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

A poll... what do you think about the battle speed in TW:WH 1 and 2 ?

BierTempelierBierTempelier Registered Users Posts: 257

I set up a poll where you can indicate preference on whether battle speed is just fine, too slow or too fast...

https://strawpoll.com/z2p4fe2k
«13

Comments

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 21,126
    edited January 18
    TWW2 is significantly faster than TWW1.
    Post edited by Vanilla_Gorilla on
    Thanks CA for working with Epic Games to give us Troy for free!
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,990
    Too fast. But I'm a fan of how long it took in the medieval games. You know... back when stamina actually mattered, and maneuvering was something more than just running everywhere. Everyone in this game is like... a triathlete. I also think units get revealed way too far away - especially when in forests. For that matter the map design is poor compared to older titles as well... everything is basically a nice open field of battle, or some overtly defender favoring artificial looking cliff with conveniently placed openings. Maps used to look a lot more natural; although artistically WH maps are bloody fantastic.






    WTB medieval 3 from medieval 2 crew.
  • makar55makar55 Registered Users Posts: 2,239
    Currently its pretty good.

    20v20 = 5-10 min
    40v40 = 10-25 min
    20v80 = 20-35 min

    With my limited time I am not looking forward to anything longer than 5 min for 20v20 battles.
  • BierTempelierBierTempelier Registered Users Posts: 257

    For custom and multiplayer battles, at least the option should exist for longer battles in mho
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Registered Users Posts: 3,951
  • Mr_Finley7Mr_Finley7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,609
    Way way too fast
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 26,347
    edited January 18

    TWW2 is significantly faster than TWW1.

    False. WH1 is much faster than WH2.

    As for battle speed in general, tough luck. Monsters, spells and abilities that dish out great burst damage will keep it that way.

  • mightygloinmightygloin Registered Users Posts: 3,039
    Too fast. I wish frontline clashes lasted longer and units didn't melt in seconds.

    And if you don't have time for long battles, you can always set the unit size to small.
  • hendo1592hendo1592 Registered Users Posts: 1,785


    For custom and multiplayer battles, at least the option should exist for longer battles in mho

    Option should be with main game options of game.
  • makar55makar55 Registered Users Posts: 2,239

    Too fast. I wish frontline clashes lasted longer and units didn't melt in seconds.

    And if you don't have time for long battles, you can always set the unit size to small.

    To set up units to small is like to switch from total war to local war.
  • Okknight84Okknight84 Registered Users Posts: 101
    Not ideal but close enough it doesn't upset me.
  • GaryBuseysGrinGaryBuseysGrin Registered Users Posts: 1,768
    None of the options express my view but the closest is 'too fast'.

    The issue is not that CA are tweaking it wrong, making the battles 'too fast'. The issue is that they are effectively forcing it to be the way it is and that problem is not solved simply by tweaking to make them longer regardless of what the player does. Newer Total War games have very few playstyles, that are all frentic and based on reactions and issuing multiple orders very quickly. Options for conserving your forces are narrow, but high-damage sudden-impact abilities are stacked high despite the huge overlap with each other(making some schools of magic in Warhammer little more than aesthetically different).

    I used to support tweaking battle length/pace as a slider option, but it's again simply the player choosing from the options determined by a designer, not in-game decisions with consequences.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 26,347
    edited January 18
    Itharus said:

    Too fast. But I'm a fan of how long it took in the medieval games. You know... back when stamina actually mattered, and maneuvering was something more than just running everywhere. Everyone in this game is like... a triathlete. I also think units get revealed way too far away - especially when in forests. For that matter the map design is poor compared to older titles as well... everything is basically a nice open field of battle, or some overtly defender favoring artificial looking cliff with conveniently placed openings. Maps used to look a lot more natural; although artistically WH maps are bloody fantastic.






    WTB medieval 3 from medieval 2 crew.

    O please no more of that treacherous Med2 nostalgia. Battles lasted longer because troops moved at a snail's pace and there was no "shattered" morale status, so the battles only ended when the troops of one side where either all dead or ran off the map which could take quite a while. Chain routes were actually even more effective in Med2. Scare one unit and the whole frontline collapses.

  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,990
    makar55 said:

    Currently its pretty good.

    20v20 = 5-10 min
    40v40 = 10-25 min
    20v80 = 20-35 min

    With my limited time I am not looking forward to anything longer than 5 min for 20v20 battles.

    I see this reasoning a lot... but here's the thing.

    THERE IS AN OPTIONAL TIMER TO LIMIT HOW LONG BATTLES TAKE.

    This means that you can set your battle to last only 20 minutes. It will then look at what was done and award victory accordingly.

    So this whole argument for making the BASE pace of the game super fast... is wrong.

    Why?

    Because you already have a mechanic to solve this problem for you, whereas people who have more time to enjoy a battle do not and are effectively forced to use the speed that people with limited time prefer. Which is probably why no one even thinks of the timer... because they simply don't need it. I can't even remember the last battle that lasted more than 20 minutes. Even the largest ones are usually only 15. I hate it.

    Hell, in Medieval I remember sieges that could take an hour and still not be decisive and I'd have to continue it on the next turn over a now-more-ruined castlescape. It was great.

    Or, you know, I set the timer to 20 minutes so I could achieve the same effect in game much more quickly. Cuz... that was the pacing solution.

    TW has gravitated away from a strategy game with strategy pacing into a more traditional RTS (a misnomer - they should really be Real Time Tactical) games. And that's a shame.

    Even the historical games are excessively fast now. Remember Rome 2 at launch? Holy crap. Cavalry with rocket boost and morale that broke at contact.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,097
    I appreciate that WH Fantasy contains elements that will speed up battles. The player directly attacks the opponents morale/leadership through many different means. These include the usual focus fire, hit in the flank or back to gain a mass retreat but there's so much more added through spells, creatures/units that cause fear, abilities, killing leaders and these combinations are many.

    How long a battle lasts also depends on your playstyle and the troops on the field (as they should). Playing a Snikch light infantry army style and using those sort of hit and run tactics means it lasts a lot longer than your basic infantry line plus specialists battles.

    In reference to stamina those who believe it isn't important probably aren't paying attention. Eventually during a battle most troops will end up shattered and are more likely to route, if you didn't walk in with your troops or you double-clicked a little too much then you will eventually be at a disadvantage.

    Med 2, ah yes.. does anyone remember the entire army just lining up in a huge line outside a settlement's gates and patiently waiting for a battering ram to knock the gate down? Giving you enough time to pile heavy defensive spear troops around the gate and watching their cavalry die immediately and infantry just get stuck in this defensive line of doom. Happy, if not predictable times.
  • makar55makar55 Registered Users Posts: 2,239
    Itharus said:

    makar55 said:

    Currently its pretty good.

    20v20 = 5-10 min
    40v40 = 10-25 min
    20v80 = 20-35 min

    With my limited time I am not looking forward to anything longer than 5 min for 20v20 battles.

    I see this reasoning a lot... but here's the thing.

    THERE IS AN OPTIONAL TIMER TO LIMIT HOW LONG BATTLES TAKE.

    This means that you can set your battle to last only 20 minutes. It will then look at what was done and award victory accordingly.

    So this whole argument for making the BASE pace of the game super fast... is wrong.

    Why?

    Because you already have a mechanic to solve this problem for you, whereas people who have more time to enjoy a battle do not and are effectively forced to use the speed that people with limited time prefer. Which is probably why no one even thinks of the timer... because they simply don't need it. I can't even remember the last battle that lasted more than 20 minutes. Even the largest ones are usually only 15. I hate it.

    Hell, in Medieval I remember sieges that could take an hour and still not be decisive and I'd have to continue it on the next turn over a now-more-ruined castlescape. It was great.

    Or, you know, I set the timer to 20 minutes so I could achieve the same effect in game much more quickly. Cuz... that was the pacing solution.

    TW has gravitated away from a strategy game with strategy pacing into a more traditional RTS (a misnomer - they should really be Real Time Tactical) games. And that's a shame.

    Even the historical games are excessively fast now. Remember Rome 2 at launch? Holy crap. Cavalry with rocket boost and morale that broke at contact.
    As far as battles don't bore me I don't mind them be whatever they are. But while I prefer current pace of things I'd stick to it and add as an argument 3K with its fast paced fights.
  • GaryBuseysGrinGaryBuseysGrin Registered Users Posts: 1,768
    A reminder that the deadliest battle in history(and paradoxicallly the longest) was the battle of the Somme. Tens of thousands were dead and many more injured on the first day alone. Yet even with weapons that had killing capability beyond anything before, the Somme can't match the extraordinary attrition-rate during battles that armies in recent Total War games that cause them to end in minutes even with two full-stacks against each other.

    Compromises have to be made for the sake of gameplay, but it has become a joke.
  • JadawinKhanidiJadawinKhanidi Registered Users Posts: 1,177
    Too fast. I use a mod that slows damage by 25% and movement by 20% and that feels quite perfect for me. I still pause a lot in larger battles, but smaller ones I can play without pausing at that reduced speed.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 26,347

    A reminder that the deadliest battle in history(and paradoxicallly the longest) was the battle of the Somme. Tens of thousands were dead and many more injured on the first day alone. Yet even with weapons that had killing capability beyond anything before, the Somme can't match the extraordinary attrition-rate during battles that armies in recent Total War games that cause them to end in minutes even with two full-stacks against each other.

    Compromises have to be made for the sake of gameplay, but it has become a joke.

    Yeah, and now show me a TW battle that allowed you to go on with 60000 casualties.

  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 769
    Battle speed always feels too fast except when you are trying to flank an enemy unit in the rear. Then suddenly units seem to walk at turtle speed.

    I wish there was a speed between normal and slowmo.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,990


    Med 2, ah yes.. does anyone remember the entire army just lining up in a huge line outside a settlement's gates and patiently waiting for a battering ram to knock the gate down? Giving you enough time to pile heavy defensive spear troops around the gate and watching their cavalry die immediately and infantry just get stuck in this defensive line of doom. Happy, if not predictable times.

    You mean... exactly how sieges are supposed to work? Also... bring enough troops or the right type of troops t break through that. It would be even more readily available in WH with spells and the like. Not the game's fault if you didn't bring a nice assault troop to break their defensive troops. Or just enough other troops. What you brought made all the difference.
    HoneyBun said:

    Too fast in my view.

    But I openly and unashamedly use pause. I don't think clicks per minute = strategy.

    And that's probably the HEART OF THE MATTER.

    Guess what player segment does NOT use pause?

    Multiplayer.

    Guess what segment likes 5-10 minute quick battles the most?

    Multiplayer.

    Guess what segment lacks the attention span for a long battle or even a campaign layer?

    Multiplayer.




    Multiplayer RUINED THE TOTAL WAR SERIES. Ever since they started making concessions to attract the MP crowd, the game has gotten nothing but faster and simpler in all things. And that's God's honest truth right there - look at the evidence and you cannot refute it without being a liar.

    You would think after the dumpster fire that was Total War Arena, that CA would realize that these sorts of games thrive on the single player crowd*, and more heavily on strategy gamers than on purely "RTS" gamers. Total War needs to remember that it's effective a 4X and start adding the complexity back in before they lose their core customers due to a long grumbling decline of the series into an ever more fast-paced and simplistic state.

    Hell. Maybe they should go make a Warcraft style WH RTS. Age of Sigmar would actually be 100% PERFECT for that. Then they can leave the rest of us to the Total War we know and love.




    *except apparently in China where NetEase will be reopening that accursed game.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,810
    edited January 19
    Itharus, how sieges are "supposed" to fight is completely nonsensical argument when I have 10 units of pegasus knights flying over the walls or chain lightning obliterating your spearmen defending the gate.
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • hendo1592hendo1592 Registered Users Posts: 1,785

    Itharus, how sieges are "supposed" to fight is completely nonsensical argument when I have 10 units of pegasus knights flying over the walls or chain lightning obliterating your spearmen defending the gate.

    Kind of goes into the “bring the right troops“ as they went into right after the “supposed” comment...

  • BierTempelierBierTempelier Registered Users Posts: 257
    HoneyBun said:

    Too fast in my view.

    But I openly and unashamedly use pause. I don't think clicks per minute = strategy.

    I also go to "Slow Motion" battle and work from the Tactical Map as an alternative. Slow Motion takes about 2,5 x longer which feels better paced. However, for some reason at that game speed, the SFX are muted. I think one easy fix would be to restore sound effects at slower game speeds.
  • BierTempelierBierTempelier Registered Users Posts: 257
    Jman5 said:

    Battle speed always feels too fast except when you are trying to flank an enemy unit in the rear. Then suddenly units seem to walk at turtle speed.

    I wish there was a speed between normal and slowmo.

    Yes... maybe at 65% of normal (~ 1,25x slowmotion) and restore sound effects at this lower game speed... Would already go a long way in reconciling the desire of some to keep the fast resolution battles whereas others prefer a bit more strategic battles
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 5,883
    It's crazy fast. Unplayable for me without mods slowing it down.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,097
    edited January 19
    Itharus said:


    Med 2, ah yes.. does anyone remember the entire army just lining up in a huge line outside a settlement's gates and patiently waiting for a battering ram to knock the gate down? Giving you enough time to pile heavy defensive spear troops around the gate and watching their cavalry die immediately and infantry just get stuck in this defensive line of doom. Happy, if not predictable times.

    You mean... exactly how sieges are supposed to work? Also... bring enough troops or the right type of troops t break through that. It would be even more readily available in WH with spells and the like. Not the game's fault if you didn't bring a nice assault troop to break their defensive troops. Or just enough other troops. What you brought made all the difference.
    HoneyBun said:

    Too fast in my view.

    But I openly and unashamedly use pause. I don't think clicks per minute = strategy.

    And that's probably the HEART OF THE MATTER.

    Guess what player segment does NOT use pause?

    Multiplayer.

    Guess what segment likes 5-10 minute quick battles the most?

    Multiplayer.

    Guess what segment lacks the attention span for a long battle or even a campaign layer?

    Multiplayer.




    Multiplayer RUINED THE TOTAL WAR SERIES. Ever since they started making concessions to attract the MP crowd, the game has gotten nothing but faster and simpler in all things. And that's God's honest truth right there - look at the evidence and you cannot refute it without being a liar.

    You would think after the dumpster fire that was Total War Arena, that CA would realize that these sorts of games thrive on the single player crowd*, and more heavily on strategy gamers than on purely "RTS" gamers. Total War needs to remember that it's effective a 4X and start adding the complexity back in before they lose their core customers due to a long grumbling decline of the series into an ever more fast-paced and simplistic state.

    Hell. Maybe they should go make a Warcraft style WH RTS. Age of Sigmar would actually be 100% PERFECT for that. Then they can leave the rest of us to the Total War we know and love.




    *except apparently in China where NetEase will be reopening that accursed game.
    Bollox. The entire army did not politely line up in a single queue and push through the gate. We must've read different history books. I had enough heavy spears in a garrison to sort out any AI attack.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,990

    Itharus said:


    Med 2, ah yes.. does anyone remember the entire army just lining up in a huge line outside a settlement's gates and patiently waiting for a battering ram to knock the gate down? Giving you enough time to pile heavy defensive spear troops around the gate and watching their cavalry die immediately and infantry just get stuck in this defensive line of doom. Happy, if not predictable times.

    You mean... exactly how sieges are supposed to work? Also... bring enough troops or the right type of troops t break through that. It would be even more readily available in WH with spells and the like. Not the game's fault if you didn't bring a nice assault troop to break their defensive troops. Or just enough other troops. What you brought made all the difference.
    HoneyBun said:

    Too fast in my view.

    But I openly and unashamedly use pause. I don't think clicks per minute = strategy.

    And that's probably the HEART OF THE MATTER.

    Guess what player segment does NOT use pause?

    Multiplayer.

    Guess what segment likes 5-10 minute quick battles the most?

    Multiplayer.

    Guess what segment lacks the attention span for a long battle or even a campaign layer?

    Multiplayer.




    Multiplayer RUINED THE TOTAL WAR SERIES. Ever since they started making concessions to attract the MP crowd, the game has gotten nothing but faster and simpler in all things. And that's God's honest truth right there - look at the evidence and you cannot refute it without being a liar.

    You would think after the dumpster fire that was Total War Arena, that CA would realize that these sorts of games thrive on the single player crowd*, and more heavily on strategy gamers than on purely "RTS" gamers. Total War needs to remember that it's effective a 4X and start adding the complexity back in before they lose their core customers due to a long grumbling decline of the series into an ever more fast-paced and simplistic state.

    Hell. Maybe they should go make a Warcraft style WH RTS. Age of Sigmar would actually be 100% PERFECT for that. Then they can leave the rest of us to the Total War we know and love.




    *except apparently in China where NetEase will be reopening that accursed game.
    Bollox. The entire army did not politely line up in a single queue and push through the gate. We must've read different history books. I had enough heavy spears in a garrison to sort out any AI attack.
    You realize you had more options than entering one gate right? Sometimes there's more than one gate!

    You also could have brought rams, ladders, towers, sappers, manual or gunpowder artillery, and so on. And if you're going to claim the AI did none of these things -- nice try -- cuz they most certainly did. The only thing they had trouble with was moving siege engines inside the interior walls. Pathing problems, that. Alas it never did get fixed. Thankfully as the game progressed artillery put an end to those shenanigans.

    And as for your unbeatable defensive army. Well... did you do the equivalent of doom-stacking? Or did you just abuse the pathing to make the AI run at you in columns only 2 men across so you could laugh them to death? Or did you just build a nice, capable, balanced army that with skill could adjust to anything? In my experience most people who complain about total war battle AI are the ones who cheese the hell out of it because they can't help themselves.

    Personally I have played every PC total war game barring Napoleon and ToB (and the weird little ones like Arena) extensively in their respective times and have a clear image of the evolution (and regression) of the game over two decades. Sieges most certainly peaked in the medieval series.
  • DeathsDayOffDeathsDayOff Registered Users Posts: 479
    Itharus said:


    And as for your unbeatable defensive army. Well... did you do the equivalent of doom-stacking? Or did you just abuse the pathing to make the AI run at you in columns only 2 men across so you could laugh them to death? Or did you just build a nice, capable, balanced army that with skill could adjust to anything? In my experience most people who complain about total war battle AI are the ones who cheese the hell out of it because they can't help themselves.

    I dont think that's a good argument, because the problem is that even just trying to play intelligently with no intention of cheesing the AI, the wi still create cheese, the best example of this is with the dwarfs having your lord up I the front because that's how you get the best line of sights will make the enemy waste all the ammo on trying to kill your foot lord, even if they are surrounded by there elite melee troops, and if you count using single entity powerhours to make great firing angle as cheese, then how about when you use cav I you run your cav near the enemy they will send 2 to 3 units after it that won't stop chasing them so they have to run off to prevent a fight, then after they travel a little bit the are to far away from anything to do anything except return to the formation after the real battle is over, or if you want to make a bad decision you could have the cav attack them, but that's stupid. And it's even worse for some weapon teams, where I've seen ungodly amounts ork units just stay in melee with my dwarf warriors as iron drakes move to an angle where they can get a clear shot to wipe there unit out while they are ignored by the entire enemy army. Some cheese is purposeful and can't be done without trying to abuse the AI, but most is just trying to use tactics.
  • neodeinosneodeinos Registered Users Posts: 6,285
    Slightly too fast right now but recently I went back to Rome 2 and oh boy, the battles were so boringly long.
Sign In or Register to comment.