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

The Steel & Statecraft Update Patch Notes

2»

Comments

  • walterkanewalterkane Senior Member Posts: 449Registered Users
    you are being ridiculously specific, especially considering how sparsely sourced this period is. You accept that there were ambushes right before the era of this game, and right after, but you think the tactic just magically went away for 100 years? Regardless here is more examples of ambushes

    from anglo saxon chronicle
    "He picked out the most active, explored the
    country round about, and observed, in the way by which the enemy was expected, a valley encompassed
    by hills of moderate height. In that place he drew up his untried troops, himself acting as their general. And now a formidable host of foes drew near, visible, as they approached, to his men lying in ambush..."

    or stamford bridge
    "The Norwegians were caught off guard and all those camped at Stamford Bridge were killed...only knew of King Harold’s location when they saw them rushing towards their camp"

    You can't argue that there weren't ambushes during this period. There's ambushes now and modern armies have GPS, satelites, air recon, thermal/night vision etc. Back then, the fog of war was even more severe. Now if you think that the ambush mechanic needs reworking than we can have a discussion.
  • toskyruntoskyrun Junior Member Posts: 84Registered Users

    toskyrun said:

    tak22 said:

    toskyrun said:

    I tried a few rounds with Mercia and I can say that now the game is almost a great game.
    the added maps are fantastic! huge!
    even the work on AI is well done, and all the implementations described are fine.

    two things are missing for me, and then I'll be quiet forever: :D

    1) ambushes: how is it possible, for the love of God, that in a game set in the darkest and most stinking period in the history of man there are no ambushes? in a land full of forests and evil intent! I'm not the only one to ask for it, and it's a technology that you've already implemented successfully. this will remain one of the great mysteries in the history of total war.

    2) space-time: here guys the game is really broken: it is not possible that the armies, to go from Bebbamburg to London should be 3-4 years. is absurd. if it would not have been possible to make the armies march faster, then it would have been better and more credible as in napoleon: 3 turns per season.
    everything would have been much more credible and harder (a winter of three shifts, with famine and attrition ... better to look for peace.)

    it's my thought, but I hope that sooner or later you do it before the modders do...
    good job guys :#

    1. Ambushes were meh. Don't miss them, personally.
    2. Every TW game ever. Don't know why people are complaining on this game, but not any of the others?
    1) whether you like them or not, ambushes MUST be part of a game if this game claims to be historically faithful if not historically accurate. we speak of an historical period where it was fought mainly in this way, and the field battles were few in comparison.

    2) you're right, in every single episode. but here we went further: the feeling of trampling a GIANT england where it takes six months to go from one village to another, not even set in Siberia. it's too much, you feel it playing, unlike the other games.
    Eh, name three battles from that period in Britain that were TW style ambushes.

    You don't need to bothering some kind of historian to know that at that time, in that given region most of the clashes were border battles, raids, revenge ... and ambushes.
    The scots, the Welshs and the gaels in particular had no conventional armies.
    however, if we want to be precise, I don't think that in Anglo-Saxon England there were as many catapults or siege towers as in TOB …

    as I suggested in another post, it would have been nice to have ambushes perhaps for armies inferior to 10 units, or for armies for most of light infantry and skirmishers. perhaps, with a special trait of the general, the ambush mode is activated (as well as the night battles). would have added more depth to the game.

    PS
    (if your concern is why the ambushes if historically there weren't, my concern is why NO naval battles in 3K if there were, but this is another story)
  • toskyruntoskyrun Junior Member Posts: 84Registered Users
    edited December 2018

    toskyrun said:

    tak22 said:

    toskyrun said:

    I tried a few rounds with Mercia and I can say that now the game is almost a great game.
    the added maps are fantastic! huge!
    even the work on AI is well done, and all the implementations described are fine.

    two things are missing for me, and then I'll be quiet forever: :D

    1) ambushes: how is it possible, for the love of God, that in a game set in the darkest and most stinking period in the history of man there are no ambushes? in a land full of forests and evil intent! I'm not the only one to ask for it, and it's a technology that you've already implemented successfully. this will remain one of the great mysteries in the history of total war.

    2) space-time: here guys the game is really broken: it is not possible that the armies, to go from Bebbamburg to London should be 3-4 years. is absurd. if it would not have been possible to make the armies march faster, then it would have been better and more credible as in napoleon: 3 turns per season.
    everything would have been much more credible and harder (a winter of three shifts, with famine and attrition ... better to look for peace.)

    it's my thought, but I hope that sooner or later you do it before the modders do...
    good job guys :#

    1. Ambushes were meh. Don't miss them, personally.
    2. Every TW game ever. Don't know why people are complaining on this game, but not any of the others?
    1) whether you like them or not, ambushes MUST be part of a game if this game claims to be historically faithful if not historically accurate. we speak of an historical period where it was fought mainly in this way, and the field battles were few in comparison.

    2) you're right, in every single episode. but here we went further: the feeling of trampling a GIANT england where it takes six months to go from one village to another, not even set in Siberia. it's too much, you feel it playing, unlike the other games.
    Eh, name three battles from that period in Britain that were TW style ambushes.
    You don't need to bothering historians to know that at that time, in that given region most of the clashes were border battles, raids, revenge ... and ambushes.
    The scots, the Welshs and the gaels in particular had no conventional armies.
    however, if we want to be precise, I don't think that in Anglo-Saxon England there were as many catapults or siege towers as in TOB …

    as I suggested in another post, it would have been nice to have ambushes perhaps for armies inferior to 10 units, or for armies for most of light infantry and skirmishers. perhaps, with a special trait of the general, the ambush mode is activated (as well as the night battles). would have added more depth to the game.

    PS
    (if your concern is why the ambushes if historically there weren't, my concern is why NO naval battles in 3K if there were, but this is another story...)
    Post edited by toskyrun on
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,117Registered Users

    you are being ridiculously specific, especially considering how sparsely sourced this period is. You accept that there were ambushes right before the era of this game, and right after, but you think the tactic just magically went away for 100 years? Regardless here is more examples of ambushes

    from anglo saxon chronicle
    "He picked out the most active, explored the
    country round about, and observed, in the way by which the enemy was expected, a valley encompassed
    by hills of moderate height. In that place he drew up his untried troops, himself acting as their general. And now a formidable host of foes drew near, visible, as they approached, to his men lying in ambush..."

    or stamford bridge
    "The Norwegians were caught off guard and all those camped at Stamford Bridge were killed...only knew of King Harold’s location when they saw them rushing towards their camp"

    You can't argue that there weren't ambushes during this period. There's ambushes now and modern armies have GPS, satelites, air recon, thermal/night vision etc. Back then, the fog of war was even more severe. Now if you think that the ambush mechanic needs reworking than we can have a discussion.


    "He picked out the most active, explored the
    country round about, and observed, in the way by which the enemy was expected, a valley encompassed
    by hills of moderate height. In that place he drew up his untried troops, himself acting as their general. And now a formidable host of foes drew near, visible, as they approached, to his men lying in ambush..."


    This is a Christian version of history and happened only 10 years after the Romans left Britain.

    You can't argue that there weren't ambushes during this period. There's ambushes now and modern armies have GPS, satelites, air recon, thermal/night vision etc. Back then, the fog of war was even more severe. Now if you think that the ambush mechanic needs reworking than we can have a discussion.


    You can. An ambush in the TW sense means that troops hide and await contact with the enemy. It's a different matter to catching an unprepared section of an army off guard.
  • slapnut1207slapnut1207 Posts: 674Registered Users
    edited December 2018

    you are being ridiculously specific, especially considering how sparsely sourced this period is. You accept that there were ambushes right before the era of this game, and right after, but you think the tactic just magically went away for 100 years? Regardless here is more examples of ambushes

    from anglo saxon chronicle
    "He picked out the most active, explored the
    country round about, and observed, in the way by which the enemy was expected, a valley encompassed
    by hills of moderate height. In that place he drew up his untried troops, himself acting as their general. And now a formidable host of foes drew near, visible, as they approached, to his men lying in ambush..."

    or stamford bridge
    "The Norwegians were caught off guard and all those camped at Stamford Bridge were killed...only knew of King Harold’s location when they saw them rushing towards their camp"

    You can't argue that there weren't ambushes during this period. There's ambushes now and modern armies have GPS, satelites, air recon, thermal/night vision etc. Back then, the fog of war was even more severe. Now if you think that the ambush mechanic needs reworking than we can have a discussion.


    "He picked out the most active, explored the
    country round about, and observed, in the way by which the enemy was expected, a valley encompassed
    by hills of moderate height. In that place he drew up his untried troops, himself acting as their general. And now a formidable host of foes drew near, visible, as they approached, to his men lying in ambush..."


    This is a Christian version of history and happened only 10 years after the Romans left Britain.

    You can't argue that there weren't ambushes during this period. There's ambushes now and modern armies have GPS, satelites, air recon, thermal/night vision etc. Back then, the fog of war was even more severe. Now if you think that the ambush mechanic needs reworking than we can have a discussion.


    You can. An ambush in the TW sense means that troops hide and await contact with the enemy. It's a different matter to catching an unprepared section of an army off guard.
    You do realize that most European Histories are written by Christian Europeans? In total war games, we should be allowed to change history and do whatever is possible within the confines of the game. Ambush battles should be one of those.
    In Hoc Signo Vinces

  • walterkanewalterkane Senior Member Posts: 449Registered Users

    you are being ridiculously specific, especially considering how sparsely sourced this period is. You accept that there were ambushes right before the era of this game, and right after, but you think the tactic just magically went away for 100 years? Regardless here is more examples of ambushes

    from anglo saxon chronicle
    "He picked out the most active, explored the
    country round about, and observed, in the way by which the enemy was expected, a valley encompassed
    by hills of moderate height. In that place he drew up his untried troops, himself acting as their general. And now a formidable host of foes drew near, visible, as they approached, to his men lying in ambush..."

    or stamford bridge
    "The Norwegians were caught off guard and all those camped at Stamford Bridge were killed...only knew of King Harold’s location when they saw them rushing towards their camp"

    You can't argue that there weren't ambushes during this period. There's ambushes now and modern armies have GPS, satelites, air recon, thermal/night vision etc. Back then, the fog of war was even more severe. Now if you think that the ambush mechanic needs reworking than we can have a discussion.


    "He picked out the most active, explored the
    country round about, and observed, in the way by which the enemy was expected, a valley encompassed
    by hills of moderate height. In that place he drew up his untried troops, himself acting as their general. And now a formidable host of foes drew near, visible, as they approached, to his men lying in ambush..."


    This is a Christian version of history and happened only 10 years after the Romans left Britain.

    You can't argue that there weren't ambushes during this period. There's ambushes now and modern armies have GPS, satelites, air recon, thermal/night vision etc. Back then, the fog of war was even more severe. Now if you think that the ambush mechanic needs reworking than we can have a discussion.


    You can. An ambush in the TW sense means that troops hide and await contact with the enemy. It's a different matter to catching an unprepared section of an army off guard.
    The first quote from the Anglo Saxon chronicle I posted is an army laying in ambush as an enemy force approaches
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,680Registered Users
    edited December 2018

    you are being ridiculously specific, especially considering how sparsely sourced this period is. You accept that there were ambushes right before the era of this game, and right after, but you think the tactic just magically went away for 100 years? Regardless here is more examples of ambushes

    from anglo saxon chronicle
    "He picked out the most active, explored the
    country round about, and observed, in the way by which the enemy was expected, a valley encompassed
    by hills of moderate height. In that place he drew up his untried troops, himself acting as their general. And now a formidable host of foes drew near, visible, as they approached, to his men lying in ambush..."

    or stamford bridge
    "The Norwegians were caught off guard and all those camped at Stamford Bridge were killed...only knew of King Harold’s location when they saw them rushing towards their camp"

    You can't argue that there weren't ambushes during this period. There's ambushes now and modern armies have GPS, satelites, air recon, thermal/night vision etc. Back then, the fog of war was even more severe. Now if you think that the ambush mechanic needs reworking than we can have a discussion.


    "He picked out the most active, explored the
    country round about, and observed, in the way by which the enemy was expected, a valley encompassed
    by hills of moderate height. In that place he drew up his untried troops, himself acting as their general. And now a formidable host of foes drew near, visible, as they approached, to his men lying in ambush..."


    This is a Christian version of history and happened only 10 years after the Romans left Britain.

    You can't argue that there weren't ambushes during this period. There's ambushes now and modern armies have GPS, satelites, air recon, thermal/night vision etc. Back then, the fog of war was even more severe. Now if you think that the ambush mechanic needs reworking than we can have a discussion.


    You can. An ambush in the TW sense means that troops hide and await contact with the enemy. It's a different matter to catching an unprepared section of an army off guard.
    The first quote from the Anglo Saxon chronicle I posted is an army laying in ambush as an enemy force approaches
    No, it's them luring an army into concealed troops during a battle with a feigned retreat, something you can already do in ToB.

    No, I don't want the old TW ambushes back, they're an obsolete mechanic by now and it makes no sense that you can hide an entire army that easily. Sorry, but even back then armies had scouting parties and the reason Teutoburg Forest could happen as it did is because those very scouting forces of the Roman army turned traitor. A feat obviously not easy to be replicated.

    In Warhammer it makes sense because certain factions have magical or racial means of hiding themselves, but history TW should step forward and change it up.


  • KingsGuardofArchersKingsGuardofArchers Posts: 33Registered Users



    No, I don't want the old TW ambushes back, they're an obsolete mechanic by now and it makes no sense that you can hide an entire army that easily. Sorry, but even back then armies had scouting parties and the reason Teutoburg Forest could happen as it did is because those very scouting forces of the Roman army turned traitor. A feat obviously not easy to be replicated.

    In Warhammer it makes sense because certain factions have magical or racial means of hiding themselves, but history TW should step forward and change it up.

    Again, you're entirely discounting ambushes on a smaller scale. Total War battles encompass entire armies, but they also encompass engagements of much smaller scale than that, of a couple of hundred for example. Currently if I see a small enemy force of a few units making its way towards a certain target settlement I cannot lie in wait and surprise that force; I can only attack it directly and then try and pull something off on the battlefield (which is incredibly hard with a human opponent as they can see your army list on the loading screen so they know what units to expect and therefore will be able to tell if any are hiding). But more to the point, if that small force is aware of my troops they simply won't advance to meet them.

    Therefore, I as the player have had my options limited because it's much harder to feign weakness where you are in fact strong.

    Secondly, the notion that any army with scouts is utterly immune to ambush and that it is simply inconceivable is pure poppycock I'm afraid. While it is not common for full-scale ambushes in the TW fashion to be pulled off, there is no period in history where they are beyond plausibility.

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,680Registered Users



    No, I don't want the old TW ambushes back, they're an obsolete mechanic by now and it makes no sense that you can hide an entire army that easily. Sorry, but even back then armies had scouting parties and the reason Teutoburg Forest could happen as it did is because those very scouting forces of the Roman army turned traitor. A feat obviously not easy to be replicated.

    In Warhammer it makes sense because certain factions have magical or racial means of hiding themselves, but history TW should step forward and change it up.

    Again, you're entirely discounting ambushes on a smaller scale. Total War battles encompass entire armies, but they also encompass engagements of much smaller scale than that, of a couple of hundred for example. Currently if I see a small enemy force of a few units making its way towards a certain target settlement I cannot lie in wait and surprise that force; I can only attack it directly and then try and pull something off on the battlefield (which is incredibly hard with a human opponent as they can see your army list on the loading screen so they know what units to expect and therefore will be able to tell if any are hiding). But more to the point, if that small force is aware of my troops they simply won't advance to meet them.

    Therefore, I as the player have had my options limited because it's much harder to feign weakness where you are in fact strong.

    Secondly, the notion that any army with scouts is utterly immune to ambush and that it is simply inconceivable is pure poppycock I'm afraid. While it is not common for full-scale ambushes in the TW fashion to be pulled off, there is no period in history where they are beyond plausibility.

    Raiding stance.

  • KingsGuardofArchersKingsGuardofArchers Posts: 33Registered Users



    No, I don't want the old TW ambushes back, they're an obsolete mechanic by now and it makes no sense that you can hide an entire army that easily. Sorry, but even back then armies had scouting parties and the reason Teutoburg Forest could happen as it did is because those very scouting forces of the Roman army turned traitor. A feat obviously not easy to be replicated.

    In Warhammer it makes sense because certain factions have magical or racial means of hiding themselves, but history TW should step forward and change it up.

    Again, you're entirely discounting ambushes on a smaller scale. Total War battles encompass entire armies, but they also encompass engagements of much smaller scale than that, of a couple of hundred for example. Currently if I see a small enemy force of a few units making its way towards a certain target settlement I cannot lie in wait and surprise that force; I can only attack it directly and then try and pull something off on the battlefield (which is incredibly hard with a human opponent as they can see your army list on the loading screen so they know what units to expect and therefore will be able to tell if any are hiding). But more to the point, if that small force is aware of my troops they simply won't advance to meet them.

    Therefore, I as the player have had my options limited because it's much harder to feign weakness where you are in fact strong.

    Secondly, the notion that any army with scouts is utterly immune to ambush and that it is simply inconceivable is pure poppycock I'm afraid. While it is not common for full-scale ambushes in the TW fashion to be pulled off, there is no period in history where they are beyond plausibility.

    Raiding stance.
    How is raiding stance relevant? Raiding is not synonymous with, or even comparable to, engagement. If you raid a farm, no engagement occurs unless opposing troops are present. The opposing troops are represented by....actual troops.

    Raiding stance represents raiding the land, nothing more.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,680Registered Users



    No, I don't want the old TW ambushes back, they're an obsolete mechanic by now and it makes no sense that you can hide an entire army that easily. Sorry, but even back then armies had scouting parties and the reason Teutoburg Forest could happen as it did is because those very scouting forces of the Roman army turned traitor. A feat obviously not easy to be replicated.

    In Warhammer it makes sense because certain factions have magical or racial means of hiding themselves, but history TW should step forward and change it up.

    Again, you're entirely discounting ambushes on a smaller scale. Total War battles encompass entire armies, but they also encompass engagements of much smaller scale than that, of a couple of hundred for example. Currently if I see a small enemy force of a few units making its way towards a certain target settlement I cannot lie in wait and surprise that force; I can only attack it directly and then try and pull something off on the battlefield (which is incredibly hard with a human opponent as they can see your army list on the loading screen so they know what units to expect and therefore will be able to tell if any are hiding). But more to the point, if that small force is aware of my troops they simply won't advance to meet them.

    Therefore, I as the player have had my options limited because it's much harder to feign weakness where you are in fact strong.

    Secondly, the notion that any army with scouts is utterly immune to ambush and that it is simply inconceivable is pure poppycock I'm afraid. While it is not common for full-scale ambushes in the TW fashion to be pulled off, there is no period in history where they are beyond plausibility.

    Raiding stance.
    How is raiding stance relevant? Raiding is not synonymous with, or even comparable to, engagement. If you raid a farm, no engagement occurs unless opposing troops are present. The opposing troops are represented by....actual troops.

    Raiding stance represents raiding the land, nothing more.
    You are talking about small skirmishes. Those are for raiding.

    Major ambushes between full armies should not be a thing in the old TW form. They were stupid and immersion breaking by being always the most unlikely scenario. Again, Teutoburg Forest had special conditions that most ambushes won't meed.

    So I'm utterly against it making a comeback without getting a major overhaul first.

  • warhammerwarlordwarhammerwarlord Posts: 165Registered Users
    It's better after the update, but still.. it's not a great game..yet.

    I would like to see:
    • Better campaign and battle AI, now it's just too silly and too easily fooled (please go and learn from Warhammer team)
    • Campaign map balance is lacking, its either too easy or impossible
    • Better sieges, now they are just broken (like totally broken)
    • More balanced auto-resolve, now I can just auto-resolve everything even if I would lose the battle in manual mode
    • Something interesting like great warriors emerging from battles, and agents being available like spies, merchants, assasins etc.
    • Building your own fort maybe?
    • More random events
  • KingsGuardofArchersKingsGuardofArchers Posts: 33Registered Users



    No, I don't want the old TW ambushes back, they're an obsolete mechanic by now and it makes no sense that you can hide an entire army that easily. Sorry, but even back then armies had scouting parties and the reason Teutoburg Forest could happen as it did is because those very scouting forces of the Roman army turned traitor. A feat obviously not easy to be replicated.

    In Warhammer it makes sense because certain factions have magical or racial means of hiding themselves, but history TW should step forward and change it up.

    Again, you're entirely discounting ambushes on a smaller scale. Total War battles encompass entire armies, but they also encompass engagements of much smaller scale than that, of a couple of hundred for example. Currently if I see a small enemy force of a few units making its way towards a certain target settlement I cannot lie in wait and surprise that force; I can only attack it directly and then try and pull something off on the battlefield (which is incredibly hard with a human opponent as they can see your army list on the loading screen so they know what units to expect and therefore will be able to tell if any are hiding). But more to the point, if that small force is aware of my troops they simply won't advance to meet them.

    Therefore, I as the player have had my options limited because it's much harder to feign weakness where you are in fact strong.

    Secondly, the notion that any army with scouts is utterly immune to ambush and that it is simply inconceivable is pure poppycock I'm afraid. While it is not common for full-scale ambushes in the TW fashion to be pulled off, there is no period in history where they are beyond plausibility.

    Raiding stance.
    How is raiding stance relevant? Raiding is not synonymous with, or even comparable to, engagement. If you raid a farm, no engagement occurs unless opposing troops are present. The opposing troops are represented by....actual troops.

    Raiding stance represents raiding the land, nothing more.
    You are talking about small skirmishes. Those are for raiding.

    Major ambushes between full armies should not be a thing in the old TW form. They were stupid and immersion breaking by being always the most unlikely scenario. Again, Teutoburg Forest had special conditions that most ambushes won't meed.

    So I'm utterly against it making a comeback without getting a major overhaul first.

    My main point is that every engagement that occurs in the game occurs on the battlemap, not on the campaign map. If an ambush occurs between a raiding force and an opposing force, then that is simply a small battle in a skirmish context.

    You may however be right in saying that something of an overhaul would be necessary to reflect the fact that most ambushes are, as you say, not Trasimene or Teutoburg style.

    I have to say that I think as long as such things are plausible in the context then they should be allowed, though.
  • warhammerwarlordwarhammerwarlord Posts: 165Registered Users
    I just figured out a way how to easily fix sieges - make AI attack from 2 - 3 sides.

    It's brilliant because battle maps are HUGE .. it just makes perfect sense to do so and it's minimal development time to do so..at least as a first step.
  • walterkanewalterkane Senior Member Posts: 449Registered Users
    "No, it's them luring an army into concealed troops during a battle with a feigned retreat, something you can already do in ToB."

    Read the quote again, they put themselves on a route the enemy was expected, layed in ambush for them to arrive. Where does it say anything about feigning retreat?
    For real, the fog of war is a real thing. There were times in history where armies looking for each other marched passed one another. Even today with our advanced scouting capability (GPS, satellite imagery, aerial reconnaissance, high powered thermal and night vision optics), conduct a hasty ambush is still one of the basic battle drills taught to US infantrymen.
  • TheBraveKnightTheBraveKnight Senior Member Posts: 1,657Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    Love this new update! Glad to see the continued support for this game
    Current Top 3 Total War List

    1) Thrones of Britannia - Art style, soundtrack, aging portraits, sieges, politics, and trait system!
    (Prob 3 Kingdoms after I invest more hours. Awesome awesome game!)

    2) Warhammer 2 - Eye of the Vortex

    3) Shogun 2

    Honorable mentions - Medieval 1

  • Total_War_VeteranTotal_War_Veteran Posts: 446Registered Users
    Is there any way to offset the easiness of recruiting elites ? Elites should be limited and rare hence they were called elites. Can population system be included and tied as a resource for recruitment ? That way, it will create a dilemma whether to better using those precious population / manpower for peasant or elite unit. So even if elite units can be easier to get, the limitation of available manpower / population will balance it recruitment therefore avoiding spamming elites.
    Full support for CA and CA_Ella
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,680Registered Users

    Is there any way to offset the easiness of recruiting elites ? Elites should be limited and rare hence they were called elites. Can population system be included and tied as a resource for recruitment ? That way, it will create a dilemma whether to better using those precious population / manpower for peasant or elite unit. So even if elite units can be easier to get, the limitation of available manpower / population will balance it recruitment therefore avoiding spamming elites.

    Elites are limited.

  • FornachiariFornachiari Junior Member Posts: 30Registered Users
    I think ambush battles do not work. Actually, AI almost never uses them against oneself. Finally, it is a trick that the player uses against the AI.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,680Registered Users
    The problem is that it is a pure AI cheesing tool. The player can see when the AI enters ambush stance and so avoid the spot where the army is obviously hidden.

    The AI however will not.

  • toskyruntoskyrun Junior Member Posts: 84Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    an applause for the traits stuff: at first I thought it was just an aesthetic thing, and maybe it is still ... but it is very nice and cool to see characters grow and direct them to a personality. maybe too many go crazy for no reason ...

    a beautiful job guys congratulations
  • HischHisch Posts: 6Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    This update is amazing, I have been playing so much ever since it came out. Thank you!
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users
    toskyrun said:

    an applause for the traits stuff: at first I thought it was just an aesthetic thing, and maybe it is still ... but it is very nice and cool to see characters grow and direct them to a personality. maybe too many go crazy for no reason ...

    a beautiful job guys congratulations

    Yeah, I love the expanded traits.
  • sunshinetroopersunshinetrooper Posts: 68Registered Users
    toskyrun said:

    I tried a few rounds with Mercia and I can say that now the game is almost a great game.
    the added maps are fantastic! huge!
    even the work on AI is well done, and all the implementations described are fine.

    two things are missing for me, and then I'll be quiet forever: :D

    1) ambushes: how is it possible, for the love of God, that in a game set in the darkest and most stinking period in the history of man there are no ambushes? in a land full of forests and evil intent! I'm not the only one to ask for it, and it's a technology that you've already implemented successfully. this will remain one of the great mysteries in the history of total war.

    CA made a post why the removed it, see the link. Basically, ambush battles accounted for only 0.05% of battles fought in campaign in Attila or 1 ambush battle for every 1750 battle.

  • sunshinetroopersunshinetrooper Posts: 68Registered Users
    I think the main thing that is missing, is the power cities should have both on the influence of the surrounding settlements and on attacking forces. Since sieges occur far fewer now, i'd greatly encourage CA to making a better sieging/besieging experience!
  • slapnut1207slapnut1207 Posts: 674Registered Users
    edited January 8

    toskyrun said:

    I tried a few rounds with Mercia and I can say that now the game is almost a great game.
    the added maps are fantastic! huge!
    even the work on AI is well done, and all the implementations described are fine.

    two things are missing for me, and then I'll be quiet forever: :D

    1) ambushes: how is it possible, for the love of God, that in a game set in the darkest and most stinking period in the history of man there are no ambushes? in a land full of forests and evil intent! I'm not the only one to ask for it, and it's a technology that you've already implemented successfully. this will remain one of the great mysteries in the history of total war.

    CA made a post why the removed it, see the link. Basically, ambush battles accounted for only 0.05% of battles fought in campaign in Attila or 1 ambush battle for every 1750 battle.

    Even though ambush battles were rare, I still liked it..... Hope they add it back since TOB feels limited in terms of gameplay.
    In Hoc Signo Vinces

  • sunshinetroopersunshinetrooper Posts: 68Registered Users
    Yeah but its pure cheese, you go into ambush mode and the AI doesn't know your army is there and walks straight into you as it thinks your settlement is empty. Then you get to surround em and just abuse the lack of morale they have and wipe em out. The mechanic was used to stop armies from running away from you constantly, always just at the edge of your movement points.

    If the ambush mechanic was implemented better, that would be nice. Currently the garrison chain acts like 'agents' in that they slow the advance of enemy troops, perhaps this chain (or another), should increase the rate of supply usage per turn or attrition to invading forces. Perhaps a mechanic, where you can deplete 25% of an army, or 25% manpower or recruitment power for a region, to have an event that allows you to ambush/hit and run invading forces and reduce their numbers? Combined with a garrison at a chokepoint, this could make for some interesting battles?
Sign In or Register to comment.