Questions re Patch to Erado San or anyone

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (Erado San @ Oct. 10 2003,05:24)
The patch supports all languages, yes.

Kings do die at different ages, sometimes older, sometimes younger than 56 years. Almost like real life

Hello, thank you for your comments, I have a few questions:

1) Prior to IV, Kings died with slight variation (its been so long now I forget the exact number), if I recall correctly, at or around 72 (or should that be 79?). Fairly predictable, the variation roughly between 2 to 5 years. [Just woke up memory is weak at the moment.]

Post IV and with "bug", Kings died at 56. Precisely predictable. No variation.

The question is post-"patch", using the above as a guide, what level of variation would you describe in comparison?

2) Is the age of death OPTIONABLE? Can this be modded?

3) The "bug" added a level of pressure (most realistic) to produce an Heir that was not present in pre-IV MTW. It made the fact that a Campaign would be lost with the death of an "heir-less" King TRULY relevant

Is there the same "pressure" and "relevancy"?

Quote
Kings do die at different ages, sometimes older, sometimes younger than 56 years. Almost like real life


This sounds interesting, but the reality may be less so. Seems as if CA is attempting to preserve real relevance for Heirs, but I hesitant to install the Patch.

I found the Age "bug" and the Reinforcement "bug" to both be EXTREMELY realistic, enjoyable, fun, and appropriate.

Thank you in advance for your response.

~ ToranagaSama

---

TS, heretofore, has not commented on the "Reinforcement Bug":

Please tell me what general, what period and what engagement, wherein the general in question experienced ABSOLUTE confidence in his "reinforcements"? Confidence being, that they would arrive "en masse" (or arrive at all); precisely as directed; and, in the "order" that was directed?

Absolutely, NEVER happened, anywhere, any point, for anyone, NEVER in history. You folks want this game to be "realistic" or what?

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ] (ToranagaSama @ Oct. 10 2003,14:36)
TS, heretofore, has not commented on the "Reinforcement Bug":

Please tell me what general, what period and what engagement, wherein the general in question experienced ABSOLUTE confidence in his "reinforcements"? Confidence being, that they would arrive "en masse" (or arrive at all); precisely as directed; and, in the "order" that was directed?

Absolutely, NEVER happened, anywhere, any point, for anyone, NEVER in history. You folks want this game to be "realistic" or what?

Jeebus_Frist wrote this:

I don't feel that these troops should be looked upon as reinforcements just arriving on the battlefield. They are actually troops already present on the field but held in reserve to "reinforce" a weak spot in your line or exploit a breach in the enemy's formation. Hence the irrelevancy of the "arriving in masse or in formation" theory IMO. Rather like:

"Withdraw two companies of longbow and order two companies of feudal men at arms to bolster the right flank."

This wouldn't take much time or effort with the reserves already gathered on the field. One flag to signal the longbow to withdraw and a combination of signals or a courier to direct the feudal men at arms to advance to the right flank.

Even a general who is severely outnumbered will hold one or two companies in reserve until the foe reveals its intent or makes a breakthrough.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[ToranagaSama]

Thank you Solypist for closing the "PATCH, IS OUT" prior to someone responding to my post. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Oct. 14 2003,01:51)]
Quote[/b] ] (ToranagaSama @ Oct. 10 2003,14:36)
TS, heretofore, has not commented on the "Reinforcement Bug":

Please tell me what general, what period and what engagement, wherein the general in question experienced ABSOLUTE confidence in his "reinforcements"? Confidence being, that they would arrive "en masse" (or arrive at all); precisely as directed; and, in the "order" that was directed?

Absolutely, NEVER happened, anywhere, any point, for anyone, NEVER in history. You folks want this game to be "realistic" or what?

Jeebus_Frist wrote this:

I don't feel that these troops should be looked upon as reinforcements just arriving on the battlefield. They are actually troops already present on the field but held in reserve to "reinforce" a weak spot in your line or exploit a breach in the enemy's formation. Hence the irrelevancy of the "arriving in masse or in formation" theory IMO. Rather like:

"Withdraw two companies of longbow and order two companies of feudal men at arms to bolster the right flank."

This wouldn't take much time or effort with the reserves already gathered on the field. One flag to signal the longbow to withdraw and a combination of signals or a courier to direct the feudal men at arms to advance to the right flank.

Even a general who is severely outnumbered will hold one or two companies in reserve until the foe reveals its intent or makes a breakthrough.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I understand what you're saying, but do not subscribe to it, for a couple of reasons.

1) Its not as if Reinforcements enter the map directly behind your lines, readily available. They do NOT. They enter often halfway across the map and must "travel" to where you are. They are all too often quite "Tired" from "traveling", so they need to rest. If I bring a reinforcing Knight unit, I will almost always rest them before engaging.

2) *My* "Reserves" are among my 16-unit Stack.

NOTE: the term used for the units in the Second Stack are called REINFORCEMENTS They are not called "Reserves". This imparts a lot, given an accurate usage of the English language, which is a good bet, since CA is British.

I attempt to bring Reinforcements to reinforce my RESERVES. For example: Lose a First line Unit, move in a Reserve/Second line unit, and bring on a "reinforcing" unit to replace the Reserve unit.

When I choose to use Reinforcements (not all that often), the above is one of the manners I do so. If *I* have to wait for a reinforcing unit to fill a "weak" spot on my "line"---I've already lost

3) I DO NOT play the "Withdrawing" game, as you've described it. I do not use a "Static" line as with a "Withdrawing" method, but a "Fluid" line. Movement and Maneuvering. So, for me, there really is no "weak spot" to be filled.

Lastly, I never "depend" on Reinforcements, and their main purpose, for me, has been a "counter-attack" role. (Re-grouping and counter-attacking or defending.)

Quite a time ago, I viewed a couple of replays of players using, what I term as, the "Withdraw" method, admitedly, prior to the 1.1 patch. These players placed there troops directly at the point where Reinforcments enter (edge of map), so Reinforcements enter directly into their line(s).

Such tactics are a tedious waste of troops, and would not be viable in a Campaign multiplay game; but, if, one enjoys it, sa la vie. Though, simply because one enjoys this style of play doesn't turn "Reinforcements" into "Reserves". http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

---

So, in a nod to diffent styles of play, the "bug" should not be eliminated, but made into an OPTION

At best, it adds some additional "realism", at worst it increases the difficulty level. Don't want either, then, turn it off

---

I also, call for the "56 Year" bug to be made OPTIONABLE, as it adds a additional dimension of realism and difficulty. Don't want it, then turn it off

---

All the above, being said, can someone advise how the patch is effecting the Death of Kings and Generals. Is it MUCH different? Is it back to pre-Viking style, with Kings, Princesses and, now, Generals, dying in the general range of 72 - 81 years of age? How often has the exception been, with Death coming before 72?

Thank you for any comments.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Oct. 14 2003,01:32)]All the above, being said, can someone advise how the patch is effecting the Death of Kings and Generals. Is it MUCH different? Is it back to pre-Viking style, with Kings, Princesses and, now, Generals, dying in the general range of 72 - 81 years of age? How often has the exception been, with Death coming before 72?
I did not play too much yet after installin g the patch (lack of time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif ). But from the two campaigns I started I got the following impression:

1. The precise death of kings at 56 has been removed (I guess I am stating the obvious here)

2. Kings still seem to die at a relatively you age (compared to pre-VI). After I saw a couple of AI-factions' kings die at the same year relatively early into the game I loosely tracked the ages of all kings (using matteosartori ). While pre-VI a lot of kings made it into their 70s or even 80s, now the majority of kings died between age 56 and 63. I watched roughly two generations of kings (equivalent to ca. 25 kings) and saw only 2-3 getting older than 70 (they both died in their early 70s).
This "analysis" is of course purely empiric with only a few "datapoints" so far (might just be a coincidence), but it seems that although the fixed death date is removed (I guess most people will like this), the pressure to produce heirs quickly, would still be present in a lighter version (some people will like this, some people won't).

Hopefully these first observations will be helpful

[RJV]

Hi,

Have I missed the point with the whole reserves vs reinforcements thing? The way I see it is that immediately before the battle you have a number of units in a province - say 20. You decide which of the 20 to use and which to, shall we say, hold back. It makes sense to me that as you can choose the original 16 out of your total 20, so you can then choose the order in which you deploy your remaining 4. As to whether they are reserves or reinforcements, I tend to consider them as 'units held in reserve', which in my mind is not the same (semantics here I guess but what the hell).
Thought for the day - a 'proper' reinforcement option would be, after all the pieces have moved on the strat map you get a chance to send some more units into the province. Depending on distance, unit type, weather (game factors, you know the sort of thing) these units may or may not make it to the battle field in time, and if they do you get an info message to that effect, but you will only get to pick from the ones that have actually arrived at that time. I don't know, just an idea that popped into my head - thoughts anyone??

Cheers.

[ToranagaSama]

I'm an idiot. This thread should have posted to the Main Hall.

Anyway, RJV,

Yeah, it makes "logical" sense, but does it make "realistic" sense? There's a difference.

My point of view is from a, been there done that, nexxxtt standpoint. More realism and more difficulty.

I LIKE the fact that I click for Reinforcements, yet I'm not certain which unit I'll get. Makes it more exciting and "realistic". You take what you get, and IMPROVISE, think fast, deal with it

Anyone can "plan" a deployment of reinforcements, but not everyone can master improvisation, and therein lies the challenge.

I mean really, how man advantages versus the AI, do people really need. Once "Expert" difficulty become "Easy", then ahhhh.....oh, yeah...the MedMod http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Still, even with the MedMod, I need to Roleplay---HardCore Rules.

[Puzz3D]

Early English Campaign first 100 years kings deaths from illness.

English: 68, 67, 63
French: 65, 55, 57
Spanish: 57, 64, 63
Almohad: 51, 58, 54
Italian: 64, 59
Sicilian: 59, 53, 63
Papal: 55, 56, 56
HRE: 62, 51, 54
Danes: 62, 68, 65
Polish: 51, 56, 52
Hungarian: 66, 69
Novgorod: 59, 59, 61
Byzantine: 71, 62, 53
Turkish: 53
Egyptian: 60, 52, 58, 57, 63
Argonese: 51, 60, 40, 53

Average age of death from illness = 58
Average age of heirs accending to the throne = 31

Distribution:
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
00 04 02 04 02 02 03 03 02 04 02 01 03 04 02 02 01 01 02 01

There were a total of 47 deaths from illness. The was one below 50 and one above 69. It appears to be an even distribution of 2.7 deaths/year from 51 to 65 with a lower death rate below and above that range.

[barocca]

moved to main hall upon request,
B.