Wanted: a mechanic for bigger battles

[screwtype]

Other changes in RTW have been improperly thought out. It was fine to go to a more detailed campaign map, but the problem is that now you have heaps of little half stacks roaming around that are no contest to whip. In my last three MTW battles I fought against armies THREE THOUSAND strong - that is, the equivalent of three full stack armies in RTW! How often do you get a battle against a triple-stack army in RTW?

You know, immediately after writing that it suddenly occurred to me that there is a simple fix for this problem which CA could implement quite easily.

The reason you get big battles in MTW/STW is of course because you have to fight ALL the enemy troops at once in any enemy province you invade. Furthermore, the AI gets to reinforce any province you invade with units from adjacent provinces if it wants (a feature I actually disliked, but that's another story).

Now it occurs to me that CA could fix the problem of small armies in RTW by having a post-friendly enemy movement phase similar to the previous games. Enemy units within normal movement range of the battle could move adjacent and join in the battle as reinforcements.

I guess to make it fair you'd also have to give the human player double the movement points he has now, but I don't have a problem with that idea because I've always thought the movement range is too short anyhow.

Combining these two ideas should make for a much more flexible, unpredictable game that would thereby provide more challenge. Any opinons?

[Epistolary Richard]

This sounds sensible. Something like this would overcome the artificiality of the turn-based system and lead to larger, more decisive battles.

Unless an army was ambushed, both sides would have some foreknowledge that an enemy army was somewhere in the vicinity. Enough so that they would be able to concentrate their forces in the area.

I'm not sure about allowing the defender a movement phase after being attacked as the reinforcing armies could artificially move into a flanking position.

A simpler system would be just to increase the size of the pool that the battle draws in. Instead of reinforcing armies having to be within one square, say five or ten squares (or better yet, base it on the distance that the attacking army has travelled).

Then, you could have a pre-battle screen that opens up and you could highlight which of the armies within the catchment area you want to march towards the battle and appear as reinforcements.

[aw89]

and you could choose to combine 2 stacks with less then 20 units together. (or 3, 4 etc)

[screwtype]

you could have a pre-battle screen that opens up and you could highlight which of the armies within the catchment area you want to march towards the battle and appear as reinforcements.

I don't see the need for that. You can do that in your own movement phase already. And the idea was really to allow the AI to concentrate its forces more, not the other way around.


Unless an army was ambushed, both sides would have some foreknowledge that an enemy army was somewhere in the vicinity. Enough so that they would be able to concentrate their forces in the area.

Not necessarily. It would depend on whether you had enough lookout towers I guess.

I was thinking it would be cool if you initiated a battle and then saw a couple of huge armies humping out of the gloom to join the battle! It would add unpredictability and mean that you would sometimes be copping tougher battles than you anticipated and getting beaten sometimes (I mean, how often do you lose a battle now?).


I'm not sure about allowing the defender a movement phase after being attacked as the reinforcing armies could artificially move into a flanking position.

I don't have a problem with that. It's too easy to beat the AI as it is, and flanking battles could add some interest. But often you can beat one army before the other gets in position anyway. So I'd rather see AI armies hooking up with each other into one big front which would be harder to beat. But now and again you could still have them randomly entering the battlefield from different points just to make things a bit less predictable.


A simpler system would be just to increase the size of the pool that the battle draws in. Instead of reinforcing armies having to be within one square, say five or ten squares (or better yet, base it on the distance that the attacking army has travelled).

That's what I thought of first, then I thought it would just be better to give the AI units another full movement phase.

It's not quite as simple as I first thought though because with RTW it's not like MTW where there are discreet movement and battle phases, battles are resolved immediately in RTW.

So I think the idea would be that the AI only starts out by getting a full allotment of movement points in its own turn just as it does now. And then it gets a second full allotment of movement points in the human player phase, but only triggered by human initiated combat. Then any AI units which did not move again in the human player turn get a double helping of MP's in their next turn, if you see what I mean.

The beauty of having an AI with twice the movement is that it would make stuff like forts at choke points much more important, because now you would actually need them to slow down the AI before it got to one of your cities.

[screwtype]

and you could choose to combine 2 stacks with less then 20 units together. (or 3, 4 etc)

Yeah but you can already do that if you want.

But it would be good if the AI could do that with one of its lousy half stacks just as you thought you were about to demolish it!

[screwtype]

Okay, aw89 I think now I understand what you and Richard are getting at. You're saying it would be good if you initiated a battle, and then the AI marches up more troops unexpectedly, then you march up some more of your own to have a really humungous battle.

I initially considered that idea but thought it would be better if you couldn't do that. Because I'd prefer to guess at how many troops I might need and get it wrong sometimes. I was thinking more in terms of the way the earlier games worked.

But I suppose your/Richard's idea has some merit. It would certainly mean you could have some humungous battles now and then. But it wouldn't necessarily mean you could always do it, because after all you wouldn't always have the extra troops available anyway.

Also because the units you bring up are reinforcements, sometimes they wouldn't arrive in time as occurs now (same with AI armies). So it could make battles more unpredictable that way as well.

Yes, I think this idea could work, but it might require a little more thought.

[The Stranger]

i agree, i want the old 10,000 vs 10,000 battles of MTW back, or the 2000 vs 10000 and then slaughter those bastards (i'm with 2000 ofcourse)

[Epistolary Richard]

I don't see the need for that. You can do that in your own movement phase already. And the idea was really to allow the AI to concentrate its forces more, not the other way around.


Sorry, I was talking about the defender there. As you say, the attacker can bring up troops in his own movement phase. When he commences battle, the defender gets a chance to bring in his own nearby armies.

If you keep the set movement limit then this would help the AI as the human player always moves so all AI armies would have their full movement to come to reinforce (depending on how you defined the catchment area).



Not necessarily. It would depend on whether you had enough lookout towers I guess.


Here I was talking historically rather than within the game. I know historically armies have been surprised by each other, but that's normally because they don't know exactly where each other have been. It's rather harder to conceal the existence of an army _somewhere_ within the area, even if you can conceal its exact location.


I was thinking it would be cool if you initiated a battle and then saw a couple of huge armies humping out of the gloom to join the battle! It would add unpredictability and mean that you would sometimes be copping tougher battles than you anticipated and getting beaten sometimes (I mean, how often do you lose a battle now?).


That's what I'm thinking too. ~:)




I don't have a problem with that. It's too easy to beat the AI as it is, and flanking battles could add some interest. But often you can beat one army before the other gets in position anyway. So I'd rather see AI armies hooking up with each other into one big front which would be harder to beat. But now and again you could still have them randomly entering the battlefield from different points just to make things a bit less predictable.


I meant it would be too easy for me if I were defender to move a reinforcing army that was behind me into a position where it could now flank the attacker. If it was all happening at the same time then the attacker would most probably engage the closest force to him (ie, the one trying to flank him). But with limitations on movement points then this would probably be a very limited issue.



So I think the idea would be that the AI only starts out by getting a full allotment of movement points in its own turn just as it does now. And then it gets a second full allotment of movement points in the human player phase, but only triggered by human initiated combat. Then any AI units which did not move again in the human player turn get a double helping of MP's in their next turn, if you see what I mean.


However this would mean some armies could move twice as far in a turn as they normally could. As the human player moves first, the AI armies would always have all their movement points to go to reinforce if they desired. Later, when it came to their movement phase, they could use whatever movement points remained. The only side that couldn't take full advantage of it would be the human player who used all his movement points in his own phase.


You're saying it would be good if you initiated a battle, and then the AI marches up more troops unexpectedly, then you march up some more of your own to have a really humungous battle.


As I said, I was confusing by switching from the attacker to the defender. I agree with your idea :dizzy2: , the attacker can combine troops in his own movement phase.


Yes, I think this idea could work, but it might require a little more thought.


It _could_ work in a future TW game but I think for now an extra pre-battle movement phase is probably beyond current modding capability (as is an expanded reinforcement catchment area) and CA has probably already finalised what's going into the RTW expansion pack. But it's a good solution to the problems and hopefully something like it will be introduced somewhere down the line.

[The Stranger]

i hear they are makin a fantasy TW wich is gonna suck, i don't like fantasy games like starwars and that kind of things and a fantasy TW is really going to break my love with the TW serie (wich RTW failed to do luckily, though it is pretty bad but EB is going to save the day)

[SpencerH]

I think the answer is simply to allow more movement during the retreat from combat. A army that wants to retreat should be allowed to do so up to its full amount of unused MP. While that may be what was attempted in RTW, I'm not sure it works that way since I can easily attack AI armies twice in a turn if it retreats the first time.

[screwtype]

In retrospect Richard, although it seemed like a good idea at the time, I don't think any of these ideas would be very workable. At best they would be somewhat kludgy fixes for a campaign system that IMO needs a complete revamp.

And anyhow, I doubt CA will be paying much attention ~:)