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

EDIT: 12-15 min includes long marching times for battles. Ok..

24

Comments

  • TsiarTsiar Posts: 275Registered Users

    Tsiar said:

    Well that's sad. I really wish you would ignore children who have no attention span and want league of legends gameplay jack. So now the battles are down below 10 min cuz there's more marching due to bigger maps..95% of us want a 12 min grind, and that guy who posted above is probably the only one who complained...so his opinion should be worthless in your stats gathering. No offense bro, sorry.

    The fact that you think a thread with less than 20 replies is enough to base a statement like "95% of us want a 12 min grind" on is embarrassing.
    The fact that you take what I say literally is embarrassing. The fact that you play stupid in the fact that A VAST MAJORITY OF POSTERS ON THIS FORUM DON'T WANT 5 MIN CLICKFESTS is embarrassing. (Scroll up and read, Mr. Statistician) And your sad excuse for an insult was also embarrassing. Go back to league of legends. GG.
    How can I not, given some of the nonsense posts you've made?

    Saying something is a certain way doesn't make it so. Fredrin provided some actual convincing data, albeit from the Warhammer community. Maybe something to try in the future, eh?

    It's quite funny how eager you, and historyfans like you, are to turn to CAPS and ranting about the dreaded MOBA-player boogeyman.
    Hrafn said:

    Tsiar said:

    Hrafn said:

    Well that's sad. I really wish you would ignore children who have no attention span and want league of legends gameplay jack. So now the battles are down below 10 min cuz there's more marching due to bigger maps..95% of us want a 12 min grind, and that guy who posted above is probably the only one who complained...so his opinion should be worthless in your stats gathering. No offense bro, sorry.

    I have to disagree long battles are just too easy and boring old style DEI on Rome 2 is a good example of long 15-20 min battles. You could easily circle an enemy and surround them and then twiddle your thumbs for 15 mins while the battle slowly grinds down to your victory
    Hannibal's army had to spend a whole afternoon slaughtering Romans at Cannae.
    We are not Hannibal at Cannae, we are playing video games.
    That is true.

    Can you remember the last time you fought a battle in Total War that actually felt epic?

    I can't. Barring some great multiplayer 3 v 3's.

    We fight battles against full stacks and they conclude in 10 minutes.

    I'd like to know if 12 to 15 minutes includes post-battle router mop-up. Because if it does, we're in for more of the same.
    If Total War is to become, as you put it, epic I'd say battle size will be just as, if not more important, as battle speed. I agree that it should be slowed down from Warhammer levels but I personally don't want to see DIE times.
  • HrafnHrafn Posts: 305Registered Users
    edited February 2018
    Size is indeed a big issue. If you read historical texts like the Strategikon, and note the recommended size and spacing of formations and reserves, it becomes pretty clear that the battles we fight would be considered just a small portion of the greater battle IRL.

    Bet then when you consider those actual formation sizes and spacing, it also becomes pretty clear that our little micro-battles go much faster than they did in real life. Otherwise there would have been little chance of reserves reaching the battle's crisis points in time to tip the local decisions.

    Granted these were much larger armies than those generally found in the ToB setting.
    Post edited by Hrafn on
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users
    Tsiar said:

    Tsiar said:

    Well that's sad. I really wish you would ignore children who have no attention span and want league of legends gameplay jack. So now the battles are down below 10 min cuz there's more marching due to bigger maps..95% of us want a 12 min grind, and that guy who posted above is probably the only one who complained...so his opinion should be worthless in your stats gathering. No offense bro, sorry.

    The fact that you think a thread with less than 20 replies is enough to base a statement like "95% of us want a 12 min grind" on is embarrassing.
    The fact that you take what I say literally is embarrassing. The fact that you play stupid in the fact that A VAST MAJORITY OF POSTERS ON THIS FORUM DON'T WANT 5 MIN CLICKFESTS is embarrassing. (Scroll up and read, Mr. Statistician) And your sad excuse for an insult was also embarrassing. Go back to league of legends. GG.
    How can I not, given some of the nonsense posts you've made?

    Saying something is a certain way doesn't make it so. Fredrin provided some actual convincing data, albeit from the Warhammer community. Maybe something to try in the future, eh?

    It's quite funny how eager you, and historyfans like you, are to turn to CAPS and ranting about the dreaded MOBA-player boogeyman.
    Hrafn said:

    Tsiar said:

    Hrafn said:

    Well that's sad. I really wish you would ignore children who have no attention span and want league of legends gameplay jack. So now the battles are down below 10 min cuz there's more marching due to bigger maps..95% of us want a 12 min grind, and that guy who posted above is probably the only one who complained...so his opinion should be worthless in your stats gathering. No offense bro, sorry.

    I have to disagree long battles are just too easy and boring old style DEI on Rome 2 is a good example of long 15-20 min battles. You could easily circle an enemy and surround them and then twiddle your thumbs for 15 mins while the battle slowly grinds down to your victory
    Hannibal's army had to spend a whole afternoon slaughtering Romans at Cannae.
    We are not Hannibal at Cannae, we are playing video games.
    That is true.

    Can you remember the last time you fought a battle in Total War that actually felt epic?

    I can't. Barring some great multiplayer 3 v 3's.

    We fight battles against full stacks and they conclude in 10 minutes.

    I'd like to know if 12 to 15 minutes includes post-battle router mop-up. Because if it does, we're in for more of the same.
    If Total War is to become, as you put it, epic I'd say battle size will be just as, if not more important, as battle speed. I agree that it should be slowed down from Warhammer levels but I personally don't want to see DIE times.
    Read my post. I don't say I want 45 min. In fine with 15 min of battle.
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Posts: 3,085Registered Users

    CnConrad said:

    Well that's sad. I really wish you would ignore children who have no attention span and want league of legends gameplay jack. So now the battles are down below 10 min cuz there's more marching due to bigger maps..95% of us want a 12 min grind, and that guy who posted above is probably the only one who complained...so his opinion should be worthless in your stats gathering. No offense bro, sorry.

    +1 for this
    I also want a longer battle time than before, because it makes strategy and tactics more important than before
    Can you add battle time slider, Jack ? Win-win solution for any of us, those who prefer more authentic battle will be satisfied, those who prefer COD style gameplay can be satisfied as well.

    I have said this 1000's of times a slider is a lot of work.

    And the idea that "you" want authentic battles and people who disagree with you want cod style game play is ludicrous and proof of cluelessness about the whole thing.

    Nothing about any total war game has ever been remotely authentic.
    Do armies route at 10% casualties?
    Do 75% of your losses come from various forms of attrition rather than battle?
    Will your army collapse if you keep if summoned for more than a year?
    Is there a chance your levy troops will flee before the battle starts?
    Is there a chance your Mercenaries will switch sides on you at the start of the battle?



    Total wars have always been fun and has some authentic elements but to pretend that having a 45 minute battle is anymore authentic than a 15 minute one is just silly.
    **** authentic bro. Its about fun. Are you arguing a battle less than 10 min is fun? 15 min of BATTLE TIME is perfect. Less than 10 is utter trash. Either way I win, I just mod out morale completely and enjoy my slugfests. So Im trying to give a voice for those who still way their routing aspect for strategic and tactical reasons. Idgaf cuz I play games first and foremost for fun, which I can't have with vanilla battles since shogun 2. So I just get rid of morale. Done.
    Agreed, I'm more saying lumping anyone who likes faster battles in with the cod crowd doesn't help the argument. 15 min start to finish is ideal for me so I'm happy.
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users
    CnConrad said:

    CnConrad said:

    Well that's sad. I really wish you would ignore children who have no attention span and want league of legends gameplay jack. So now the battles are down below 10 min cuz there's more marching due to bigger maps..95% of us want a 12 min grind, and that guy who posted above is probably the only one who complained...so his opinion should be worthless in your stats gathering. No offense bro, sorry.

    +1 for this
    I also want a longer battle time than before, because it makes strategy and tactics more important than before
    Can you add battle time slider, Jack ? Win-win solution for any of us, those who prefer more authentic battle will be satisfied, those who prefer COD style gameplay can be satisfied as well.

    I have said this 1000's of times a slider is a lot of work.

    And the idea that "you" want authentic battles and people who disagree with you want cod style game play is ludicrous and proof of cluelessness about the whole thing.

    Nothing about any total war game has ever been remotely authentic.
    Do armies route at 10% casualties?
    Do 75% of your losses come from various forms of attrition rather than battle?
    Will your army collapse if you keep if summoned for more than a year?
    Is there a chance your levy troops will flee before the battle starts?
    Is there a chance your Mercenaries will switch sides on you at the start of the battle?



    Total wars have always been fun and has some authentic elements but to pretend that having a 45 minute battle is anymore authentic than a 15 minute one is just silly.
    **** authentic bro. Its about fun. Are you arguing a battle less than 10 min is fun? 15 min of BATTLE TIME is perfect. Less than 10 is utter trash. Either way I win, I just mod out morale completely and enjoy my slugfests. So Im trying to give a voice for those who still way their routing aspect for strategic and tactical reasons. Idgaf cuz I play games first and foremost for fun, which I can't have with vanilla battles since shogun 2. So I just get rid of morale. Done.
    Agreed, I'm more saying lumping anyone who likes faster battles in with the cod crowd doesn't help the argument. 15 min start to finish is ideal for me so I'm happy.
    Yeah ur right. I don't think it helps to do that. Im also good with 15 min if that's what it turns out to be.
  • LestaTLestaT Senior Member Posts: 3,190Registered Users
    Well, in many TW games since I remembered, usually only the first few turns where battles are really really short. Usually mid campaigns to the end, I do get to do battles from start to the end around 15-20 minutes mark which is enough for me. Personally I always set battle time limit to 20 minutes anyway.

    Since I tried to fight every battles manually, spending 60 minutes per battle is certainly boring and uninteresting.

    I do get epic battles once a while in campaign but it usually involves few stacks vs few stack when I change the battle limit and go above 20 minutes but it's rare and when it happened, it feels so epic.

  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Posts: 210Registered Users
    can one of the slower battle pace proponents explain what makes the battles in your opiinion so more "tactical" merely by reducing the pace? what exactly do u mean by reducing combat pace? in a strict sense, reducing the pace of the game changes nothing but how the player interacts with thegame
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!!

    appeal to CA:

    skirmish related (applicable for historical titles):
    new innovations in the ToB campaign look very promising! skirmish need that kind of revamp too!
    pls, dont overemphasize unit r/p/s counter-matching as the hierarchical confluence of all decision making
    - ! make unit formations (and perhaps abilities) great again! (charlemagne)
    - ! same with LoS system! (tw:arena/UG:CivilWars)
    - ! same with terrain (ridges) (tw:arena/shogun2/UG:CivilWars)
    you've already made the tools!
    just make use of them!


    menu related (mp skirmish lobby):
    * add "large army" option to quickmatch pls!
    * have "large army" settings be tagged visually in lobby selector (so that all players have easier time in lobby select)
    * pls introduce scheduled rank resets to quickmatch as means to repress unsportsmanlike conduct related to stat fetishism
    * enable shared team funds (sum == opposition funds irrespective of player count) that all members can (optionally) submit to that facilitate the setup of uneven teams

    campaign related:
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign
    * for a much more elegant way of addressing autoresolve of not so decisive battles and how armies reinforce each other mount and blade's marshal system could b a fitting reference. mbe there is a way to integrate the marshal concept in one way or the other
    -or-
    * instead of imposing a hard cap of 20 units per army introduce a more organic approach of having lower ranking officers command ~ 10/15 units at max and higher ones up to ~ 40 (with supply, replenishment and all considered)
    * * reinforcing armies in this case would trickle in so a count of 40 intact units is kept rather than exceed 40+ units
    * dynamic quest/notification-event system (may b interesting for 3 kings)

    + thx for addressing spaghetti lines
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign


    • Tier1: Shogun 2 / Wh 2 / Warhammer
    • Tier2: Age of Charlemagne / Napoleon
    • Tier3: Attila / Medieval 2 / Rome
    • ....
    • Accident: Rome II

    • pending: ToB is yet to b acquired
    • pending: Three Kings not been released yet
    image

    Team Shadowgave
    Team Cao Wei
    wu xing graph

    casual survey on tw skirmish battles
    casual survey provisional analysis
    let's learn about the diplomacy game first before comlaining about vassals!
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users

    can one of the slower battle pace proponents explain what makes the battles in your opiinion so more "tactical" merely by reducing the pace? what exactly do u mean by reducing combat pace? in a strict sense, reducing the pace of the game changes nothing but how the player interacts with thegame

    To try and distil the argument into a few words: the aim behind slowing the pace of battles and increasing their duration would be to reduce the significance of reaction speed and allow players more time to consider more complex and numerous troop manoeuvres.

    The upside of this is that there will be more diversity in the outcome of battles, as opposed to two large masses of troops charging at each other and combat resolving within 3 or 4 minutes, largely based on which units were paired off against each other.

    They key argument is that battles are more enjoyable when they are won on the basis of tactics deployed - outfoxing your opponent, essentially - rather than the number of actions per minute you can squeeze out of your keyboard and mouse. The former is also a lot closer to what made a general successful if the goal is to some extent role play through the eyes of your army's commander.

  • HrafnHrafn Posts: 305Registered Users
    edited February 2018
    Well for one it gives more time to execute more complicated maneuvers. There are times in Shogun 2 and Warhammer where you don't have time to move units around to flank because the engagements you intend them to flank have already ended. The games are basically about just mashing the right units up against one another.

    I recently fought a battle online in Shogun 2 where our lines engaged one another while both of our cavalry contingents engaged one another a few hundred yards off. My cavalry easily defeated his, but by the time I got them back to the main battle it was basically already over. Unit matchups, not tactics, won the battle.

    In the games with fast battles, units either win or die. There is no pinning the enemy down. No such thing as a holding force. Rock Paper Scissors decides the battle, and it does so with such speed that RPS becomes more important than tactics.

    Now some might say that is the fault of the RPS system, and to a degree it is; but if engagements themselves lasted a bit longer, it would give more time to take other steps to try to tip that RPS engagement in your favor through maneuver and use of reserves.

    There is a player here that mods morale out of his games. I prefer to just increase it, but I can tell you this leads to a vastly different battle experience, where your tactics become more important than the RPS game.
    Post edited by Hrafn on
  • Thegn_PhilThegn_Phil Posts: 49Registered Users
    Well battles in Attila were like 6 minutes including marching time, so 12-15 minutes sounds fantastic.
  • gisgo1909gisgo1909 Posts: 79Registered Users
    Hrafn said:

    Well for one it gives more time to execute more complicated maneuvers. There are times in Shogun 2 and Warhammer where you don't have time to move units around to flank because the engagements you intend them to flank have already ended. The games are basically about just mashing the right units up against one another.

    I recently fought a battle online in Shogun 2 where our lines engaged one another while both of our cavalry contingents engaged one another a few hundred yards off. My cavalry easily defeated his, but by the time I got them back to the main battle it was basically already over. Unit matchups, not tactics, won the battle.

    In the games with fast battles, units either win or die. There is no pinning the enemy down. No such thing as a holding force. Rock Paper Scissors decides the battle, and it does so with such speed that RPS becomes more important than tactics.

    Now some might say that is the fault of the RPS system, and to a degree it is; but if engagements themselves lasted a bit longer, it would give more time to take other steps to try to tip that RPS engagement in your favor through maneuver and use of reserves.

    There is a player here that mods morale out of his games. I prefer to just increase it, but I can tell you this leads to a vastly different battle experience, where your tactics become more important than the RPS game.

    I can not agree with this post more. I want maneuvers to matter. I want to pull off the double bull horn envelopment. I get that early tier units aren't going to hold out long in battle. But better tier troops with large shields and/or lots of armor should take awhile to kill each other.

    On the other hand, as soon as (or very shortly there after) you hit your enemy in the flank or envelope them, most units should either die fairly quickly or rout. Taking moral out completely is too far. But Attila's battles are far too fast.
  • petertel123petertel123 Junior Member Posts: 707Registered Users
    Hrafn said:

    Well that's sad. I really wish you would ignore children who have no attention span and want league of legends gameplay jack. So now the battles are down below 10 min cuz there's more marching due to bigger maps..95% of us want a 12 min grind, and that guy who posted above is probably the only one who complained...so his opinion should be worthless in your stats gathering. No offense bro, sorry.

    I have to disagree long battles are just too easy and boring old style DEI on Rome 2 is a good example of long 15-20 min battles. You could easily circle an enemy and surround them and then twiddle your thumbs for 15 mins while the battle slowly grinds down to your victory
    Hannibal's army had to spend a whole afternoon slaughtering Romans at Cannae.
    Would you actually want to spend an entire afternoon playing a single battle? I sure wouldn't
    Team Bretonnia
    Team Dark Elves
  • HrafnHrafn Posts: 305Registered Users
    edited February 2018

    Hrafn said:

    Well that's sad. I really wish you would ignore children who have no attention span and want league of legends gameplay jack. So now the battles are down below 10 min cuz there's more marching due to bigger maps..95% of us want a 12 min grind, and that guy who posted above is probably the only one who complained...so his opinion should be worthless in your stats gathering. No offense bro, sorry.

    I have to disagree long battles are just too easy and boring old style DEI on Rome 2 is a good example of long 15-20 min battles. You could easily circle an enemy and surround them and then twiddle your thumbs for 15 mins while the battle slowly grinds down to your victory
    Hannibal's army had to spend a whole afternoon slaughtering Romans at Cannae.
    Would you actually want to spend an entire afternoon playing a single battle? I sure wouldn't
    No of course not. That was in response to the comment directly above it. Point being, just because you've "won" the battle doesn't mean it immediately ends. You still have to do the work, and this has gameplay implications, because the casualties you might suffer finishing it can have an effect on the greater campaign.

    Plz son.
  • Total_War_VeteranTotal_War_Veteran Posts: 442Registered Users

    Hrafn said:

    Well that's sad. I really wish you would ignore children who have no attention span and want league of legends gameplay jack. So now the battles are down below 10 min cuz there's more marching due to bigger maps..95% of us want a 12 min grind, and that guy who posted above is probably the only one who complained...so his opinion should be worthless in your stats gathering. No offense bro, sorry.

    I have to disagree long battles are just too easy and boring old style DEI on Rome 2 is a good example of long 15-20 min battles. You could easily circle an enemy and surround them and then twiddle your thumbs for 15 mins while the battle slowly grinds down to your victory
    Hannibal's army had to spend a whole afternoon slaughtering Romans at Cannae.
    Would you actually want to spend an entire afternoon playing a single battle? I sure wouldn't
    of course not, do longer battle means it will take whole afternoon ? Im not asking for 100% realism accuracy as well, but the current pace could be slowed down
    Full support for CA and CA_Ella
  • GrayFoxCZGrayFoxCZ Junior Member Posts: 71Registered Users


    Would you actually want to spend an entire afternoon playing a single battle? I sure wouldn't

    ... just how much out of arguments are you if you are grasping for straws this obscure. No one made point of making TW battles last for afternoon - No one.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 18,488Registered Users
    I call BS on longer battles allowing "more complicated maneuvers". If every unit takes five minutes to get off the field then most of the battle is spend standing still and wearing the enemy down, so maneuvering will if at all only take place in short bursts before everything is frozen again. Must be all the American Football fans pushing for this.

    Play Rome Total Realism. The first major battle that game offers you is Rome vs Epirus and that one can last up to 40 minutes just because every single fight is drawn out like chewing gum and surrounding the enemy does close to nothing. Honestly, surround Pyrrhus elite pikemen units and you will spend 20 minutes to get them off the field. O yeah, you can also charge them frontally BTW since they won't kill much of your men either.

  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Posts: 210Registered Users
    thank you guys for ur clarifications.

    if i understand u correctly, a decreased battle pace means:
    an increased duration of combat resolve
    specifically in proportion to
    unit movement speed.

    im not opposed to slower battle pace but i still disagree with ur conclusions on the outcome of ur approaches. ill try to explain:

    having prolonged combat vs unit movement will give more time for interactivity but imo will not exactly improve the game. instead i claim it will have the game just end in a brawl without tactical finesse most of the time. in other words, an increased interactivity means more gap plugging (i suppose thats not what u hope for in regards to more tactical options / diversity) but less tactical importance behind each decision; worse yet, further relegates the player impact to army composition. my idea of a slower battle pace would b exactly the opposite approach. i think a practical comparison between beloved shogun 2 and rome ii can help illustrate:

    a typical mounted flanking force in shogun 2 would consists of couple cavalry units and spears. if u manage to entangle opposition force cavalry at advantageous position, ur spear will get to partake long before opponent can remedy his tactical error. ambushes ur opponent may or may not expect in this setting r the more impactful.
    in rome ii, well since emperor edition, cav engagements take almost as long as infantry fights; a flanking force thus may consist of couple of cav and more swords instead (due to combat duration and infantry numbers) or only sword and spear infantry altogether.
    this is not only true for cavalry fights or flanking but summarize the 2 games in principle. while shogun 2 is highly volatile, rome ii even with more gradual r/p/s in comparison is just as much unit r/p/s matching but bar from that reduced to gap plugging until 1 side loses mainly to unit selection / faction match-ups because combat takes too long vs tactical positioning. in rome 2, army selection wins, in shogun 2 army selection is still important but making the right decisions can cause ur the opposition to lose much more likely.
    i for one want to have placement have strategic importance. once the battle lines connect, the dice is cast and there s only restricted options one can do to remedy initial tactical errors. while shogun 2 battles r much more short-lived because of its decisiveness, its battles r more tactically immerging than rome ii's. i think many who dislike shogun 2 (due to preference in how fast battles progress), did well before they could appreciate shogun 2s actually rich tactical diversity that still makes shogun 2 so popular in mp. rome ii emperor edition looks to me like a dull brawl fest. the critique however that shogun 2 can b decided in the initial clash is valid, especially if the player prefers melee builds, but it is imo better to slow the general pace rather than only combat pace.

    imo there r much better options to achieve more interactivity during battle than fiddling with the proportion of movement, combat duration and r/p/s. for the purpose of the op ill put the rest into a spiler; feel free to add ur opinion whether u like my examples or not.



    severely restricting line of sight for instance would already add another layer and great suspense during the (often as dull critizised) march-up phase. only dedicated scouts such as skirmishers, light cav, commander et c. will have acceptable line of sight. the player would have to actively scout, muster the terrain and enemy movement to somewhat assess the situation and make useful decisions. flanking will not b the standard protocol but a careful commitment. forcing the player to actively look after critical information and further defining the combat role of light troops as good scouts would imo add so much more context than simply slower combat pace. player decision on troop movement, skirmishing, army formation would b more meaningful than ever.
    a.i. could have intel buff or simply b excempt from these changes for the sake of feasability.

    optionally (probably less feasable), screening units to the front could obscure the sight of what lies behind.

    'unordered' units would require some time to reform after a chase / rout (or into a specific formation; attack column, wedge, defensive square/circle et c.) and would b critically vulnerable whilst at it

    more complicated maneuvers can only b executed with more options => increased unit count. the limitations of having only the low end of 20 units to controll will b most apparent when CA should ever attempt to depict the pike and shotte period. mixed arms formation drills is absolutely impossible without revising the harsh restrictions imposed by the current 20 units system. i will never understand why players only want to have 20 units but sadly i cant look into the head of other minds.

    neither will i understand how some find it enjoyable stripping morale which should b a critical factor. i for one would want morale to b #1 factor. much not unlike playing as and against greenskins. having units engage, retreat, gather, re-engage could somewhat simulate the occasional lulls that happened during exhaustive confrontations. paired with the volatility that comes with the need of units reforming back into formations, alot of historical battles could b actually recreated.

    other secondary effects
    such as units noticably slowing down in movement while under missile attack,

    units refusing to charge if morale is critically low ,

    units on the verge of routing but havent yet, that r about to receive the heavy tip of a breakthrough formation / cavalry wedge / chariots / or r under artillery bombardment assume loose formation without permission

    more units traits,

    units in marching columns substantially quicker on the move
    while units in tight order have more mass (rome ii already introduced the mass system but did not make good advantage of it imo)

    these r all examples that i think would add much tactical context to the tw battle depictions.

    Would you actually want to spend an entire afternoon playing a single battle? I sure wouldn't

    we had a short string of constructive exchange of ideas, then came this comment...
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!!

    appeal to CA:

    skirmish related (applicable for historical titles):
    new innovations in the ToB campaign look very promising! skirmish need that kind of revamp too!
    pls, dont overemphasize unit r/p/s counter-matching as the hierarchical confluence of all decision making
    - ! make unit formations (and perhaps abilities) great again! (charlemagne)
    - ! same with LoS system! (tw:arena/UG:CivilWars)
    - ! same with terrain (ridges) (tw:arena/shogun2/UG:CivilWars)
    you've already made the tools!
    just make use of them!


    menu related (mp skirmish lobby):
    * add "large army" option to quickmatch pls!
    * have "large army" settings be tagged visually in lobby selector (so that all players have easier time in lobby select)
    * pls introduce scheduled rank resets to quickmatch as means to repress unsportsmanlike conduct related to stat fetishism
    * enable shared team funds (sum == opposition funds irrespective of player count) that all members can (optionally) submit to that facilitate the setup of uneven teams

    campaign related:
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign
    * for a much more elegant way of addressing autoresolve of not so decisive battles and how armies reinforce each other mount and blade's marshal system could b a fitting reference. mbe there is a way to integrate the marshal concept in one way or the other
    -or-
    * instead of imposing a hard cap of 20 units per army introduce a more organic approach of having lower ranking officers command ~ 10/15 units at max and higher ones up to ~ 40 (with supply, replenishment and all considered)
    * * reinforcing armies in this case would trickle in so a count of 40 intact units is kept rather than exceed 40+ units
    * dynamic quest/notification-event system (may b interesting for 3 kings)

    + thx for addressing spaghetti lines
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign


    • Tier1: Shogun 2 / Wh 2 / Warhammer
    • Tier2: Age of Charlemagne / Napoleon
    • Tier3: Attila / Medieval 2 / Rome
    • ....
    • Accident: Rome II

    • pending: ToB is yet to b acquired
    • pending: Three Kings not been released yet
    image

    Team Shadowgave
    Team Cao Wei
    wu xing graph

    casual survey on tw skirmish battles
    casual survey provisional analysis
    let's learn about the diplomacy game first before comlaining about vassals!
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Posts: 281Registered Users
    ^ this is a very good suggestion!
  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomPosts: 1,433Registered Users
    They are not bad suggestions, but they will only appeal to a small number of (hardcore) players.

    As always, a balance must be struck between depth/sophistication/realism and accessibility/gameplay/campaign progress.

    Some people find 20 units too many to manage comfortable already, let alone increasing this. LoS does exist, and while making it harsher would force the player to take a more tactical approach, for many this would not make the game more fun.

    I definitely think improvements could come through changes to formations and unit mass - that could add a lot to the tactical aspect.

    But I would guess that many players, especially most casual players, would find too many of your suggestions boring. At least, after the first few battles. Battles above 20 minutes or so would be too long for most people, and turning every skirmish into an in depth tactical engagement wouldn't be fun for many. Longer battles would slow down campaign pace as well, which is potentially harmful.

    I do think battles should be slightly longer than they are currently, and as I mentioned above I'd love to see a better use of unit formation and mass. But CA need to be very careful to find the right balance. If they go too far every campaign becomes a long, slow drag.

    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
  • LestaTLestaT Senior Member Posts: 3,190Registered Users
    The only thing regarding battles that I want is the unit ability to move backward or reverse while facing forward.

    May not be in ToB but something I hope for future games especially TW3K.

  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users
    Mattzo said:

    They are not bad suggestions, but they will only appeal to a small number of (hardcore) players.

    As always, a balance must be struck between depth/sophistication/realism and accessibility/gameplay/campaign progress.

    Some people find 20 units too many to manage comfortable already, let alone increasing this. LoS does exist, and while making it harsher would force the player to take a more tactical approach, for many this would not make the game more fun.

    I definitely think improvements could come through changes to formations and unit mass - that could add a lot to the tactical aspect.

    But I would guess that many players, especially most casual players, would find too many of your suggestions boring. At least, after the first few battles. Battles above 20 minutes or so would be too long for most people, and turning every skirmish into an in depth tactical engagement wouldn't be fun for many. Longer battles would slow down campaign pace as well, which is potentially harmful.

    I do think battles should be slightly longer than they are currently, and as I mentioned above I'd love to see a better use of unit formation and mass. But CA need to be very careful to find the right balance. If they go too far every campaign becomes a long, slow drag.

    Agreed, but a fairly easy solution to this would be to limit the size and number of major battles on the campaign side, which is fairly easy to achieve:

    - Reduce replenishment rate
    - Introduce an effective population mechanic
    - Reduce the number of units that can be built in the same turn

    Some might say that these are quite punitive, but the flip side is what we have currently: numerous large armies that can replenish almost overnight and can be mustered from scratch in just a couple of turns without drawing on any resources other than gold. The result is that mid-to-late game simply has too many full stack battles happening and the whole experience is bogged down.

    Ideally, battle duration should be based on what feels fun to play rather than how much it slows down the campaign. Bear in mind that battles of 20 minutes + were a regular feature of Medieval 2 and that game is often held up as being a high point in the series. I don't think even casual players would object to this length of battle provided that they were fun to play and there was a well balanced auto-calc option.

    It feels like some efforts are being made in Thrones with units being recruited at minimal strength and building up over time. It's time the pendulum swung to quality over quantity where battles are concerned imo.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Posts: 9,917Registered Users
    edited February 2018
    Fredrin said:

    Mattzo said:

    They are not bad suggestions, but they will only appeal to a small number of (hardcore) players.

    As always, a balance must be struck between depth/sophistication/realism and accessibility/gameplay/campaign progress.

    Some people find 20 units too many to manage comfortable already, let alone increasing this. LoS does exist, and while making it harsher would force the player to take a more tactical approach, for many this would not make the game more fun.

    I definitely think improvements could come through changes to formations and unit mass - that could add a lot to the tactical aspect.

    But I would guess that many players, especially most casual players, would find too many of your suggestions boring. At least, after the first few battles. Battles above 20 minutes or so would be too long for most people, and turning every skirmish into an in depth tactical engagement wouldn't be fun for many. Longer battles would slow down campaign pace as well, which is potentially harmful.

    I do think battles should be slightly longer than they are currently, and as I mentioned above I'd love to see a better use of unit formation and mass. But CA need to be very careful to find the right balance. If they go too far every campaign becomes a long, slow drag.

    Agreed, but a fairly easy solution to this would be to limit the size and number of major battles on the campaign side, which is fairly easy to achieve:
    Your argument is flawed from your very first sentence Fredrin.

    Nobody wants less epic battles in a TW game. They're already few and far between. Are you that concerned with battles being however length shorter than you would compromise the single thing that makes TW games great? Let's not also forget larger armies = bigger battles = longer battles.
    Post edited by Commissar_G on
    "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~
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Posts: 281Registered Users
    edited February 2018
    There should be a balance between movement speed and melee engagement length so that keeping reserves is a must and outflanking the enemy doesnt pay off every time.
    I have seen this way too often with mods that make melee engagements longer. The engagements become so long that you can hold off the enemy with a few cheap units and send your elite units all around the flank to defeat the enemy easily.

    An increased melee length needs a reduction of movement speed. I personally dont get why infantry in close formation is always running. Would be better if they would walk most of the time and just when they get close to the enemy begin their charge. Even Cavalry did it like this and wasnt running all the time during the middle ages.

    Missile units should also get a higher friendly fire obstruction value so that Archers cannot reliably fire into melee engagements anymore. That way missile units are still effective up front but cannot do too many damage during the main engagement without being put in a good position.
  • gisgo1909gisgo1909 Posts: 79Registered Users

    I call BS on longer battles allowing "more complicated maneuvers". If every unit takes five minutes to get off the field then most of the battle is spend standing still and wearing the enemy down, so maneuvering will if at all only take place in short bursts before everything is frozen again. Must be all the American Football fans pushing for this.

    Play Rome Total Realism. The first major battle that game offers you is Rome vs Epirus and that one can last up to 40 minutes just because every single fight is drawn out like chewing gum and surrounding the enemy does close to nothing. Honestly, surround Pyrrhus elite pikemen units and you will spend 20 minutes to get them off the field. O yeah, you can also charge them frontally BTW since they won't kill much of your men either.

    If you make the flanking moral penalty bigger and the rear flanking penalty devastating, the problem of waiting around for units to leave the field goes away. We want direct combat length to increase so we can make more maneuvers but once a decisive maneuver has happened, that portion of the line should break fairly quickly in most circumstances.

    ma7moud_al_sharif: Again you're looking at it wrong. Things like ambushes and flanking should be devastating. We don't want combat to last longer in those situations. Only frontal combat. In Attila for example, by the time I've even set all my orders and move over to check my flanking cav, the infantry lines are already breaking in most situations. There is no time to maneuver and the battle was essentially decided by composition alone. If the infantry lines held up to frontal combat, you could use maneuvers to affect the battle and overcome an army with much better infantry (as an example).

    LestaT: I agree. Units being able to move backwards while facing the enemy is long overdue and would add a wealth of possibilities to battles.

    Fredrin: I don't understand why people complain about unit replenishment so much when even a short turn time in most TW games is months if not a year or more and heavy losses take several turns to fully replenish.

    And I have to agree with Commissar_G. The more armies the AI has the better IMO. In an early game of Rome 2, you crush 1 or 2 stacks and the AI is done. Later in the game (with good mods) they're able to absorb those losses and put up a fight. It's more rewarding when you actually win if the enemy puts up a good fight.
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users
    Hrafn said:

    Well for one it gives more time to execute more complicated maneuvers. There are times in Shogun 2 and Warhammer where you don't have time to move units around to flank because the engagements you intend them to flank have already ended. The games are basically about just mashing the right units up against one another.

    I recently fought a battle online in Shogun 2 where our lines engaged one another while both of our cavalry contingents engaged one another a few hundred yards off. My cavalry easily defeated his, but by the time I got them back to the main battle it was basically already over. Unit matchups, not tactics, won the battle.

    In the games with fast battles, units either win or die. There is no pinning the enemy down. No such thing as a holding force. Rock Paper Scissors decides the battle, and it does so with such speed that RPS becomes more important than tactics.

    Now some might say that is the fault of the RPS system, and to a degree it is; but if engagements themselves lasted a bit longer, it would give more time to take other steps to try to tip that RPS engagement in your favor through maneuver and use of reserves.

    There is a player here that mods morale out of his games. I prefer to just increase it, but I can tell you this leads to a vastly different battle experience, where your tactics become more important than the RPS game.

    Yes hrfan, I do mod out morale. Many people may scoff at that, but I love it so much. Exactly for the reasons you stated. Obviously its not realistic, but its a good combo of immersion, fun, and tactics for me. I may try raising it instead and see how I like it
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users
    edited February 2018

    Fredrin said:



    Agreed, but a fairly easy solution to this would be to limit the size and number of major battles on the campaign side, which is fairly easy to achieve:

    Your argument is flawed from your very first sentence Fredrin.

    Nobody wants less epic battles in a TW game. They're already few and far between. Are you that concerned with battles being however length shorter than you would compromise the single thing that makes TW games great? Let's not also forget larger armies = bigger battles = longer battles.
    Nope, totally on board with that. What I'm saying is that you can have too much of a good thing. People would be pretty blasé about diamonds if there football-sized ones sitting around on every street corner!

    Fighting numerous full stack battles in a single turn really does become a grind, don't you think? Particularly when you defeated that same bloody army 2 turns before, it nipped back into friendly territory and then completely regenerated. There's nothing epic about something that happens that often.

    That's why I'm saying it would be my preference if the really big campaign-deciding engagements were a bit fewer and further between, but also lasted a bit longer and required more tactics than the usual autopilot you've slipped into by turn 50. Battles are more fun if there's more at stake. If you're fighting multiple major battles a turn and both parties can have brand spanking new armies in the blink of an eye, that doesn't really up the ante much, does it?

    So I stick to my guns 100% - fewer major battles, which last longer, are tactically more demanding and are strategically more important to the success of your campaign. That is a good way to go in my opinion.
  • gisgo1909gisgo1909 Posts: 79Registered Users
    Fredrin said:

    Fredrin said:



    Agreed, but a fairly easy solution to this would be to limit the size and number of major battles on the campaign side, which is fairly easy to achieve:

    Your argument is flawed from your very first sentence Fredrin.

    Nobody wants less epic battles in a TW game. They're already few and far between. Are you that concerned with battles being however length shorter than you would compromise the single thing that makes TW games great? Let's not also forget larger armies = bigger battles = longer battles.
    Nope, totally on board with that. What I'm saying is that you can have too much of a good thing. People would be pretty blasé about diamonds if there football-sized ones sitting around on every street corner!

    Fighting numerous full stack battles in a single turn really does become a grind, don't you think? Particularly when you defeated that same bloody army 2 turns before, it nipped back into friendly territory and then completely regenerated. There's nothing epic about something that happens that often.

    That's why I'm saying it would be my preference if the really big campaign-deciding engagements were a bit fewer and further between, but also lasted a bit longer and required more tactics than the usual autopilot you've slipped into by turn 50. Battles are more fun if there's more at stake. If you're fighting multiple major battles a turn and both parties can have brand spanking new armies in the blink of an eye, that doesn't really up the ante much, does it?

    So I stick to my guns 100% - fewer major battles, which last longer, are tactically more demanding and are strategically more important to the success of your campaign. That is a good way to go in my opinion.
    I can agree with you on manpower limits and slower recruitment (all based on wealth and size of empire). But not on replenishment (it should be tied to manpower limits though) Let the AI have as many armies as they can afford. Let their existing units be replenished quickly if they have the resources. But after so many major loses they'll run out of men, equipment and money.
  • norseaxenorseaxe Posts: 402Registered Users
    I really like idea about ability to move backwards while facing forward I'm really surprised that CA has never put this feature in a game it could slow down enemy from killing to many of your soldiers while they retreat of course only elite troops would be able to cover reteating or fleeing soldiers from field great idea LestaT I think CA can easily put this feature in the game or future games I hated it when you push withdraw bottom they turn around and run crazy
  • KregenKregen Member Posts: 483Registered Users
    norseaxe said:

    I really like idea about ability to move backwards while facing forward I'm really surprised that CA has never put this feature in a game it could slow down enemy from killing to many of your soldiers while they retreat of course only elite troops would be able to cover reteating or fleeing soldiers from field great idea LestaT I think CA can easily put this feature in the game or future games I hated it when you push withdraw bottom they turn around and run crazy

    It would als be good if there was a tactical retreat that carried over to the campaign map that let you choose the direction that you retreat to. This would be for a situation where you have not lost too many men but can see you have been caught with your pants down and need to withdraw and regroup. It could even work like the night attack trait for generals, which would mean not all generals could use this tactic.
  • HrafnHrafn Posts: 305Registered Users
    gisgo1909 said:

    I call BS on longer battles allowing "more complicated maneuvers". If every unit takes five minutes to get off the field then most of the battle is spend standing still and wearing the enemy down, so maneuvering will if at all only take place in short bursts before everything is frozen again. Must be all the American Football fans pushing for this.

    Play Rome Total Realism. The first major battle that game offers you is Rome vs Epirus and that one can last up to 40 minutes just because every single fight is drawn out like chewing gum and surrounding the enemy does close to nothing. Honestly, surround Pyrrhus elite pikemen units and you will spend 20 minutes to get them off the field. O yeah, you can also charge them frontally BTW since they won't kill much of your men either.

    If you make the flanking moral penalty bigger and the rear flanking penalty devastating, the problem of waiting around for units to leave the field goes away. We want direct combat length to increase so we can make more maneuvers but once a decisive maneuver has happened, that portion of the line should break fairly quickly in most circumstances.

    ma7moud_al_sharif: Again you're looking at it wrong. Things like ambushes and flanking should be devastating. We don't want combat to last longer in those situations. Only frontal combat. In Attila for example, by the time I've even set all my orders and move over to check my flanking cav, the infantry lines are already breaking in most situations. There is no time to maneuver and the battle was essentially decided by composition alone. If the infantry lines held up to frontal combat, you could use maneuvers to affect the battle and overcome an army with much better infantry (as an example).

    LestaT: I agree. Units being able to move backwards while facing the enemy is long overdue and would add a wealth of possibilities to battles.

    Fredrin: I don't understand why people complain about unit replenishment so much when even a short turn time in most TW games is months if not a year or more and heavy losses take several turns to fully replenish.

    And I have to agree with Commissar_G. The more armies the AI has the better IMO. In an early game of Rome 2, you crush 1 or 2 stacks and the AI is done. Later in the game (with good mods) they're able to absorb those losses and put up a fight. It's more rewarding when you actually win if the enemy puts up a good fight.
    Spot on the money with this post.

    Nobody wants the grindfests of Rome Total Realism, or as I knew it, Macedon Total Fanboyism.

    Increase engagement length like, 50% maybe. Make flanking and rear attacks more devastating. Increase bonuses for superior terrain/positioning.
Sign In or Register to comment.