A Must for MTW:

[Khan7]

For the new game, IMO the developers MUST add some strategic aspect to the tactical battles. Currently, attrition is rapid, and melees are all go or no-go. This is in direct, stark, and severe contrast with reality.

In reality, battles, even isolating the pure melee sections, take 15 minutes if not twice, 5 or 10 times that. Currently you're lucky to get 10 minutes of total battle (not counting pre-contact manuever and chasing after the AI, lol), even 5 minute-long melees being almost unheard of. It is impossible to retreat, you can only rout.

This not only is in direct contradiction of reality, it deprives the game of an entire dimension. The game would be universally richer, more enjoyable, more playable, if some sort of strategic dimension were added to the tactical game. Currently it is a deeper and more complex version of a game of 'chicken'.

I personally feel this is an absolute must. If MTW is released, and it still has so little to show in the way of tactical depth, I most likely will not buy it.

Matt

[ShadesWolf]

I would like to see a fall back command,

in the same vain as stand ground, attack at will.....

As khan7 stated, this would allow for a new dimension of game play......

[BakaGaijin]

This is gonna be another thread where everybody just says, "I agree completely".

Which I hope is enough to convince certain people (*cough*Target*cough*) that maybe there's a lot of popular support for this!

That said, I agree completely. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

[Catiline]

In a medieval contaxt i'm not totally sure that I do agree melle should take longer. fighting in full armour was just too exhausting, not from the weight, just from the heat generated. And endless melee? this is a game, and do you want to sit and watch half an hour of melee. I agree there should be more dimension and an ordered wihtdrawal should be easier, but not by any means easy. Wihtdrawing tends to lead to routing in battles, if hth combat is even met.

Ohtre than last stands by highly motivated troops I don't htink there are that nmany examples of prolonged melle in an ancient or medieval battles.

Really attrition ought to be slowed, and the morale impact of say 10% casualties should be massive. Fighting htrough 50% - 75% casualties is a damn sight sillier than the inability to wihtdraw. Greek battles where the focus was on close combat with spears typically had casualties of around 5% for the winning side and 15% for the loosers.

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[solypsist]

i got no problems with the current STW melle engine

[Catiline]

It'z spelt melee http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[Jaguara]

Quote Originally posted by Catiline:
In a medieval contaxt i'm not totally sure that I do agree melle should take longer.[/QUOTE]

I think this is what Soly was refering to Cat...

[Jaguara]

I agree with Cat for the most part here. I would prefer to have a method of withdrawl, but it should still be difficult, though perhaps slightly less so for Cavalry.

As for limiting casualties...the main problem there is that in SP, part of the idea is to get rid of men. If you lower casualty rates, then you also have to slow production of new units. Otherwise we will all end up with hoardes running around the map.

[Catiline]

I'm aware of that http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[Khan7]

But you see Catiline, melee DID take longer in the Medieval context! You of all people I thought may have known this. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Anyway, I was hoping I wouldn't have to pull historical examples, but indeed I must. Hmm, perhaps I'll find some in my old thread in the editing/mods forum, so I won't have to re-research and re-type.

Matt

[solypsist]

or perhaps everyone understands it's just a fun game and nobody wants to spend hours watching a bunch of guys in a huddle with no results, since "historical examples" tend to make for poor entertainment when it comes to wargames (ie. ever replay the battle of midway on a wargame? imagine the fun if because of "historic examples" you always lost no matter how well you played!)

[Khan7]

Okay now--

Battle of Adrianople 378 CE, engaged in full melee for approx. 2-3 hours.

Battle of Bannockburn, 1314 CE, a contingent of English knights engaged vs. a schilltron for nearly an hour.

First Battle of Tannenburg, 1410 CE, battle lasts over 10 hours, including a brief artillery barrage, consecutive charges with obvious breaks in between, but no doubt including at least one or two hours of straight melee.

And in every account we hear of battle in this era, we hear of "they fell back" or "were pushed back" or "pushed together" or somesuch, and victory tends to be attained more through twisting your enemy's line into an uncomfortable shape, or breaking it, rather than simply killing everyone.

Anyway, it's suppertime, so I unfortunately can't go in any more detail right now, but I think those who will argue that melees generally took 5 minutes or less and that they were always resolved around the same axis where they first met, and no one ever fell back or retreated, might please provide historical example.

It probably would also be good to hear more than "I like it" from people holding an opinion that the current system would be superior to one posessing some sort of tactical depth and character.

But tempest fugit, adios.

Matt

[Khan7]

EDIT: Whew, Soly almost got me..

Okay guys, look-- this is an MTW discussion thread, not a Soly and Khan bitch at eachother thread. Those people who may have been mistaken, please check OT for any possible matchups of this type.

Matt

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 12-19-2001).]

[Polar]

Quote I agree with Cat for the most part here. I would prefer to have a method of withdrawl, but it should still be difficult, though perhaps slightly less so for Cavalry.[/QUOTE]

u can already do that in stw http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
http://chat.carleton.ca/~fbai/pix/sig1.jpg (http://www.totalwar.gametribe.net)
• UglyPolar •

[Catiline]

A lot of that wasn't melee though Khan. It was standing close to each ohter, shouting, banging shields, intimidating etc. 10 hour melees don't happen, can't happen. You've seen boxing on the TV, they're shattered after a few rounds. That's wihtout armour, wihtout clothign wihtout weapons, without actually trying to kill each ohter and the psychological exhaustion this induces, regardless of the physical impact.
I'm not suggesting that they were resolved in less than 5 minutes, but I suspect the actual fighting was not nearly as long as you seem to think. Besides as Soly says htis is a game, and whilst i'd like a historical simulation as much as you would, we aren't going to get one because it won't sell. It'd be fun to have a 'bang shields with spear butt' command, but not practical for a mass market.

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[Khan7]

I SAID it wasn't all melee, Cat! But there was a good deal of it in there!

And regardless of whatever semantics we may want to run around with, 5 minutes and less is too short! I have a series of games, based on the same principles you are talking about, called "Great Battles of [Alexander/Hannibal/Caesar]". They are in there talking about how short melee may seem, "but you gotta understand.." using the same exact words you just did, Cat.

Turns in this game are modeled to represent 15 minutes. In a toe-to-toe matchup, units rarely rout in less than two turns of melee.

If you won't believe me, believe these history frieks who use the same words you do.

And Soly is really a non-entity, whatever his reasons for being in this thread, they don't involve the issue at hand.

We also await an effective argument for gameplay reasons. We're not talking about "banging spear butts". We're not talking about stretching battles to hours in length, such length is rather unusual anyway, I was providing a few of the more extreme examples I could've found. All we're talking about here is adding a little flavor and depth. As I've said, the current model is basically a spiced-up version of 'chicken'.

Matt

[solypsist]

Quote Besides as Soly says htis is a game, and whilst i'd like a historical simulation as much as you would, we aren't going to get one because it won't sell. It'd be fun to have a 'bang shields with spear butt' command, but not practical for a mass market.[/QUOTE]

Apparently they do involve the issues at hand, which is that needlessly extended battles, time-wise but not result-wise, will end up making the game unpopular, which translates to low community support, which translates all sorts of other problems.
Ignore critics of your ideas to your own detriment; my replies only mean I'm paying attention to what you're saying and thinking about your ideas.

[Murmandamus]

Are you taking the numbers involved into account Khan7? I'm sure a battle in a Total War game would take hours if there were 10's or 100's of thousands involved rather than the usual < 1000 in STW. I've never played online but I'd think that 2v2 or 3v3 games would take longer than a 1v1. If reinforcements worked better you could have longer battles.

Maybe you should be able to bring on reinforcements based on the number of men on the field rather than the number of units. So you have 16 starting units then up to a max of say, 25 after that. As long as the number of men is below 16 full units worth. Maybe allow you to join units in battle as long as they are close to each other.

As it is now by the time a routed/withdrawn unit has fled off the field and the new unit has made it all the way to where the action is, it's often to late for them to be of use. Withdrawing units only seems worthwhile for artilery units to me and then mainly in a defensive battle.

Maybe the added artilery units mangonels, canons etc (assuming we can use them in non seige battles) will lengthen the battles and add some tactical elements.

[Khan7]

Well, Murman, a thoughtful analysis, but I will have to reject size as a sufficiently explanatory factor in this case, if it is a factor at all in the way you propose. At one point this was my main hypothesis on why STW was the way it was, but as I read and researched more I came to reject it, for a variety of reasons.

If you want a case in point, you need look no further than Bannockburn, where we can isolate a single incident of ~300 knights and ~500 pikemen, locked in melee for nearly an hour.

Anyway, am I speaking of a fully realistic depiction of all maneuver, strategic, and etc etc aspects of an engagement involving 100,000, or even all such aspects of an engagement involving 1,000 (it all boils down to a similar process, logistics being the main thing affected by numbers)? No. I'm talking about adding tactical depth to melee. It's historically documented. And I've heard many of the die-hard gamer elite (not historians, mind you) talk about wanting longer battles. I'm sorry, maybe I'm slow, but I'm still not understanding the vociferocity of some of the objections I've drawn here (and I'm not even talking about Cat, he's cool as always).

Matt

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 12-19-2001).]

[Murmandamus]

Another factor in this is how quickly units will route. There was a big stink about this IIRC though mostly related to online. Personally I wish units wouldn't rout so easily. This would certainaly lengthen most battles.

You could also modify all the units to give them better armour so they would be harder to kill.

[BakaGaijin]

I think what a lot of people are missing is that Khan isn't talking JUST about making the battles longer, but making the combat itself take longer IN ORDER THAT more tactical depth be lent to the simulation in the form of tactical withdrawls to regroup and multiple charges. Try telling your troops to fall back in Shogun, and see what happens. Even if you tell cavalry to fall back after engaging melee, and even if they're screened by spears to hold the enemy while they do, the most common result is that you lose 50% of the cavalry unit, which then immediately routs. This is, of course, contrary to historical examples, where units joined melee several times, broke off, then came back together. It would elevate the combat to something above a long period of setup, followed by a short, brutal brawl, to something where a smart general could engage the enemy on one front, withdraw after a brief skirmish, then hit his unsuspecting enemy elsewhere.

Obviously, such a thing would not be easy, but it should not be impossible, as it is in Shogun. I think that if a unit attempts to withdraw from a melee without the assistance of another unit to screen the enemy, especially if it's slower than the enemy unit, it should be slaughtered for trying to withdraw under poor conditions. On the other hand, if a unit is screened and is faster than the enemy, it should be allowed to escape without completely losing its cohesion and move to another part of the enemy's line.

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

[Murmandamus]

It is possible in a way for the AI to do this. When defending if the enemy routs I hold my position, if it's not a total rout they will regroup and come at me again. But, if a players Taisho routes it's immediately game over, no chance of regrouping or fighting with the units that haven't fled like reinforcements that could come on. This is one advantage that the AI gets.

This brings up the point that in order for you to be able to break off and change your tactics the enemy has to be willing to let you go. You can break a cav unit away from a foot unit without much loss but the AI will always pursue.

[Khan7]

Frankly, it's even simpler than that, Baka. Simple fact-- battles move. Lines are pushed and shoved, the front may move back and forth or be twisted into a strange shape, etc. Currently melee concludes on the same spot it began.

No special procedure is necessary for a contingent to simply attempt to fall back. It happened all the time. Of course one is going to want to be fairly sure that one's enemy will not come straight up charging you like banshees at this point, but we see example after example of well-executed withdrawals. It really wasn't that hard, though not fail-safe for sure, and entailing the obvious disadvantages/risks.

Matt

[Puzz3D]

A fall back command that allows your unit to continue facing the enemy unit would be nice. Ideally, this would work as a disengagement command as well.

[Nelson]

Agreed. Even if all it did was remove the penalty for getting rear ended while you backed away it would be worthwhile.

[Kraellin]

ok, i only read about half way down to where khan7 was quoting lengths of battles. first, i've had battles in stw/we/mi that took an hour or more...rare, but it does occur. 2nd, i think the idea of tactical retreat is a very good one. i remember my early days in stw and going, 'why the hell cant i back up?'. i'd also suggest taking this one step further. how about tactical retreats to an entirely different map...while in battle mode! if the attacker wants to chase the battle goes on, but on completely new terrain. if the attacker doesnt want to chase, battle over. this would lend credence and support to that other idea of multiple maps per province, which i suggested months ago in a thread about multiplayer campaigns.

K.


------------------
I'm sorry, but i never apologize.

[BakaGaijin]

Good one, Krae. Maybe a bit beyond the scope of MTW, but if it were possible, that would rock my world 12 ways to Tuesday. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

[This message has been edited by BakaGaijin (edited 12-20-2001).]

[Hirosito]

yeah like magy's idea a long time ago that'd be good
on the length of battles i've had huge battles late on in the game and especially so because sometimes you attack the same province several times thus making it feel like one huge battle of attrition. maybe its because i'm shit but sometimes i fielded unbalanced armies just to wear down the opponent then took my time to get the reinforcements and attacked with completely different units and so on until time ran out and then reassessed the starting army for the next season and the whole thing started again it was slow but it felt really tactical. maybe y'all are just too good for your own good

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

[Kraellin]

thanks baka ;)

and i agree, it most likely is beyond the scope of M:TW. in fact, a lot of the ideas presented in this forum are going to be beyond that scope. i'm guessing that most of the game mechanics are already set in stone for this game.

still, it's fun to create possibilities, if only in our own minds ;) and, there's always that 'next' game. hopefully CA will be around for a long while and will continue to evolve in depth and scope. so i'm just planning for the future ;) of course, they're going to have to start paying us all royalties pretty soon ;)

K.


------------------
I'm sorry, but i never apologize.

[Erado San]

Well, I did read somewhere that at least the push back is implemented better in MTW. Haven't heard of a fall back move. The least that could happen with either is that if the opposing enemy unit(s) pursue they may open their flanks to other units. WOuld be interesting, but I'm afraid it won't really lengthen the battles. Would add to the tactical strength of the game though.

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

You read it at gamespot (Q&A session) also don't forget that cavalry charges should "smash into and carry through enemy ranks" and shields will be "calculated to provide defense only from the front."

Some nice touches if they implement it.

------------------
Yes the camel sprites do look good

[theforce]

Hmmmm I agree completely :P
Well sometimes when we have hand to hand combat(even with no flanks) the battle won't last above 2 minutes except if one is having nag on hold formation! Anyway l would like the battles to last longer in the new game.

------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.
http://lod.nipogames.com/default.html