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

Please, do NOT slow down battles!

12346»

Comments

  • DreadedNorwegianDreadedNorwegian Senior Member Grimstad, NorwayRegistered Users Posts: 1,183
    Gonna turn a 180 on your comment and say "PLEASE SLOW DOWN THE COMBAT CA!"

    Enig og tro til Dovre faller!
  • Kobayashimaru#4773Kobayashimaru#4773 Member Registered Users Posts: 241
    edited August 2017

    boyfights said:

    Imo make combat 50% faster, but units move 50% slower. Now your battles last a little longer and I still don't have to spend half an hour watching computer mans hacking at each other fruitlessly

    It would never be like that.
    And it's not what most of us who have been discussing this topic and pressing for longer battles want, it doesn't actually solve the problem because it confuses cause and effect. It's the worst of both worlds outcome.

    And that's EXACTLY why mods can't really solve the problem, eapecially in the warscape engine, because it's so delicate and difficult it has to be done by devs that know the code and have complete access to entirety of it. If a mod tries to slow down battle it disrupts animations, balance or any other delicate detail. That way you get "computer mans hacking at each other fruitlessly". I've seen plenty of mods do that (but are still more enjoyable than vanilla in my opinion).
  • Sarmatianns#6760Sarmatianns#6760 Registered Users Posts: 4,926
    People seem to think that slower battles means in effect playing on slower speed.

    Slower battles mean that everything is happening slower and it actually rewards planning and positioning more. There's less of "oh, look, there's a cavalry charge moving this way, let's move some spears to intercept!" and more of "there's a cavalry charge coming this way, our spears won't get there in time and we're gonna have some problems. Next time we'll position our reserves better."

    I'm not exactly advocating slower speed. It is an argument that has a lot of merit, though. Reason number one is that in a deep strategy games, how quickly you click should be of very little importance. It should be about your planning, tactics and, if you play a campaign, strategy skills. Basically, more involving your cerebral skills than your ability to click fast (popularly referred to as micro).

    Another good argument is that slowing speed down is in the spirit of Warhammer, which is turn based, naturally, on TT. Turn based strategy games give you ample time to think. There is no "micro".

    On the other hand, TW Warhammer can't be compared with earlier history based TW games. Warhammer battles, although mostly resembling late medieval period, have elements from rennaissance, Napoleonic, even 20th century warfare with units filling the role of the air force, even freakin' tanks.

    So, unlike history based TW games, you can't really "prepare". An opponent doesn't have to defeat or outmanuever your frontline to get to your archers, he can simply fly over them, or walk/run through them with some monsters.
    You could have the sturdiest battle line possible, and some monsters would literally be able to walk through it. With that in mid, it is very difficult to properly prepare for a battle. Mongols are great horsemen but they can't fly over your line or walk through your spearwall. Legitimate strategies and tactics of ancient and medieval warfare aren't viable.

    This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is how the game works. Because of that, I don't think that slowing down battles will have the desired effect. I personally might support a very small slowdown, just for the fact that it would make good reflexes less important, but not anything major.

    If we're talking about history based TW games, I've always played with mods that slowed down battles and found them more enjoyable than vanilla.
  • ZilongZilong Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 501
    Boyfights for lead game designer!
  • AndkatAndkat Registered Users Posts: 257
    Errr...but adaptations of legitimate strategies by faction are in principal possible, because the fliers, monsters, etc. all have distinct properties and vulnerabilities. They don't just arbitrarily negate ranged fire or battle lines; it's like saying that the introduction of horses or gunpowder to warfare rendered strategy irrelevant because they negated previous tactical paradigms.

  • BeachedWalrusBeachedWalrus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 392
    I personally prefer the slower battles of SFO over vanilla. As a matter of fact i can't go back to Vanilla after playing SFO. Something about troops sticking around longer and forming battle lines that are so satisfying. You don't need to engage everything because you know your line will hold for at least a while until you reinforce.

    I actually don't find the battles are that much longer i would say mostly around 1.5x the amount of time of Vanilla. So your average 5 minute battle takes 7.5 minutes. Obviously some battles are longer then this especially when you have elite heavy armies that don't run.

    At this point i don't mind because there will always be mods to slow down the game and if faster battle pace is better for multiplayer then i would just leave it as is.
  • ArecBalrin#2350ArecBalrin#2350 Registered Users Posts: 2,868
    Andkat said:

    Errr...but adaptations of legitimate strategies by faction are in principal possible, because the fliers, monsters, etc. all have distinct properties and vulnerabilities. They don't just arbitrarily negate ranged fire or battle lines; it's like saying that the introduction of horses or gunpowder to warfare rendered strategy irrelevant because they negated previous tactical paradigms.

    No, they don't negate ranged fire or battle lines. But that's because those things have already been severely negated by the overall design for battles. Can't negate a battle line if there is no battle line. If you charge your front units, then there is no battle line, it's broken up. Yet if you let the enemy charge so they come to you, they get the absurdly high charge bonus and you don't unless your front is made of the narrow number of units arbitrarily given the trait of 'resistant to charge damage' and that doesn't mean they won't be bounced around by heavier mass unit because bracing does not feature in Warhammer.

    Ranged fire is negated by the shooting system, uniformly applied to all missile units that makes them fire individually and aim for individual troops rather than firing in controlled volleys at whole units. It's why loose formation isn't in the game and wouldn't make a difference if it was reintroduced: if they are already aiming at individual troops, spreading them out does nothing. It's why the range of missile units is so short; beyond a certain distance target-to-target aiming has a massive drop-off in accuracy. It's why they fire at machine-gun speeds; they lose the advantages and impact of volley-firing. Every missile unit in the game is made into a sniper, like Warrior Monk Bowmen in Shogun 2, who fire in almost the same way.

    Everything about the battle and unit design of Warhammer is arbitrary top-down design and it's awful.
  • boyfightsboyfights Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,023
    it's awful if you're looking for a realistic depiction of historical human soldiers, but luckily for the game it's about fantasy warrior orcs and elfes and doesn't have to play by the usual earth rules, which is a good part of the reason the game feels so fresh despite being more or less rome 2 under the hood
    boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality
    or reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
    stop your gladiator love for agressions.
  • boyfightsboyfights Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,023
    Zilong said:

    Boyfights for lead game designer!

    my hand is heavy but gentle o:)
    boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality
    or reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
    stop your gladiator love for agressions.
  • FinishingLast#1402FinishingLast#1402 Registered Users Posts: 4,856
    boyfights said:

    Zilong said:

    Boyfights for lead game designer!

    my hand is heavy but gentle o:)
    Is there an "Adults Only" section this post could get moved to?
    SiWI: "no they just hate you and I don't blame them."
  • HarconnHarconn Registered Users Posts: 943
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    My German Youtube-Channel - Let's Plays (Strategy, RPG, Indie,...): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChwblqvwr8XxKP0GzCcUb8Q
  • ArecBalrin#2350ArecBalrin#2350 Registered Users Posts: 2,868
    boyfights said:

    it's awful if you're looking for a realistic depiction of historical human soldiers, but luckily for the game it's about fantasy warrior orcs and elfes and doesn't have to play by the usual earth rules, which is a good part of the reason the game feels so fresh despite being more or less rome 2 under the hood

    Fantasy does not mean that everything that doesn't make sense can be explained away with 'a wizard did it' type excuses. That is a meme believed only by non-fantasy fans who think all genre fiction is a joke, the same kind of people who think The Lord of the Rings is like The Wizard of Oz.It would be like confusing the tone and setting of Schindler's List and Indiana Jones because both had Nazis.

    I've explained already this week; even the monsters and magic as seen in Total War: Warhammer are as nothing realistically compared to the military power industrialised nations were able to exert a century ago. You'd have to look at some of the more absurd stories from Warhammer's wider fiction to come close. Yet still, the bloodiest battle ever fought with those weapons was the first day of the battle of the Somme. A soldier died every five seconds, over 19,000 on one day. Yet somehow, Total War: Warhammer manages to beat that and it's not because of monsters, magic etc. It's because the battles and units are poorly designed.
  • boyfightsboyfights Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,023
    i think the problem is that you're playing an indiana jones game and expecting schindler's list, to use your analogy

    despite the "grimdark" material warhammer is not a setting that takes itself particularly seriously
    boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality
    or reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
    stop your gladiator love for agressions.
  • ArecBalrin#2350ArecBalrin#2350 Registered Users Posts: 2,868
    boyfights said:

    i think the problem is that you're playing an indiana jones game and expecting schindler's list, to use your analogy

    despite the "grimdark" material warhammer is not a setting that takes itself particularly seriously

    Then you misunderstood the analogy. I am playing first and foremost a strategy game; the promise is both implicit and explicit that it is a rule-based system with logic behind it. In the fantasy genre, real-world rules are often replaced to explain the fantastical elements, but the keyword is 'replaced' not 'ignored'; you know you're dealing with a bad writer or someone who doesn't care about genre fiction when they think what they have made is so great they don't have to explain it. Pratchett explained it, Le Guinn explained it, Lewis explained it and Tolkien explained it. When a writer's explanation comes down to 'a wizard did it', you're reading the work of a moron. All those listed authors invented coherent rules and systems that whilst not explaining what magic in their respective universes was, explained how the people inhabiting them understood it and what it's limitations were.

    Even if I bought the 'this setting allows this to be believable' argument, it's skewers itself by being so inconsistently applied by CA. They didn't design it this way because Warhammer let them or made them, they did it because they didn't want to improve the AI and so designed the game around what the AI was already good at: rapidly putting square pegs in square holes, hence units X designed to beat units Y rather than performing any army-based roles.
  • GettoGecko#7861GettoGecko#7861 Registered Users Posts: 1,684

    People seem to think that slower battles means in effect playing on slower speed.

    Slower battles mean that everything is happening slower and it actually rewards planning and positioning more. There's less of "oh, look, there's a cavalry charge moving this way, let's move some spears to intercept!" and more of "there's a cavalry charge coming this way, our spears won't get there in time and we're gonna have some problems. Next time we'll position our reserves better."

    I'm not exactly advocating slower speed. It is an argument that has a lot of merit, though. Reason number one is that in a deep strategy games, how quickly you click should be of very little importance. It should be about your planning, tactics and, if you play a campaign, strategy skills. Basically, more involving your cerebral skills than your ability to click fast (popularly referred to as micro).

    That is more an illusion than really the case, after Darren streamed his preview of SFO you could clearly see what that slowing down really does, it turns tactical combat with reads and on the move decision making into a puzzle game like the chess puzzles in the newspapers with a given situation to figure out in x turns (I know I'm old :sweat_smile: ). It streamlines the whole combat from being fluid into a step by step process by limiting the options that the player has only leaving a few decisions to make. It doesn't reward tactical awareness it just forgives not having it. Like you admit it its no longer an tactical option to intercept if you see something coming but it also isn't an option to intercept if you anticipate a charge because the slowed down movement makes it impossible, it comes down to your initial set up and positioning and step by step making it from their on instead of being able to make tactical choices and fighting a fluid battle.
    The puzzle combat might be fun for some people but it isn't tactical at all, it is reaction based because you only a have a few options at a time making it extremely easy to make a decision by just reaction to situations that are obviously and that won't change for a long time. A tactical combat gives you the possibility to create options on the fly and forming the battle actively to your advantage and not being stuck in predetermined set ups having to chose between a very limited and obvious choices.
    Another thing what I found really strange in his stream was how much he used the speed up function in battle once the lines where in combat just to wait till the next situation occurred he wanted react to or spending his time just starring a stalled situation.
    After seeing that for me the reason why people want a slower combat is more and more about not having tactical awareness and/or no understanding of modern battle tactics with combined arms which this game has and trying to force the amount of different troupes types into the limited battlefield tactics of ancient and medieval times they might be more familiar with from previous titles.
  • TheokolesOfRomeTheokolesOfRome Senior Member The Highlands in me kilt.Registered Users Posts: 1,499

    Personally I want the debug camera back. Because the current camera doesn't quite give a satisfying overview. I think the reason the battles are feeling too fast is because you constantly have to shift the camera back and forth. If you could just control evertything from a birds eye perspective it would be a lot more relaxing regardless of the battle speed.

    And they should remove that pointless tactical overview in the process...

    @Galvinized_Iron

    de-bug cam is there. Same place it's always been.

    My Rig:
    i7 8700k @ 4ghz
    1 x Titan X Pascal
    32GB 3000Mhz Ram
    1TB SSD Drive
    34" Curved Monitor 3440x1440p
Sign In or Register to comment.