Registered Users
    Wyvern2 said:

    eumaies said:

    Wyvern2 said:

    Except the game does get dumbed down if its in slow mo. Responding quickly to a changing situation is far too easy when you're playing in slow mo, it borders on turn-based strategy at that point and basically undermines the potential for a player to crush their opponent from multiple angles because they have more than enough time to respond.

    Saying having to practice to play well is a bug rather than a feature just sounds laughable, a person has to practice to get good at just about anything, and why a game should be different is beyond me.

    There’s nothing dumb about even a turn based game. If anything they’re much more cerebral. You don’t crush people by overwhelming their micro you crush them by having a better plan.

    And they both take practice actually. But practicing micro in an rts is less interesting than practicing tactics and strategy.

    Of course it’s all preference but the total war can exist anywhere on a continuum from fast to slow, just depends what you want the game to emphasize.
    Sure TBS isnt dumb, but it's not RTS, and the point of RTS is that everything is happening in real-time, forcing the player to make split second decisions rather than taking their sweet time thinking things through.

    I also don't see how reducing micro results in improved strategy or tactics, I seriously doubt any of those things would play any more of a factor if TW was slowed down, and by slowed down I mean the whole game happens slower.

    The one good argument I've seen is that turn speeds should be reduced, which I could agree with, especially for cavalry/monsters, since it would reduce their ability to cycle charge infantry formations to death, but that has nothing to do with the pacing of the game/macro vs micro, and more to do with just reducing the efficiency of a set of units being overly efficient.
    (repeating my previous post, sorry) I'd say reducing turn speed and increasing arrow speed should not aim at nerfing units but to change how they are played. E.g cavalry isn't necessarily overperforming for its cost, it might as well be that cavalry is priced according to its maximum value obtained by cycle charging frantically.
    Cavalry should we worse at cycle charging, but better at charging. Vs heavy infantry, a cav charge currently does almost no damage precisely because it is expected to cycle charge to death with little damage in return.

    And it does have to do with macro vs micro, because such changes would mean you'd need less clicks per minute to get the full value of these units, as you couldn't cycle charge as much, or dodge, anymore. Which means more time to think.

    At the same time it would make the game just as challenging, and more interesting because you actually have to commit to your decisions. You can't enter a fire range or charge with these get out of jail cards that are dodging and cycle charging. Such actions need a lot of click but are not really a deep understanding of the game. Committing means you need a good estimation of the damage you will take in return of your decision, and a good awareness to know if it's worth it. Experience would be more valuable than it is now.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Posts: 3,609Registered Users
    Great points well said
  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Posts: 796Registered Users
    Yeah, couldn't have been said better.
  • konosmgrkonosmgr Posts: 161Registered Users



    (repeating my previous post, sorry) I'd say reducing turn speed and increasing arrow speed should not aim at nerfing units but to change how they are played. E.g cavalry isn't necessarily overperforming for its cost, it might as well be that cavalry is priced according to its maximum value obtained by cycle charging frantically.
    Cavalry should we worse at cycle charging, but better at charging. Vs heavy infantry, a cav charge currently does almost no damage precisely because it is expected to cycle charge to death with little damage in return.

    And it does have to do with macro vs micro, because such changes would mean you'd need less clicks per minute to get the full value of these units, as you couldn't cycle charge as much, or dodge, anymore. Which means more time to think.

    At the same time it would make the game just as challenging, and more interesting because you actually have to commit to your decisions. You can't enter a fire range or charge with these get out of jail cards that are dodging and cycle charging. Such actions need a lot of click but are not really a deep understanding of the game. Committing means you need a good estimation of the damage you will take in return of your decision, and a good awareness to know if it's worth it. Experience would be more valuable than it is now.

    Reducing the rate of time or in the extreme case; making it turn-based will make this particular game easier for these two reasons:

    1. Information overload is a big part of this game, this is for example manifested in an campaign ambush battle. With real time action you have a small definite window of opportunity to formulate a plan as how to deal with the enemy, every moment you hesitate your tactical situation deteriorates. In a turn based scenario if all variables are known, then the player, with appropriate time, can calculate the objectively best course of action. At this point it's less a game and more like a puzzle and thus the ambush potential would be comparingly vastly diminished.

    2. The difference of player skill introduces a much higher variance in real time games compared to turn based ones. In real time you can through micro dodge arrows, dodge artillery, cycle charge, send a unit of men at arms vs black orcs and retreat in the last 100m thus baitings the black orcs into chasing the retreating unit thus wasting their potential, rear charge a SE, capitalise on enemy mistakes such as misclicks. Turn based would strip the majority of that and mainly introduce variance through the statistical nature of combat stats.
    Why is variance not bad? Because it increases unpredictability and tactical complexity.


    Obviously, the more time players have to make a decision the more of an opportunity there is for them to oversee every detail. This naturally encourages turn based games to introduce complexity. But TWWHII currently does not have the appropriate tools to transition into a turn based tactical game; it would need to either increase the amount of fighting forces dramatically or introduce complexity through other means such as reinforcements, or in other words increase the amount of decisions the player can make.


    Personally I prefer that the speed of the game follows or exceeds my ability to keep up with it.
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,817Registered Users
    konosmgr said:



    (repeating my previous post, sorry) I'd say reducing turn speed and increasing arrow speed should not aim at nerfing units but to change how they are played. E.g cavalry isn't necessarily overperforming for its cost, it might as well be that cavalry is priced according to its maximum value obtained by cycle charging frantically.
    Cavalry should we worse at cycle charging, but better at charging. Vs heavy infantry, a cav charge currently does almost no damage precisely because it is expected to cycle charge to death with little damage in return.

    And it does have to do with macro vs micro, because such changes would mean you'd need less clicks per minute to get the full value of these units, as you couldn't cycle charge as much, or dodge, anymore. Which means more time to think.

    At the same time it would make the game just as challenging, and more interesting because you actually have to commit to your decisions. You can't enter a fire range or charge with these get out of jail cards that are dodging and cycle charging. Such actions need a lot of click but are not really a deep understanding of the game. Committing means you need a good estimation of the damage you will take in return of your decision, and a good awareness to know if it's worth it. Experience would be more valuable than it is now.

    Reducing the rate of time or in the extreme case; making it turn-based will make this particular game easier for these two reasons:

    1. Information overload is a big part of this game, this is for example manifested in an campaign ambush battle. With real time action you have a small definite window of opportunity to formulate a plan as how to deal with the enemy, every moment you hesitate your tactical situation deteriorates. In a turn based scenario if all variables are known, then the player, with appropriate time, can calculate the objectively best course of action. At this point it's less a game and more like a puzzle and thus the ambush potential would be comparingly vastly diminished.

    2. The difference of player skill introduces a much higher variance in real time games compared to turn based ones. In real time you can through micro dodge arrows, dodge artillery, cycle charge, send a unit of men at arms vs black orcs and retreat in the last 100m thus baitings the black orcs into chasing the retreating unit thus wasting their potential, rear charge a SE, capitalise on enemy mistakes such as misclicks. Turn based would strip the majority of that and mainly introduce variance through the statistical nature of combat stats.
    Why is variance not bad? Because it increases unpredictability and tactical complexity.


    Obviously, the more time players have to make a decision the more of an opportunity there is for them to oversee every detail. This naturally encourages turn based games to introduce complexity. But TWWHII currently does not have the appropriate tools to transition into a turn based tactical game; it would need to either increase the amount of fighting forces dramatically or introduce complexity through other means such as reinforcements, or in other words increase the amount of decisions the player can make.


    Personally I prefer that the speed of the game follows or exceeds my ability to keep up with it.
    You will always be able to feign retreats, you will always be able to rear charge. This is dumb, the game will always be a RTS. TBS is only being used to represent a set of skills that is made less relevant with in the context of TW:Wh2 faster pacing and micro. Half of your points are about turning the game into a TBS which is irrelevant. Hell, the person you're replying to didn't even mention TBS.

    I don't think information overload is as big as a deal as some may lead us to believe, esp with debug camera like @Lotus_Moon uses which actually "dumbs down" the game, one of the reason cycle charging, dodging, and other logic loops happen so often is because players are not having sufficient information overloaded onto them, there is down time in the game to allow the player to pick a unit and tell the unit to retreat, attack, retreat, attack, retreat, attack over and over again.


    Lead by the craven, torn apart by the greedy, weaken and exposed.
  • konosmgrkonosmgr Posts: 161Registered Users

    konosmgr said:



    (repeating my previous post, sorry) I'd say reducing turn speed and increasing arrow speed should not aim at nerfing units but to change how they are played. E.g cavalry isn't necessarily overperforming for its cost, it might as well be that cavalry is priced according to its maximum value obtained by cycle charging frantically.
    Cavalry should we worse at cycle charging, but better at charging. Vs heavy infantry, a cav charge currently does almost no damage precisely because it is expected to cycle charge to death with little damage in return.

    And it does have to do with macro vs micro, because such changes would mean you'd need less clicks per minute to get the full value of these units, as you couldn't cycle charge as much, or dodge, anymore. Which means more time to think.

    At the same time it would make the game just as challenging, and more interesting because you actually have to commit to your decisions. You can't enter a fire range or charge with these get out of jail cards that are dodging and cycle charging. Such actions need a lot of click but are not really a deep understanding of the game. Committing means you need a good estimation of the damage you will take in return of your decision, and a good awareness to know if it's worth it. Experience would be more valuable than it is now.

    Reducing the rate of time or in the extreme case; making it turn-based will make this particular game easier for these two reasons:

    1. Information overload is a big part of this game, this is for example manifested in an campaign ambush battle. With real time action you have a small definite window of opportunity to formulate a plan as how to deal with the enemy, every moment you hesitate your tactical situation deteriorates. In a turn based scenario if all variables are known, then the player, with appropriate time, can calculate the objectively best course of action. At this point it's less a game and more like a puzzle and thus the ambush potential would be comparingly vastly diminished.

    2. The difference of player skill introduces a much higher variance in real time games compared to turn based ones. In real time you can through micro dodge arrows, dodge artillery, cycle charge, send a unit of men at arms vs black orcs and retreat in the last 100m thus baitings the black orcs into chasing the retreating unit thus wasting their potential, rear charge a SE, capitalise on enemy mistakes such as misclicks. Turn based would strip the majority of that and mainly introduce variance through the statistical nature of combat stats.
    Why is variance not bad? Because it increases unpredictability and tactical complexity.


    Obviously, the more time players have to make a decision the more of an opportunity there is for them to oversee every detail. This naturally encourages turn based games to introduce complexity. But TWWHII currently does not have the appropriate tools to transition into a turn based tactical game; it would need to either increase the amount of fighting forces dramatically or introduce complexity through other means such as reinforcements, or in other words increase the amount of decisions the player can make.


    Personally I prefer that the speed of the game follows or exceeds my ability to keep up with it.
    You will always be able to feign retreats, you will always be able to rear charge. This is dumb, the game will always be a RTS. TBS is only being used to represent a set of skills that is made less relevant with in the context of TW:Wh2 faster pacing and micro. Half of your points are about turning the game into a TBS which is irrelevant. Hell, the person you're replying to didn't even mention TBS.

    I don't think information overload is as big as a deal as some may lead us to believe, esp with debug camera like @Lotus_Moon uses which actually "dumbs down" the game, one of the reason cycle charging, dodging, and other logic loops happen so often is because players are not having sufficient information overloaded onto them, there is down time in the game to allow the player to pick a unit and tell the unit to retreat, attack, retreat, attack, retreat, attack over and over again.


    If there is no information overload then there is no need for players to have extra time in their hands. I'm glad that we agree that the rate of change of time is fine and should not be lowered.
  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Posts: 796Registered Users
    edited January 24
    I won't comment on the general pace, but I want to say this: Having dodgeable projectiles is one thing. Having infantry or anything actually with charge defence that cannot ever practically brace against fast things is another. The grade A dumb thing imho (since we re talking about dumbing down the game) is having these 2 things in the same game. There are places for the above 2 situations, but not in TW IMHO. I could imagine them on MOBAs or smthing. I mean, the implication is that fast units, hell even inf at long ranges, are more mobile than PROJECTILES.
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,817Registered Users
    konosmgr said:


    If there is no information overload then there is no need for players to have extra time in their hands. I'm glad that we agree that the rate of change of time is fine and should not be lowered.

    Obviously we don't agree. I don't think there is "No information overload" and it is also dishonest to try to frame pacing as if it is limited to information intake.


    Lead by the craven, torn apart by the greedy, weaken and exposed.
Sign In or Register to comment.