Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Macro vs. Micro

2twoto2twoto Posts: 39Registered Users
This may be a little late, but the recent discussion on arrow speed brought up an interesting idea I think should be expanded on: during that discussion, dodging is cited as a problem by the OP and many within the discussion, arguing that it makes infantry archers nearly useless against flying units, skirmish cav, and even most single entity models (i.e. a lord on foot/horse can fairly easily dodge mass archer fire by zig-zagging at the right times), requiring one to spend extra resources through magic or abilities in order to effectively punish/screen said units. On the other hand though, there were some who defended dodging, arguing that, though dodging might be a bit too strong at the moment, it was a display of skill by the one doing it (the claim is that it's a reasonable trade-off in that dodging makes it harder to control/pay attention to the rest of the army, thus skill and coordination is required to pull it off without the rest of the army suffering for it) and that removing dodging would be "dumbing down" the game. Now then, there were other arguments within the discussion, but for the most part they either supported or rejected (or tried to reconcile) one of these two arguments.

I think this discussion is a result of a deeper problem that, to my knowledge, has not been discussed or examined previously: is Total War: Warhammer supposed to be a macro-focused game or micro-focused game? Again, looking back at the discussion, it's easy to see that the divide along macro-focused and micro-focused lines: those arguing against dodging value resource expenditure and the reasons for bringing a particular unit (things that are macro-focused), whereas those arguing for dodging value the skill, coordination, and trade-off required to perform it (things that are micro focused).

However, as it stands the question is unanswerable: on the one hand, most spells have long cast times (ranging from 1-5 seconds), most units have reaction times that prevent an immediate response, and there are no hotkeys for abilities and spells. These (among many other) things would suggest a slower but more tactical/strategic form of game play, requiring planning and battlefield control to achieve victory. However, there are many things present that contradict this and suggest, instead, a micro-focused game: cycle charging is the most effective way of using cav, charriots, and most SME's (whereas leaving them in combat for the full duration of their charge bonus just subjects them to unnecessary damage), "force pathing" both exists and is sometimes outright required to get units to do what you ordered them to, dodging is a highly effective tactic for avoiding arrow/artillery fire, and charge defense only applies when the unit is not moving and charged from the front to name but a few, all these things implying that coordination, micromanagement, and speed are the key to victory. As such, the game doesn't have a clear distinction between the two, resulting in problems with game play (i.e. SEM being unusually strong due to cycle charging, dodging being ridiculous at times, charge defense being considered almost useless most of the time, kiting being the least fun thing to play against, etc).

TLDR: So the question I want to pose to the community here is simple: should Total War: Warhammer's balancing be based on micro-focused game play, macro-focused game play, or do you have an idea for reconciling both focuses? What should change to focus the game towards this focus?

For the heck of it, I'll give my opinion on this: I lean strongly towards macro focused game play: TW:W is the only RTS series I've done the multiplayer for because one can do very well without finger-breaking levels of micro (though I've done quite badly in most of the tournaments I've been in anyways). Furthermore, many of the problems with balance in the game seem to be based on micro (i.e. cycle charging SEM's), and I think the game would be more balanced if there were changes towards this end, like making it so that cav/dragons/other large entities can't do a 180 (or heck, even a 90) degree turn on a dime at max speed, making charge defense work better (i.e. having it still work while moving, having it apply to all sides of the unit while not moving, and/or have it automatically proc attacks on a charging unit if it has charge defense against that unit), and making it so that cycle charging foot lords doesn't render said lord useless. But again, these are just my thoughts: what are your opinions on this?
«1

Comments

  • Godefroy_de_BouillonGodefroy_de_Bouillon Posts: 1,915Registered Users
    edited January 16
    i fail to see what is macro game in TTW? In Sc this would include building your army, but since you are bringing your whole army right from the bat there is no macro gameplay for me ;)

    I think it is jut another thread like "why well microed cav is able to beat my 300g spearmen".
    Post edited by Godefroy_de_Bouillon on
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,775Registered Users
    I asked myself the same, I assumed he means deployment, army selection, formations, positioning, and manouvers, but already there we start to touch micro territory. I think we need to reward clicks because that is what separates us from autoresolve after deployment...
  • 2twoto2twoto Posts: 39Registered Users
    edited January 17
    @Disposable Hero @Godefroy_de_Bouillon Right, I guess this is my mistake: I seemed to have communicated the wrong idea about "macro." I'll give an example to demonstrate what, at least from my understanding, is macro gameplay:
    In this video, the Skaven use a macro playstyle: their ambush is planned out before hand, with two relatively cheap units being used to bait the enemy out while the rest of the army is grouped up, made stealthed via a spell, and then attack the enemy from behind (and though it doens't quite work out in the video, the idea is to eliminate the backline units immediately and get rear charges on the front line). Here, had the skaven won, it wouldn't have been because he had faster reaction/click times then the opponent or manipulated more units with more skill, but because he set up a trap and got his opponent to walk into it. In other words, victory would be a result of manipulating opponent positioning, out-maneuvering, and planning out his strategy (and the opponent not including sufficient scouting potential).

    Comparatively, this would be an example of micro strategy (Edit: start at 1:26:57, for some reason the time link isn't working):
    Here, the battle isn't decided by an overall plan, positioning, or out-maneuvering the opponent, but rather it ends up being decided by micro management: especially at the end of the battle, it is clear that it how the HE's micro the phoenix, dragon, and cav that ultimately decides the battle.

    Essentially, the difference isn't "micro rewards clicks and macro doesn't," but rather "Macro favors strategy and thoughtfulness over being fast, whereas micro rewards successfully micromanaging many different units as quickly as possible."
    Post edited by 2twoto on
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,930Registered Users


    "why well microed cav is able to beat my 300g spearmen".

    If only
    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Posts: 4,494Registered Users
    One of the ways in which this game is similar to TT is that the stats and abilities on units, plus the physics of how all that interacts, is very nuanced and a lot to learn. This is the sort of “macro” that TT rewards - analyzing the pros and cons of a decision in light of all the quantifiable factors including stat lines, spells and abilities, terrain, and facing.

    In many ways I think the most challenging micro in total war wh isn’t the difficulty of fitting in an extra cycle charge in the time allotted, but knowing exactly which engagement it is most important to cycle charge in.

    These are macro decisions, but the fast pace of the game places a premium on knowing the units, armies, matchup, stats, and physics really well before the match even starts. I think the game is information rich like TT but that most people who own the game prefer to play it vs the pc with pauses or at a slower pace because it lets them access the depth of the macro strategy without “studying up” through extensive practice and pre-analysis.

    I enjoy the game in large part because you can study up and plan your strategy and army really thoughtfully in advance and at your leisure. That part is true to TT.

    I am less impressed that the game is too fast to readily take in new or unfamiliar information mid battle and use that to meaningfully adjust your strategy or preconceptions. The fast pace of the battles lets me play more of them but cheapens the experience a bit as well; unless the engagement is a highly practiced one you won’t execute the way you’d have chosen to in a slower game.

    I think they’d have a larger mp player base and a more satisfying game if they made it slower paced (but not slower arrows!) or at least had mp options to play games on slower speeds as the default. Faster speeds too if some people really think micro skill is where it’s at for them ;)

    If the game was slower by default then of course you’d want to apply a similar modifier to spell wind up times since dodging is still a part of the game, unavoidably.

  • OrkLadsOrkLads Posts: 1,455Registered Users
    edited January 16
    eumaies said:

    One of the ways in which this game is similar to TT is that the stats and abilities on units, plus the physics of how all that interacts, is very nuanced and a lot to learn. This is the sort of “macro” that TT rewards - analyzing the pros and cons of a decision in light of all the quantifiable factors including stat lines, spells and abilities, terrain, and facing.

    In many ways I think the most challenging micro in total war wh isn’t the difficulty of fitting in an extra cycle charge in the time allotted, but knowing exactly which engagement it is most important to cycle charge in.

    These are macro decisions, but the fast pace of the game places a premium on knowing the units, armies, matchup, stats, and physics really well before the match even starts. I think the game is information rich like TT but that most people who own the game prefer to play it vs the pc with pauses or at a slower pace because it lets them access the depth of the macro strategy without “studying up” through extensive practice and pre-analysis.

    I enjoy the game in large part because you can study up and plan your strategy and army really thoughtfully in advance and at your leisure. That part is true to TT.

    I am less impressed that the game is too fast to readily take in new or unfamiliar information mid battle and use that to meaningfully adjust your strategy or preconceptions. The fast pace of the battles lets me play more of them but cheapens the experience a bit as well; unless the engagement is a highly practiced one you won’t execute the way you’d have chosen to in a slower game.

    I think they’d have a larger mp player base and a more satisfying game if they made it slower paced (but not slower arrows!) or at least had mp options to play games on slower speeds as the default. Faster speeds too if some people really think micro skill is where it’s at for them ;)

    If the game was slower by default then of course you’d want to apply a similar modifier to spell wind up times since dodging is still a part of the game, unavoidably.

    Interesting point about the speed.

    What about each player having access to a 30 sec slowdown that they could use at anytime in the match? The game would be dropped to the slower speed for 30 liah seconds allowing them to do a quick battle overview, collect themselves, restrategise.

    I say this because at many points (before armies engage) I don't really want the game to be going slowly. Its once the whole thing has descended into chaos that you need the extra tine
  • PocmanPocman Posts: 2,382Registered Users
    There is no micro in TW outside of the army selection screen.

    Everything else is just micro and micromicro.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,775Registered Users
    I don't know about others, but even in the most micro intensive games I don't find that the actualy clicking units, issuing orders is the problem. The problem is information overflow, filtering what's most important and making the right decisions. That's where I fail. In the clicking department I don't feel too stressed tbh.

    Ps. There are hotkeys for spells if you wish to use them, but not items.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,902Registered Users
    2twoto said:

    @Disposable Hero @Godefroy_de_Bouillon Right, I guess this is my mistake: I seemed to have communicated the wrong idea about "macro." I'll give an example to demonstrate what, at least from my understanding, is macro gameplay:
    In this video, the Skaven use a macro playstyle: their ambush is planned out before hand, with two relatively cheap units being used to bait the enemy out while the rest of the army is grouped up, made stealthed via a spell, and then attack the enemy from behind (and though it doens't quite work out in the video, the idea is to eliminate the backline units immediately and get rear charges on the front line). Here, had the skaven won, it wouldn't have been because he had faster reaction/click times then the opponent or manipulated more units with more skill, but because he set up a trap and got his opponent to walk into it. In other words, victory would be a result of manipulating opponent positioning, out-maneuvering, and planning out his strategy (and the opponent not including sufficient scouting potential).

    Comparatively, this would be an example of micro strategy:
    Here, the battle isn't decided by an overall plan, positioning, or out-maneuvering the opponent, but rather it ends up being decided by micro management: especially at the end of the battle, it is clear that it how the HE's micro the phoenix, dragon, and cav that ultimately decides the battle.

    Essentially, the difference isn't "micro rewards clicks and macro doesn't," but rather "Macro favors strategy and thoughtfulness over being fast, whereas micro rewards successfully micromanaging many different units as quickly as possible."

    Skaven Guessed wrong and picked the wrong army type for what the opponent took, skaven were stacked with units that can deal well with knights and it turned out the opponent had mostly infantry...source...i was the skaven player, the skaven should not auto win just because they got an ambush, they should be at an advantage because of a good ambush which the skaven was, the bretonnian player just ended up playing better with a well suited army and he won.

    In tourins tourney the first round opponent did not have good army composition at all hence he got exploited badly thats his own fault for having no ranged units or warmachines and only having, infantry, the GS v DE game could have been closer if GS did not lose his only cav due to risky deployment, its why the games vs Czeremis were all really close because he had more round army that was prepared to deal with any potential threat the opponent could bring.

    Back to the skaven v bret, as a skaven i had no idea what was coming i read so many stupid comments on youtube saying skaven should have left troops at the front to pincer the bret....well yeah no **** too bad skaven had no idea that the bret would bring all infantry and this would be possible, if skaven did that and bret took all cav than the army at the front would have been totally wiped out and skaven would of lost before any fighting was done.



    Also this game is no even remotely micro intensive, there is a ceiling here that once you reach it micro wise you cannot improve on it and its rather low, perhaps it can expend a bit higher depending on the factions and how many units you bring in your roster but in general if you're incapable of dodging cannons with a flying mage or lord its just the players fault and its a get good situation, like wise in army selection, i see so many people QQ about cheese because they cannot deal with a playstyle and taking quick look at their army comp clearly shows its their own fault for buidling a crappy army rather than calling everything they cannot win against cheese. (dont get me wrong i'm in favour of more restricions but a well made balanced build can take on any style and have competitive game, if it cant than its not a well made build).
  • ystyst Posts: 6,189Registered Users
    Army selection r easily 80%, micros the other 20%. No amount of micro gonna win u 19 chaff vs couple of dragons
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
    Unit stats compare courtesy of Seal62 https://total-war-unit-compare.herokuapp.com/
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,902Registered Users
    yst said:

    Army selection r easily 80%, micros the other 20%. No amount of micro gonna win u 19 chaff vs couple of dragons

    that doesn't make it 80% that just means don't be an idiot and expect to win with an army thats designed to loose, but i do think army selection is important it always has been, where micro comes into play is when both players make good selections and its up to their play to determine the winner.

    So i think army selection can range from 0% impact to 99% impact on the win.
  • PocmanPocman Posts: 2,382Registered Users
    I do think however that army selection is a bit less important in WH2 than in WH1. Generally better balance, plus less specialization, means more viable builds.

    In WH1 certain infantry units thad ap ratios of 15% and the like, making them completely and utterly useless against armor.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    I think that one of the big issues with the MP is counterpicking, which itself derives from the ability to see what your enemy is bringing.

    This pretty much encourages spam builds and Rock-Paper-Scissors gameplay, since the players are given all the information they need to tailor their army around counters instead of any plan or tactic.

    And yes, the rather cancerous dodge meta is micro based gameplay. TW should IMO focus on rewarding the Macro gameplay; it's a game about tactics, not a FPS. A number of things that are "good micro" essentially boil down to fast mechanical actions that require little to no thought.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,775Registered Users
    cool_lad said:


    A number of things that are "good micro" essentially boil down to fast mechanical actions that require little to no thought.

    I actually think the opposite of this. The difficulty at least for me and I assume other people too, is not making the click to change the direction of a dragon for example, but rather to have the awareness and split attention to actually observe that a volley is being fired at my dragon right now. Most of us mortals sometimes forget about units, miss a wind or vortex being cast etc... that's not because we don't have time to make the click, it's because we have our attention elsewhere.

  • Godefroy_de_BouillonGodefroy_de_Bouillon Posts: 1,915Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    I think that one of the big issues with the MP is counterpicking, which itself derives from the ability to see what your enemy is bringing.

    This pretty much encourages spam builds and Rock-Paper-Scissors gameplay, since the players are given all the information they need to tailor their army around counters instead of any plan or tactic.

    And yes, the rather cancerous dodge meta is micro based gameplay. TW should IMO focus on rewarding the Macro gameplay; it's a game about tactics, not a FPS. A number of things that are "good micro" essentially boil down to fast mechanical actions that require little to no thought.

    What a ****, every rts needs some micro involved or it will be boring. If you want a pure tactical game you should go play turn based games.

    I think that most ppl who want to just bring shooting boxes are advocating for that "macro" play. What is macro play? What is tactic i beg you? Clicking on spearmen to atatck cav when paused? Wow such a genius!!! Nothing compared to those spam clicking micro brainless peasants :D
  • ExarchExarch Posts: 575Registered Users

    cool_lad said:


    A number of things that are "good micro" essentially boil down to fast mechanical actions that require little to no thought.

    I actually think the opposite of this. The difficulty at least for me and I assume other people too, is not making the click to change the direction of a dragon for example, but rather to have the awareness and split attention to actually observe that a volley is being fired at my dragon right now. Most of us mortals sometimes forget about units, miss a wind or vortex being cast etc... that's not because we don't have time to make the click, it's because we have our attention elsewhere.

    I'd agree that 'fast micro' is more dependent on the wide awareness and snap judgement skills, rather than strict apm clicking ability, which is good.


    I think the 'macro'/'micro' balance is pretty good in this game overall. Build and overall strategy play a huge roll in the game, and you can

    While the slightly broken SE cycle charge mechanics reward fast micro, I think that players with good micro are just able to exploit an already creaky part of the game mechanics. I definitely have average micro at best, but I am still able to cycle a severely damaged boris and a handful of battered cav to clean up saurus and temple guard late game.

    It's definitely a balancing act though. With the MD changes in twwh2, I really like the pace of the game and the responsiveness of the units overall. This is the only TW game I've played in MP, but I've looked back at a couple of slower paced Rome 2 videos and it seemed like the slower pace and low unit variety lead to players finding OP synergies and unintended edge cases in the mechanics to win. In WH there is a lot more built in tools and variety, with a lot of interesting counterplay possible, and with the exception of late game cycle charging and the ease of arrow dodging it feels like it's in a pretty good place.
  • MarkroxMarkrox Posts: 176Registered Users
    To answer OP's question, Total War attempts to appeal to multiple audiences and so isn't really macro or micro focused.

    Totalwar feels like the middle ground between turn based and a classic RTS. Much slower pace so pretty much anyone can pick it up and do well. Got to remember loads of people play total war for a cinematic experience, might give one or two orders a minute with a shooting based composition - especially in the historical games.

    There is room for a lot of micro if you want to play that way, cycle charging multiple cav for instance, but knowing what factions and units are meta is worth 1000x more than having good micro, especially in WH2.
    “Politics is more dangerous than war, for in war you are only killed once.”
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,930Registered Users
    You have various units that perform their job at slow speed benefiting from slower sustain combat and then you have other units, abilities, spells that perform their job at blistering fast speed. The gap between the two is drastic and heavily biases towards the latter. Which means a crucial unit orientation can be null-n-void in less than 30 seconds in battles because everyone and their mother has high alpha damage options that "Defensive orientation" doesn't mean **** against.

    The games pacing is fine for the most part, it is this gap that needs to be smaller, to be re-balanced.

    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Posts: 920Registered Users
    Micro is always going to be important in warhammer, for picking correct engagements, repositioning units, etc. Where I take a bit more issue is when you are able to totally negate player's counter picks through micro.

    There are some situations where mobile, micro intense armies can completely negate units that are traditionally designed to counter pick them. Some example include:

    Consistently dodging missile fire with 360 degree units
    Consistently dodging with single entities
    Cycling down pikes that are not tied down by an infantry unit

    Good micro should allow you to mitigate a counter picks damage, but right now good micro allows players to nullify counters entirely, which IMO isnt super healthy.
  • 2twoto2twoto Posts: 39Registered Users
    Glad to see there's plenty of discussion on this thread :smile:

    @Lotus_Moon I've edited that comment to include where to start the video (again, the time link wasn't working for some reason) for the game I meant, that one being the Skaven vs HE one (ironically, both games ended up including you haha).

    As for the first game, though, I didn't mean to say/sound like I thought you should've auto-won that game: that game was just one of the most recent and clear examples of good macro game play I'd seen in a while (and for that matter, the ECL one was likewise for micro).

    Also, while I agree with you that this game is not nearly as micro intensive as other RTS games, I'd argue that it's still pretty high for anyone who hasn't played those types of games before, and likewise its effect on the outcome of a battle is a deciding factor. True, army selection has the biggest effect on outcome, but once in battle the biggest deciding factor is reaction speed and micromanaging key troops.

    Personally, I'd rather something like the execution of a plan, maneuvering the opponent into a bad position, or tactical decision making play a larger role in victory (an example of that last one: the question of "should my ranged be firing at Malekith on Serephon or the Har Geneth executioners" is one of these, as attacking Malekith would force the opponent to either keep him back initially or take a beating on his 3000gp lord, but weakening/killing powerful units like the executioners will allow the front line to hold out better/win: at the moment, however, this decision is generally moot because Maleketh can effectively dodge most most ranged fire while still controlling the rest of his troops efficiently if the opponent has above-average micro). It's not that I don't want micro at all in the game, but I'd rather it not be the deciding factor of a battle once it starts.

    Again, though, that's just my opinion (and I'm probably biased because my micro is generally sub-par so I have to use more macro-focused strategies to stand a chance win, which strategies can be negated by someone with better micro than myself).

    Also, what are yall's thoughts on this: should units moving at high speed be limited in how quickly they can stop/turn and in how much they can turn at speed?
  • ExarchExarch Posts: 575Registered Users
    2twoto said:

    Also, what are yall's thoughts on this: should units moving at high speed be limited in how quickly they can stop/turn and in how much they can turn at speed?

    A very tricky one- tactically I think they should be, but in practice I could see it feeling clunky and unresponsive.

    I suppose a good implementation would feel smooth, so that units would arc and reign in naturally rather than clumsily stop and recharge. I would like to feel some movement in this directions in 3k as it fits a historical title well.

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Posts: 4,494Registered Users
    I think making it harder to large units to turn at speed would be nice, and would give more reason to keep infantry in thicker blocks. Then it would actually matter more that someone got bogged down and couldn't make it all the way through your unit.

  • Green0Green0 Posts: 5,256Registered Users
    to me, no amount of bonuses could offset the disadvantage of thick boxes not allowing you to contest space as effectively, being good only on defensively-statted units such as spearmen and more importantly being super vulnerable to vortex/bombardment spells and artillery.

    I mean try to test vs AI how a Plagueclaw Catapult fares, it's decent already vs stretched formations, but OP as hell vs AI infantry blocks.
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,930Registered Users
    edited January 17
    I think deep formations is over rated. I get it that everyone is scared of the Rome2 noodle formations but what we have now is just as dumb and it doesn't even do the job.

    IMO Spears, skirmishers, etc. should be biased towards wide formations. Other units of other types should be biased towards deep formation, sure, but having a 6 columns deep formations of guns or spears and it being thought as a advantage in any situation other than a bottle neck is just dumb.

    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,902Registered Users
    2twoto said:

    Glad to see there's plenty of discussion on this thread :smile:

    @Lotus_Moon I've edited that comment to include where to start the video (again, the time link wasn't working for some reason) for the game I meant, that one being the Skaven vs HE one (ironically, both games ended up including you haha).

    As for the first game, though, I didn't mean to say/sound like I thought you should've auto-won that game: that game was just one of the most recent and clear examples of good macro game play I'd seen in a while (and for that matter, the ECL one was likewise for micro).

    Also, while I agree with you that this game is not nearly as micro intensive as other RTS games, I'd argue that it's still pretty high for anyone who hasn't played those types of games before, and likewise its effect on the outcome of a battle is a deciding factor. True, army selection has the biggest effect on outcome, but once in battle the biggest deciding factor is reaction speed and micromanaging key troops.

    Personally, I'd rather something like the execution of a plan, maneuvering the opponent into a bad position, or tactical decision making play a larger role in victory (an example of that last one: the question of "should my ranged be firing at Malekith on Serephon or the Har Geneth executioners" is one of these, as attacking Malekith would force the opponent to either keep him back initially or take a beating on his 3000gp lord, but weakening/killing powerful units like the executioners will allow the front line to hold out better/win: at the moment, however, this decision is generally moot because Maleketh can effectively dodge most most ranged fire while still controlling the rest of his troops efficiently if the opponent has above-average micro). It's not that I don't want micro at all in the game, but I'd rather it not be the deciding factor of a battle once it starts.

    Again, though, that's just my opinion (and I'm probably biased because my micro is generally sub-par so I have to use more macro-focused strategies to stand a chance win, which strategies can be negated by someone with better micro than myself).

    Also, what are yall's thoughts on this: should units moving at high speed be limited in how quickly they can stop/turn and in how much they can turn at speed?

    Thats a fair statement, but people can get better at the game and be able to micro better, or build armies that theya re capable of controlling well, there needs to be a micro skill level otherwise how can you have players that are better than others? you would end up with bunch of draws or game decided 100% based on army selection, i cannot imagine that be fun for anyone.

    What you described as your personal perferance takes decent micro to set up the only way micro can be eliminated here is to change this game into turn based game, which is totally out of the question.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Posts: 4,494Registered Users

    2twoto said:

    Glad to see there's plenty of discussion on this thread :smile:

    @Lotus_Moon I've edited that comment to include where to start the video (again, the time link wasn't working for some reason) for the game I meant, that one being the Skaven vs HE one (ironically, both games ended up including you haha).

    As for the first game, though, I didn't mean to say/sound like I thought you should've auto-won that game: that game was just one of the most recent and clear examples of good macro game play I'd seen in a while (and for that matter, the ECL one was likewise for micro).

    Also, while I agree with you that this game is not nearly as micro intensive as other RTS games, I'd argue that it's still pretty high for anyone who hasn't played those types of games before, and likewise its effect on the outcome of a battle is a deciding factor. True, army selection has the biggest effect on outcome, but once in battle the biggest deciding factor is reaction speed and micromanaging key troops.

    Personally, I'd rather something like the execution of a plan, maneuvering the opponent into a bad position, or tactical decision making play a larger role in victory (an example of that last one: the question of "should my ranged be firing at Malekith on Serephon or the Har Geneth executioners" is one of these, as attacking Malekith would force the opponent to either keep him back initially or take a beating on his 3000gp lord, but weakening/killing powerful units like the executioners will allow the front line to hold out better/win: at the moment, however, this decision is generally moot because Maleketh can effectively dodge most most ranged fire while still controlling the rest of his troops efficiently if the opponent has above-average micro). It's not that I don't want micro at all in the game, but I'd rather it not be the deciding factor of a battle once it starts.

    Again, though, that's just my opinion (and I'm probably biased because my micro is generally sub-par so I have to use more macro-focused strategies to stand a chance win, which strategies can be negated by someone with better micro than myself).

    Also, what are yall's thoughts on this: should units moving at high speed be limited in how quickly they can stop/turn and in how much they can turn at speed?

    Thats a fair statement, but people can get better at the game and be able to micro better, or build armies that theya re capable of controlling well, there needs to be a micro skill level otherwise how can you have players that are better than others? you would end up with bunch of draws or game decided 100% based on army selection, i cannot imagine that be fun for anyone.

    What you described as your personal perferance takes decent micro to set up the only way micro can be eliminated here is to change this game into turn based game, which is totally out of the question.
    Unrelated to a specific suggestion...

    I play this game a lot on slow speed with my brother. He doesn’t do much mp while I’ve clocked 500+ hours.

    On normal speed he would lose 90% of the time simply because I’m more trained.

    On slow speed it’s more like 60/40. Because he’s perfectly capable, given enough time to react, of implementing excellent tactics and strategy. My micro matters a lot less when we both have ample time to react.

    So who wins? The player with the better ideas and tactics. That’s a game I thoroughly enjoy.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,775Registered Users
    eumaies said:

    2twoto said:

    Glad to see there's plenty of discussion on this thread :smile:

    @Lotus_Moon I've edited that comment to include where to start the video (again, the time link wasn't working for some reason) for the game I meant, that one being the Skaven vs HE one (ironically, both games ended up including you haha).

    As for the first game, though, I didn't mean to say/sound like I thought you should've auto-won that game: that game was just one of the most recent and clear examples of good macro game play I'd seen in a while (and for that matter, the ECL one was likewise for micro).

    Also, while I agree with you that this game is not nearly as micro intensive as other RTS games, I'd argue that it's still pretty high for anyone who hasn't played those types of games before, and likewise its effect on the outcome of a battle is a deciding factor. True, army selection has the biggest effect on outcome, but once in battle the biggest deciding factor is reaction speed and micromanaging key troops.

    Personally, I'd rather something like the execution of a plan, maneuvering the opponent into a bad position, or tactical decision making play a larger role in victory (an example of that last one: the question of "should my ranged be firing at Malekith on Serephon or the Har Geneth executioners" is one of these, as attacking Malekith would force the opponent to either keep him back initially or take a beating on his 3000gp lord, but weakening/killing powerful units like the executioners will allow the front line to hold out better/win: at the moment, however, this decision is generally moot because Maleketh can effectively dodge most most ranged fire while still controlling the rest of his troops efficiently if the opponent has above-average micro). It's not that I don't want micro at all in the game, but I'd rather it not be the deciding factor of a battle once it starts.

    Again, though, that's just my opinion (and I'm probably biased because my micro is generally sub-par so I have to use more macro-focused strategies to stand a chance win, which strategies can be negated by someone with better micro than myself).

    Also, what are yall's thoughts on this: should units moving at high speed be limited in how quickly they can stop/turn and in how much they can turn at speed?

    Thats a fair statement, but people can get better at the game and be able to micro better, or build armies that theya re capable of controlling well, there needs to be a micro skill level otherwise how can you have players that are better than others? you would end up with bunch of draws or game decided 100% based on army selection, i cannot imagine that be fun for anyone.

    What you described as your personal perferance takes decent micro to set up the only way micro can be eliminated here is to change this game into turn based game, which is totally out of the question.
    Unrelated to a specific suggestion...

    I play this game a lot on slow speed with my brother. He doesn’t do much mp while I’ve clocked 500+ hours.

    On normal speed he would lose 90% of the time simply because I’m more trained.

    On slow speed it’s more like 60/40. Because he’s perfectly capable, given enough time to react, of implementing excellent tactics and strategy. My micro matters a lot less when we both have ample time to react.

    So who wins? The player with the better ideas and tactics. That’s a game I thoroughly enjoy.
    I have too sometimes enjoyed a slow-mo game, but I wouldn't enjoy it at all if it was like that all the time.

    For me I think both the pace and the level of micro is in a good spot. I still have far to go before I don't make any mistakes so there is room to grow and keep my interest alive, and at the same time I feel I am coping. Once in a full moon I get a really solid game off and feel really good about it.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Posts: 4,494Registered Users

    eumaies said:

    2twoto said:

    Glad to see there's plenty of discussion on this thread :smile:

    @Lotus_Moon I've edited that comment to include where to start the video (again, the time link wasn't working for some reason) for the game I meant, that one being the Skaven vs HE one (ironically, both games ended up including you haha).

    As for the first game, though, I didn't mean to say/sound like I thought you should've auto-won that game: that game was just one of the most recent and clear examples of good macro game play I'd seen in a while (and for that matter, the ECL one was likewise for micro).

    Also, while I agree with you that this game is not nearly as micro intensive as other RTS games, I'd argue that it's still pretty high for anyone who hasn't played those types of games before, and likewise its effect on the outcome of a battle is a deciding factor. True, army selection has the biggest effect on outcome, but once in battle the biggest deciding factor is reaction speed and micromanaging key troops.

    Personally, I'd rather something like the execution of a plan, maneuvering the opponent into a bad position, or tactical decision making play a larger role in victory (an example of that last one: the question of "should my ranged be firing at Malekith on Serephon or the Har Geneth executioners" is one of these, as attacking Malekith would force the opponent to either keep him back initially or take a beating on his 3000gp lord, but weakening/killing powerful units like the executioners will allow the front line to hold out better/win: at the moment, however, this decision is generally moot because Maleketh can effectively dodge most most ranged fire while still controlling the rest of his troops efficiently if the opponent has above-average micro). It's not that I don't want micro at all in the game, but I'd rather it not be the deciding factor of a battle once it starts.

    Again, though, that's just my opinion (and I'm probably biased because my micro is generally sub-par so I have to use more macro-focused strategies to stand a chance win, which strategies can be negated by someone with better micro than myself).

    Also, what are yall's thoughts on this: should units moving at high speed be limited in how quickly they can stop/turn and in how much they can turn at speed?

    Thats a fair statement, but people can get better at the game and be able to micro better, or build armies that theya re capable of controlling well, there needs to be a micro skill level otherwise how can you have players that are better than others? you would end up with bunch of draws or game decided 100% based on army selection, i cannot imagine that be fun for anyone.

    What you described as your personal perferance takes decent micro to set up the only way micro can be eliminated here is to change this game into turn based game, which is totally out of the question.
    Unrelated to a specific suggestion...

    I play this game a lot on slow speed with my brother. He doesn’t do much mp while I’ve clocked 500+ hours.

    On normal speed he would lose 90% of the time simply because I’m more trained.

    On slow speed it’s more like 60/40. Because he’s perfectly capable, given enough time to react, of implementing excellent tactics and strategy. My micro matters a lot less when we both have ample time to react.

    So who wins? The player with the better ideas and tactics. That’s a game I thoroughly enjoy.
    I have too sometimes enjoyed a slow-mo game, but I wouldn't enjoy it at all if it was like that all the time.

    For me I think both the pace and the level of micro is in a good spot. I still have far to go before I don't make any mistakes so there is room to grow and keep my interest alive, and at the same time I feel I am coping. Once in a full moon I get a really solid game off and feel really good about it.
    Yup it’s not terrible. But if you could change the default for games then at least people who want to host a game and invite strangers to play at the speed they enjoy.
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Posts: 441Registered Users
    edited January 18
    lowering turn speed (and increasing arrow speed), leading to less cycle charging and dodging, could be really great if it doesn't affect a unit performance overall. e.g. shock cav should have higher charge bonus in exchange of low turn speed.

    Removing dodging and reducing cycle charging would be the opposite of penalizing good players: it would give more importance to decisions and commitment. If you get into fire range, or if you charge, you have to evaluate if the damage you will take in return is worth it, instead of the security of dodging or quick disengaging. Experience will be more rewarded.

    You may have a bit more time to think, but you'll have more to think about.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,902Registered Users
    eumaies said:

    2twoto said:

    Glad to see there's plenty of discussion on this thread :smile:

    @Lotus_Moon I've edited that comment to include where to start the video (again, the time link wasn't working for some reason) for the game I meant, that one being the Skaven vs HE one (ironically, both games ended up including you haha).

    As for the first game, though, I didn't mean to say/sound like I thought you should've auto-won that game: that game was just one of the most recent and clear examples of good macro game play I'd seen in a while (and for that matter, the ECL one was likewise for micro).

    Also, while I agree with you that this game is not nearly as micro intensive as other RTS games, I'd argue that it's still pretty high for anyone who hasn't played those types of games before, and likewise its effect on the outcome of a battle is a deciding factor. True, army selection has the biggest effect on outcome, but once in battle the biggest deciding factor is reaction speed and micromanaging key troops.

    Personally, I'd rather something like the execution of a plan, maneuvering the opponent into a bad position, or tactical decision making play a larger role in victory (an example of that last one: the question of "should my ranged be firing at Malekith on Serephon or the Har Geneth executioners" is one of these, as attacking Malekith would force the opponent to either keep him back initially or take a beating on his 3000gp lord, but weakening/killing powerful units like the executioners will allow the front line to hold out better/win: at the moment, however, this decision is generally moot because Maleketh can effectively dodge most most ranged fire while still controlling the rest of his troops efficiently if the opponent has above-average micro). It's not that I don't want micro at all in the game, but I'd rather it not be the deciding factor of a battle once it starts.

    Again, though, that's just my opinion (and I'm probably biased because my micro is generally sub-par so I have to use more macro-focused strategies to stand a chance win, which strategies can be negated by someone with better micro than myself).

    Also, what are yall's thoughts on this: should units moving at high speed be limited in how quickly they can stop/turn and in how much they can turn at speed?

    Thats a fair statement, but people can get better at the game and be able to micro better, or build armies that theya re capable of controlling well, there needs to be a micro skill level otherwise how can you have players that are better than others? you would end up with bunch of draws or game decided 100% based on army selection, i cannot imagine that be fun for anyone.

    What you described as your personal perferance takes decent micro to set up the only way micro can be eliminated here is to change this game into turn based game, which is totally out of the question.
    Unrelated to a specific suggestion...

    I play this game a lot on slow speed with my brother. He doesn’t do much mp while I’ve clocked 500+ hours.

    On normal speed he would lose 90% of the time simply because I’m more trained.

    On slow speed it’s more like 60/40. Because he’s perfectly capable, given enough time to react, of implementing excellent tactics and strategy. My micro matters a lot less when we both have ample time to react.

    So who wins? The player with the better ideas and tactics. That’s a game I thoroughly enjoy.
    good, your brother should get better simple as that
Sign In or Register to comment.