3D campaign map: Your ideas on how to make more challenging battles.

[Dead Moroz]

Veterans of TW remembers lots of long epic battles in MTW, with multiple armies, thousands of warriors from each side and fortune smiling alternately on different competitors. Unfortunately the majority of RTW battles were just quick combat between 2-3 participants with mediocre armies. Of course, the cause of poor RTW battles were mistakes in tactical AI and game features (such as hi speed of battle and low morale of units). But the other important reason was in principal difference between MTW and RTW campaign maps: MTW 2D risk-style map involved all armies in province into battle, while RTW 3D civ-style map involved only armies in appointed tiles. I'm not the one who wants CA to return to archaic 2D maps. I do believe that RTW map is great improvement allowing much more flexibility and opportunities in strategy, and I do believe that epic battles of MTW are possible on this map. But the problem is in current wrong campaign AI. RTW was the first time when CA dealt with such type of map and (I hope) they just didn't consider all peculiarities of new space and AI behavior in it.

So, the question is how to make campaign AI smarter so that epic battles and wars will return in TW and we all feel like participants in glorious deeds again. Let's give ideas which would help devs to improve AI (I hope they're really doing it).

Here is my two cents.

- All armies in surrounding (to both attacker and defender) tiles must participate in battle. (In RTW even fairly close armies often could not take part in battle.) "Reinforcement" armies should not come into battle in the same time right from the start, but appear one after another according to their distance from main participants. Armies that stands on the sides of main participants should begin action from the start, armies that stands behinds backs of main participants will come into battle later. But attacker's reinforcement/ally standing behind defender's back should participate in battle from the start.

- AI must always gather its units into large army before going into enemy territory and never split it on separate groups without any serious reason (such as?) while being on enemy territory.

- If AI have several stacks of armies supposed to fulfil the same objective (such as sieging certain city or attacking enemy army), it should tend to keep 'em close to each other.

- Small groups of AI units must not roam without any purpose (like in RTW).

- Small groups of AI units such as reinforcement or scouts must avoid battle and even meeting with large groups of enemy units. They must change direction of their movement when they see large army and move from it as far as possible or "hide" in nearest city or fort. (But it's not related to small groups of superior units meeting large group of low quality enemies.)

- Players (both human and AI) should be able to simultaneously move multiple groups of units in the same direction. In case of ambush first coming group must be ambushed and other(s) must be its reinforcement(s), appearing in battle later.

- Btw, we must be able to choose if we want or not to ambush certain army. In RTW you always have to ambush, so when neutral army get into trap you automatically begin war with that faction. This wrong feature must be fixed.

- Players (both human and AI) should be able to coordinate their movement with allies: e.g. decide to siege certain city or meet enemies in certain place. You should be able to meet with ally in certain place and continue your way together (so you must give movement of your army under control of ally and this army will move in ally's turn or vice versa).

- AI army must seek for most appropriate ground type for battle. E.g. if army consist of lots of units with forest/ambush bonus it must prefer forest tiles, if army consist of large number of cavalry it must hold on open plains. But of course AI armies must not passively wait for proper battleground while their cities are being captured one by one.

- AI must be able to build forts in key places of map, such as mountain passes or river fords. I guess CA must make special tga for marking such places, because as I noticed in RTW AI is completely misunderstand importance of such places.

- The number of "regular" rebellions (determinate by corresponding value in region's options) must be decreased. Dealing with lots of rebels instead of real enemies is not fun for everyone, I guess. I think that there must be no rebels at all if loyalty of region is higher than certain number of percents (imho 100% is most reasonable milestone).

- Going through other faction's territory should have negative effect on relations with this faction (there was "transgression" in RTW, but it was done wrong). AI should know about it and don't go into others' territory if it want to keep good relations. Also there should be diplomacy option for demand to go away from your territory.

[Voigtkampf]

All armies in surrounding (to both attacker and defender) tiles must participate in battle. (In RTW even fairly close armies often could not take part in battle.) "Reinforcement" armies should not come into battle in the same time right from the start, but appear one after another according to their distance from main participants. Armies that stands on the sides of main participants should begin action from the start, armies that stands behinds backs of main participants will come into battle later. But attacker's reinforcement/ally standing behind defender's back should participate in battle from the start.

All of these are good proposals, but this one I find should have the greatest weight. 3D map is not something I am generally against; the consequences of having the freedom of 3D moving that affect gameplay in rather negative sense when compared to MTW is what I am having problems with. Dozens of small armies on approximate ground instead of all of them together. The idea with time delayed reinforcements, depending on their relative distance to the main battle, is simply fabulous, don’t know if developers ever thought about it… Kudos, Dead Moroz.

Also, I would like an option for the agents such as assassins and spies (don’t really remember if they will be the same piece as in Rome or different pieces as in Medieval, I’d prefer the latter) that will automate their behavior. For instance, you spies could roam the realm and try to spot out other spies, assassins would try to eliminate them, as well as all other agents from faction you decide you don’t like. It should be doable even if you are not at war with that faction.

So, option like autoexplore in some game, for those lazy moments where you don’t want to issue orders to twenty of your agents. Set it on autopilot and let them do their job.

[econ21]

I agree with Voigtkampf and Dead Moroz - one of the biggest reasons for RTW being less challenging than STW and MTW it is that it is less common to find yourself outnumbered on the battlefield. Whereas this was almost the norm in MTW and STW. Pumping up the AIs resources - by playing on very hard or by EBs scripting - may guarantee you face full stacks, but you rarely get hit by multiple full stacks.

I agree that some kind of "march to the sound of the guns" reaction move system could help offset this (effectively widening the circle for which stacks fight), as would programming the AI to gather, move and fight in contiguous "hordes" of full stacks, rather than treat each stack independently. BI made some progress in terms of the latter, although there was still a tendency to let hordes be salami sliced to defeat.

[The_White_Knight]

All these ideas are simply awesome and should be implemented in the game ASAP. I always wondered why the AI never merges its armies and even 4 full stacks of Macedonians besieging one of your Roman cities in the infamous SPQR-mod cannot come close to the thrill felt when the mongol horde arrived in MTW.


All armies in surrounding (to both attacker and defender) tiles must participate in battle. (In RTW even fairly close armies often could not take part in battle.)

I wonder if this is 'moddable' in RTW. Would it be possible to largen the red square (=tile) that determines what armies will enter the battle?

[Furious Mental]

Big battles- fine. MTW style sloggers where you faced 10,000 Mongols or Papal troops, taking nine hours to resolve? No thanks.

[Pomerium]

Big battles- fine. MTW style sloggers where you faced 10,000 Mongols or Papal troops, taking nine hours to resolve? No thanks.

GAAH
I had forgotten about those marthons. Sometimes I had to pause for nature two or three times. I don't care for those. 1 hr or so is enough, it is a game after all.

[Geoffrey S]

All armies with enough movement points to reach the battle should be able to join, both for the AI and the player. The player should have the option before battle to decide if armies with movement points should take part; armies further away from the field of battle would take longer to become available as reiforcements. This should be done in addition to more movement points for armies for more realistic campaigns. I rather liked the pace of EB, but I understand that would need for seasons which is not the case in MTW2.

Bigger battles are a must for more interesting campaigns. As has been stated battles in RTW tended to be more like skirmished rather than feel like actual epic battles deciding the fates of whole nations.

[Dutch_guy]

Big battles- fine. MTW style sloggers where you faced 10,000 Mongols or Papal troops, taking nine hours to resolve? No thanks.

hmm I liked those battles, well to each his own I guess.

And I think a lot of people would love to have long battles ( not necessarily meaning 10 hour battles ) with the improved graphics and ( hopefully ) a more advanced AI system -which would of course be a necessity were we to have such battles ~;)

I for one would like to see more battles of that kind, it always was fun beating the Mongol horde the turn they emerged...

:balloon2:

[DensterNY]

Well these are certainly good ideas... some kind of compromise is needed. I loved MTW overall as compared to RTW but the one thing I disliked about the Risk-style map is that I had to keep stacks of defensive armies on any province that bordered another nation's province.

I remember in my longest English campaign I had to keep about 6 or more full stacked armies bordering The Polish and Hungarian for hundreds of years as I waged war with everybody else. Someone had suggested using a hub-protection system so that one powerful army could protect a number of provinces but having an unprotected province meant an invitation to being attacked... even if the attacking nation had no strategic reason to attack you and in fact incuring your wrath would likely spell their destruction.

In RTW, I could keep a large army at an entry point to a number of cities or just in proximity to them and it was enough to deter an enemy's advance.

As for having all neighboring forces join in a fight... I agree that for the AI its necessary since they like to show up under-manned which gets their butts kicked. However, for the player there are times when I use small missle and cavalry troops to whittle down an AI's army.

[Dead Moroz]

Dozens of small armies on approximate ground instead of all of them together.
That's because of wrong made AI... again. AI in RTW must be initially programmed to create and hold armies in large stacks. I'm sure it's possible to make. E.g. in Civ4 AI usually attacks in large group of various units, tends to keep 'em grouped and adds reinforcement in it. Moreover AI of units in this game is much smarter than campaign AI in TW... Just add TW style battles to CivNext and you will get perfect competitor of CA products.


As for having all neighboring forces join in a fight... I agree that for the AI its necessary since they like to show up under-manned which gets their butts kicked. However, for the player there are times when I use small missle and cavalry troops to whittle down an AI's army.
I also had situations when reinforcements were absolutely needless and even interfering. I think that players (both human and AI) should be able to decide either they want or not to use reinforcements in battle and if it necessary choose what exactly troops they want to use as reinforcements.

[Dead Moroz]

I'd like to propose another ideas.

- If AI army loose 50% or more of its troops in battle it should tend to retreat to its lands for reinforcement, unless it's near enemy city which AI can easily capture. IIRC there was something like that in RTW, but I'm not sure. But no doubt devs must make AI to necessary reinforce battered units if AI have resources for it. (In RTW there were lots of detachments with dozen or just several units in it, and AI never reinforced such units until they were completely annihilated.)

- Winter movement points should be descreased (twice, I think), because it's much harder to move in snow (I tested it today :).

- Rivers covered with snow/ice should be crossable.

[Zenicetus]

- All armies in surrounding (to both attacker and defender) tiles must participate in battle. (In RTW even fairly close armies often could not take part in battle.) "Reinforcement" armies should not come into battle in the same time right from the start, but appear one after another according to their distance from main participants. Armies that stands on the sides of main participants should begin action from the start, armies that stands behinds backs of main participants will come into battle later. But attacker's reinforcement/ally standing behind defender's back should participate in battle from the start.

I don't know... I do want to see the AI focusing more on larger armies, but a forced encounter system like this might limit our strategic options too much.

When my army is understrength, and I see a reinforcing stack headed to a nearby enemy army, I'll often rush an attack to make sure I hit the enemy before his reinforcements can reach the adjacent map square. Conversely, if I'm feeling strong enough, or I just want a more challenging battle, I'll wait for the enemy to merge stacks or be within the one map square reinforcement range. I can play it either way.

After the battle, I have the option to move elsewhere, or take on the nearby enemy stack... just like real life, basically. Real armies don't always sit around and wait for everyone in the countryside to show up, especially if the attacker sees an advantage in hitting an isolated element quickly.

The 3D map in RTW is all about flexibility in movement and strategy. Yes, I do want to see more of the massive, decisive battles.... but I also don't want to lose the ability to do opportunistic attacks on just a single element of the enemy's presence in an area. Some of the other ideas mentioned above would help insure bigger battles, without boxing in the player with this "all or nothing" approach.

[Cesare diBorja]

How about this;

A campaign map with more detail and multiple settlements per state or province. Make the settlements smaller so they don't eat up too much of the map. Allow small forts to ring the cities.

A strategic battle map for all combatants involved so that battles can be larger and with more territory to cover.

A tactical battle map to zoom into when opponents are about to engage.

A stronger AI to manipulate each of these zones to the best of its ability.





diBorgia

[Furious Mental]

The AI should take account of the terrain when moving its forces around. If it has to defend it should try to find bridges, hills etcetera. It should be given foreknowledge of whether it will be fighting uphill and should avoid battle in such situations. Also AI factions should be allowed instant communication with each other to allow coordinated attacks. Yes, both of those suggestions amount to letting the AI cheat, but I reckon it is better than giving it stupidly high combat bonuses.

[Vladimir]

After you play MTW enough you come to realize that you don't need more than a full stack to win a battle, even against the Mongols (if you catch the initial assault). Holding ground is different. This is especially true if you're defending in a hilly or mountainous region. Ya, epic battles are cool but they're also...epic. This means a long, rare struggle. Increasing the number of them will decrease their importance (It's like having 70 virgins; trust me, you'd get bored of that quick).

You don't want to have to constantly defend yourself against extinction. Instead you want challenges and surprises that make victory more rewarding. Besides, the goal should be to avoid those struggles so you don't reduce your army or treasury to ashes.

[Orda Khan]

The bigger the battle, the better IMO but I never had a battle last longer than an hour with MTW

.........Orda

[Keba]

Try fielding 8 full stacks at the Mongols the turn they appear ... even if they are all elite armies (your stacks, I mean, not the Mongols), you will still pay in blood ... and time. That battle took positively ages, but the Mongols got whipped on their first turn.

I think that battle lasted some 3, maybe 4 hours ... the longest I've ever had.

IMO, they can put back in much of the stuff from Medieval that were well-liked. After all, it's not like I can engage a 14 stack army with an 8 stack army in a RTW campaign anymore (and I am sort of thankful for that).

Personally, most of the stuff I'd like in the game have already been posted, the rest of the stuff I want is just not possible.

[Orda Khan]

I met the Golden Horde with Boyars, HA and Steppe cav. The Horde were destroyed in one battle that took less than an hour. Mongol heavy cav just walked around the map as they fell to Russian arrows. As for Mongol HA, unfortunately the AI was controlling them so they died almost as fast as they appeared. I only hope that MTW II Mongols pose more of a threat

........Orda

[hellenes]

I met the Golden Horde with Boyars, HA and Steppe cav. The Horde were destroyed in one battle that took less than an hour. Mongol heavy cav just walked around the map as they fell to Russian arrows. As for Mongol HA, unfortunately the AI was controlling them so they died almost as fast as they appeared. I only hope that MTW II Mongols pose more of a threat

........Orda

On what unit sizes you were playing?
Difficulty?
What was the size of the horde?
In my typical VI games the Horde was betweein 11-15000 on normal size, and it took me 2000 arbalesters with 1k Byzantine melee troops (katas/Varangs/infantry) to stop them in Georgia in a edge map camping defence. For 2,5 fours

Hellenes

[Orda Khan]

Normal unit size, hard/medium setting and the Horde was massive but since it was so long ago I can not remember the exact size

.....Orda

[screwtype]

I met the Golden Horde with Boyars, HA and Steppe cav. The Horde were destroyed in one battle that took less than an hour.

Those Boyars were wicked units. I always dreaded facing them in MTW.


I only hope that MTW II Mongols pose more of a threat

I hope the Mongols don't appear in the new game at all. Boring.

[Sethik]

I hope the Mongols don't appear in the new game at all. Boring.

What was more fun that having 10000+ men just pop up at the edge of the map? It certainly threw a wrench into things power wise, especially in the east.

I remember conquering most of western Europe as England when the Mongols arrived. Unfortuantly I hadn't made my way east yet so I couldn't see them. However I noticed that all of Byzantine's and most of Egypt's stacks eventually withered away. I rolled over them when I got there. By that time the Horde had taken enough loses and were sprea out enough to become somewhat mangable.

[Furious Mental]

Well bad news for you there are now Mongols AND Timurids

[Orda Khan]

I hope the Mongols don't appear in the new game at all. Boring.
Mediaeval period without Mongols? That would remove a huge element from history. If MTW II Mongols pose more of a threat and the strategic and tactical AI is improved, it should prove anything but boring. Also this time around it would be nice to see them as a playable faction, without the need for modding

......Orda

[sapi]

Here is my two cents.

- All armies in surrounding (to both attacker and defender) tiles must participate in battle. (In RTW even fairly close armies often could not take part in battle.) "Reinforcement" armies should not come into battle in the same time right from the start, but appear one after another according to their distance from main participants. Armies that stands on the sides of main participants should begin action from the start, armies that stands behinds backs of main participants will come into battle later. But attacker's reinforcement/ally standing behind defender's back should participate in battle from the start.
I remember suggesting this in another thread; i think all armies in a province should be part of a battle but it's just a matter of time...

[lar]

Well bad news for you there are now Mongols AND Timurids

and azteks