Where Are All The Open Field Battles

[Barkhorn1x]

Ancient history was rife with juicy open field slugfests. But not RTW2.

I have yet to experience an open field battle. :no:

They were present in RTW1 so what gives?

(...sorry for the typo in the title should be Where Are...)

[Hooahguy]

Great question. Ive had a number of them so far. Not too many, but a few. It seems though that the AI wont go out for an open field battle (unless you catch them away from a settlement that is) if they arent confident that they will win it. For instance, in my current campaign, there were a bunch of mini-stacks hanging around this one town which I was moving my army to attack the town was attacked by another full stack with a half-stack in support. After I was weakened it seemed as if every stack and their uncle arrived to offer battle.

[fallen851]

CA should make the city battles open field battles. When facing invasion, most armies did not defend inside the settlement itself, rather outside of it. Sieges can be left to the capitals.

[Hooahguy]

CA should make the city battles open field battles. When facing invasion, most armies did not defend inside the settlement itself, rather outside of it. Sieges can be left to the capitals.

Thats why when garrisons sally out its an open field battle.

[Barkhorn1x]

CA should make the city battles open field battles. When facing invasion, most armies did not defend inside the settlement itself, rather outside of it. Sieges can be left to the capitals.

+1...........................................

[Sp4]

I have a fair few of them, now that my armies are everywhere. Campaign has been going on for close to 200 turns though.

[Bramborough]

Haven't done a count or anything, but seems the AI is sallying forth from settlements fairly often with Patch 3, even against long odds.

[fallen851]

Thats why when garrisons sally out its an open field battle.

My point was there shouldn't be an option. Your settlement gets attacked? The garrison now engages the army in an open field battle.

There is no trying to defend city streets.

[Hooahguy]

Well that depends. If its a walled settlement then it makes no sense to sally out unless there is a strong garrison and it was confident in victory or was on the verge of surrender, and historically thats what would happen. But in a village battle when you are fighting five village tribesmen and a bunch of slingers, or defending with five village tribesmen and some slingers, do you really want an open field battle for that? In my opinion you have a greater chance of victory through the use of bottlenecks by fighting in the village than an open field battle.

[Sp4]

Well that depends. If its a walled settlement then it makes no sense to sally out unless there is a strong garrison and it was confident in victory or was on the verge of surrender, and historically thats what would happen. But in a village battle when you are fighting five village tribesmen and a bunch of slingers, or defending with five village tribesmen and some slingers, do you really want an open field battle for that? In my opinion you have a greater chance of victory through the use of bottlenecks by fighting in the village than an open field battle.

If only the AI knew how to make use of these things when attacking or defending.

[Hooahguy]

Do you think the AI would perform better in an open field battle in this case?

[Sp4]

With the amazing quality of garrison troops, no probably not but more of your stuff would die since it's more confusing =p

If -you- are defending, it is entirely possible for settlements that spawn just one sort of good melee unit for its garrison army to win a battle against all odds simply by only having to fight the AI on one road, because it never uses any other roads or any flanking, so you can keep your crap units away from the main fight, ensure they don't rout, while at the same time creating a killing zone, where especially low quality AI armies like to mass rout in a 3 minute battle from what started as a fight where the odds were 3:1 in their favour.

[Hooahguy]

In the one defending town battle Ive played, the AI actually did use a number of paths into the town, shattering my defenses. So maybe that was the one time where the AI shone through.

[fallen851]

Well that depends. If its a walled settlement then it makes no sense to sally out unless there is a strong garrison and it was confident in victory or was on the verge of surrender, and historically thats what would happen. But in a village battle when you are fighting five village tribesmen and a bunch of slingers, or defending with five village tribesmen and some slingers, do you really want an open field battle for that? In my opinion you have a greater chance of victory through the use of bottlenecks by fighting in the village than an open field battle.

You are correct if we want RTW II to be a game more removed from history, while I am correct if we want to be RTW II a game less removed from history. The fact that street fighting is somehow advantageous in is simply not historically accurate.

The point of defending a city is so it doesn't get destroyed and the population annihilated. Street by street fighting does both, and attackers can move in and light the city ablaze and when the fire gets out of control, move back and watch from a distance. Furthermore, it doesn't restrict movement as much as depicted. Men can enter buildings and maneuver through tight alleyways and such.

Certainly, you're correct when the city has walls. In that case, the defenders should be defending the walls. When the defenses at the walls fell in pretty much any siege, it was over. I'd put up with the settlement fights (as I did in RTW) if they didn't eat into open field engagements, but they do.

So me, this isn't about obtaining a greater chance of victory, or making it harder for me against the AI. It is about making it more historically accurate, because often times, historical accuracy itself is fun. And in this case for me, doubly so, field battles are the cream of the crop in RTW. I'd love to fight outnumbered in the field against an AI attacking a settlement, and have to use my brain in order to win.

[Hooahguy]

That wasnt my original point. My original point was that an outnumbered garrison is much less likely to sally out than to stay and defend the walls/sit out the siege. I never said that fighting in the streets was better, I merely stated that when there was no chance of victory in the open field, the garrison would defend the walls. I agree that once the walls are breached then the battle is over from a historical point, but from a gameplay point of view I disagree.

[AntiDamascus]

I seem to get open field battles a lot. If it was harder to put armies into fleets you would see a lot more fights as factions would block off their land from moving armies and form choke points. Now you just head out to sea and land near the next settlement.

[Wilbo]

I have far more field battles than sieges, and it's all down to play style. Towns often have an army, or three, nearby. I always attack the armies directly, in an attempt to drive them off - or have them bring the garrison to the field as reinforcements. This means the final battle for the settlement is normally a minor mop-up operation, safely done with auto resolve.

[Sp4]

On the split between open field battles and settlement battles. I think I autoresolved the majority of the settlement, ambush and port battles though.

http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/901009076338775946/110E96C5BDEE48B356A09467A1DFA8FB92EB6213/

[Myth]

Street figthing is advantegous if you've prepared for it and if your *troops* are prepared for it. Staking streets, creating murderous crossfire in town plazas, using houses and rooftops as ambush points, rolling in burning carts to cut off enemy reinforcement...

Perhaps army development should have an Urban Combat skill to be raised as it gains experience, which would let us set up such traps?

[Bramborough]

On the split between open field battles and settlement battles. I think I autoresolved the majority of the settlement, ambush and port battles though.

http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/901009076338775946/110E96C5BDEE48B356A09467A1DFA8FB92EB6213/

If we count ambush battles as "open field" (and I don't know why we wouldn't), then at first glance it would appear that the siege/settlement-to-openfield ratio in this campaign was about 3-to-1. Up through Patch 2, this sounds about right to me.

Before drawing any conclusions, however, note that as of Patch3beta, the settlement defender now has the option to sally out to meet the attacker in open field. I've noticed the AI doing this fairly often, even with substantially unfavorable BoP meter. I assume that the game still counts this as a "settlement" or "siege" battle, rather than "land". Furthermore, if the player is the attacker and auto-resolves, the player never even sees which option the AI chose.

I AR settlement attacks fairly often, for various reasons. The odds just aren't worth spending the battle time, or the involvement of fleets just makes for a mess that I don't feel like dealing with, etc etc. As a result, since loading Patch3beta I'm sure I've AR'd my way past many an open-field defense that I didn't even realize were going to take place. And the Victory (or stats tab) numbers wouldn't show that either.

[Barkhorn1x]

I have far more field battles than sieges, and it's all down to play style. Towns often have an army, or three, nearby. I always attack the armies directly, in an attempt to drive them off - or have them bring the garrison to the field as reinforcements. This means the final battle for the settlement is normally a minor mop-up operation, safely done with auto resolve.

That must be it then.

[AntiDamascus]

I had my first sally forth yesterday and was kinda shocked how out in the middle of nowhere it was. I mean that's the point but how far out was I laying siege?

[Sp4]

Not that far away, they just cloaked the town.

[AntiDamascus]

Rome 2: Atlantis

[Hooahguy]

Im actually a tad disappointed they did that. I loved how in Rome 1 you could see a city in the distance if you fought near one.

[Tsavong]

CA should make the city battles open field battles. When facing invasion, most armies did not defend inside the settlement itself, rather outside of it. Sieges can be left to the capitals.

I wish they did that get rid of the capture point for them and have the settlement just behind the defending armies deployment zone.

[AntiDamascus]

I dunno, I like city fights and I like the idea of forcing a defender to actually defend the city instead of just running around the map.

[phred]

The current beta patch (no. 3, I think) changes most settlement fights to field battles.
If it's a walled city, you get a siege, but the unwalled settlements will mostly get field battles.

I'm having a lot more field battles now. The patch should go live early this week.

[fallen851]

The current beta patch (no. 3, I think) changes most settlement fights to field battles.
If it's a walled city, you get a siege, but the unwalled settlements will mostly get field battles.

I'm having a lot more field battles now. The patch should go live early this week.

Perfect.

[Sp4]

Im actually a tad disappointed they did that. I loved how in Rome 1 you could see a city in the distance if you fought near one.

There are some settlements where you still see it in the background or depending on where you are on the map anyways. I spent a few hours just running to noteworthy locations to have battles there and see if I can see things like the Pyramids or something in the distance.

[nearchos]

More field battles with patch 3,the AI is more aggresive with clever moves and use of agents on the campaign map.

[Bramborough]

Fought an open-sea battle in the Aegean; it was close to Athens, but not directly associated with it. The city was clearly visible in the far background. Not generic "ancient Graeco-Roman city" landscape, but specifically identifiable as Athens (Parthenon atop Acropolis). Looked pretty cool, actually. Wish I'd had presence of mind to snap a screenie.