Battle speed

[Templar Knight]

Over at the Sega USA website I noticed that under battles it said 'quicker pace' - I hope it means that combat is quicker not the time taken to fight them.


Bigger and better battles: Improved combat choreography, larger armies, quicker pace, and spectacular finishing moves make this the most visceral and exciting Total War ever.

I also noticed bow stings :2thumbsup:

http://www.sega.com/games/game_temp.php?game=medieval2&id=hp_mp

[Kraxis]

:fainting:

Oh no... Please no... Please let it just be something that does not involve the actual fighting!!!

Urgh... I... I feel faint of heart... Need medicine... No, a defibrilator!

[Templar Knight]

It might mean the speed of the swings and blocks etc - I hope

[Kraxis]

Slower CA... SLOWER!!!! Not faster! You are killing us here... Ok, you are killing ME, but that is bad enough (yes I'm important).

This would be a really great time for a dev to step in and reassure me that the combat will indeed take longer than 30 seconds after impact.

Get a grip on yourself!

*Grips myself*

Good... Well no, but there is nothing more than a single little line saying something like 'faster pace', could mean anything and we, and especially me, shouldn't get worked up yet. But it is certainly not good news.

[econ21]

Don't panic - quicker paced may refer to the campaign speed. RTW campaigns are faster than STW and MTW campaigns, I think, but still very long and IMO lacking pace. The mods that slow down the battles - RTR and EB - are even more glacial at the level of the campaign. (I think EB requires about 1000 turns to get the Marian reforms.) By contrast, I think BI was a step in the right direction with less provinces, a shorter campaign and big unpredictable threatening hordes (I've nothing against a mega-campaign, but give us the options of more bite-sized ones too).

I've been playing Civ4 and although it is also lengthy (on epic/huge), it manages to be more tense and exciting ("one more turn") than TW. I'd like to see more done to get the "fewer and more decisive" battles we were promised in RTW. Fewer skirmishes (especially with spawning rebels) and no contest sieges.

Of course, a key way Civ4 maintains the tension is by having an AI that really breathes down your neck. TW needs a little more of that element of danger. IMO, the threat from AI factions in the campaigns has progressively diminished as we've moved from STW to MTW to RTW. Of course, we'd love cleverer AI but in the absence of that raising the AI threat may just require more Civ style cheats to boost the AIs resources. (EB has recognised that with the scripts to keep replenishing the AIs coffers).

[Templar Knight]

You might be right, however the sentence was to do with the 3D battles not the overall game.

[Reenk Roink]

Don't kill me, but I liked the speed of the RTW battles, and actually wouldn't mind if they were a tad bit quicker... :tomato2:

[Papewaio]

:fainting:

Oh no... Please no... Please let it just be something that does not involve the actual fighting!!!

Urgh... I... I feel faint of heart... Need medicine... No, a defibrilator!

Stat! :charge:

Clear!!!

I'll do the heart massage :trytofly: ... could someone else do the mouth to mouth on sleeping beauty :knuddel: ~:eek:. Please. :laugh4:

[Martok]

Don't kill me, but I liked the speed of the RTW battles, and actually wouldn't mind if they were a tad bit quicker... :tomato2:


[Martok comes at Reenk Roink with a club] Hold still! I promise I'll be quick. :viking: ~D


Seriously, though, shorter battles would be very very bad. I admittedly could usually do without the epic 5-10 hour-long battles we sometimes have in Medieval, but I was very dismayed that most battles in Rome didn't last more than 5 minutes or so.

[Efrem]

Stat! :charge:

Clear!!!

I'll do the heart massage :trytofly: ... could someone else do the mouth to mouth on sleeping beauty :knuddel: ~:eek:. Please. :laugh4:



PLEASE GIVE US BACK THE SPEED BAR!!! :(

[hrvojej]

I really think that they should include a slower battle speed option, along with other similar things. I have no doubt that there will be options for arcade battles and such, and I don't mind if the default setting will be arcadish, but only as long as there is an option to make it *less* arcadish too. I think this time around we who want those options (again, options - make the defaults appeal to a wider audience) should really get them.

[sapi]

:fainting:

Oh no... Please no... Please let it just be something that does not involve the actual fighting!!!

Urgh... I... I feel faint of heart... Need medicine... No, a defibrilator!
qft


Don't kill me, but I liked the speed of the RTW battles, and actually wouldn't mind if they were a tad bit quicker...
Go back to a real rts, not a total war game...

Something like the rtr system would suit me...

[Zatoichi]

Well, it's possible they mean faster paced compared to the original MTW - just like RTW was. However, this is still not good, but a darned sight better than faster paced compared to RTW. The very first thing I did after playing RTW for an hour was mod the battle movement speeds down, and increase the morale of all units to stop insta-routs. I hope I don't need to do this again with M2TW...

Slower is better!

[Weebeast]

They probably mean there will be less empire-managing or something. We war in a quicker pace, no? Build army a year and fight 100 years.

-edit- Nevermind. I didn't realize it was under "battle."

[sapi]

They probably mean there will be less empire-managing or something. We war in a quicker pace, no? Build army a year and fight 100 years.

-edit- Nevermind. I didn't realize it was under "battle."
Yeah - they'd not dare try that!

It better be slow and tactical (compared to rtw) with a decent ai though...

[x-dANGEr]

Can I understand what's so bad about short battles? And who said they are short anyway, try an infantry to infantry battle and see how much will it hold. And the sollution to this problem, is improve the A.I. Go play some MP, the easiest game would take 20 mins.. I can't understand what do you mean by a slower battle..

[Mount Suribachi]

One of the communities biggest (and ongoing) problems with RTW is that compared to MTW and STW the battles are much shorter in length. Movement speeds are faster, killing rates are faster, units route quicker. Even battles between 2 full stacks rarely last more than 10 minutes. Whereas in MTW a battle between 2 full stacks could last 30 minutes or more, with the battle ebbing and flowing. With RTW, the lines meet, fight for a few seconds, then one side chain routes. I've not even come close to the epic 3 and 4 hour fights I had in MTW whilst playing RTW. Battles that will live long in the memory.

Like most MTW and STW vets I miss those epic battles in RTW, and I am apprehensive at this talk of a quicker pace in MTW2...

[doc_bean]

Let's just hope this is what CA told the marketing guys to shut them up, and they're actually making a deep, tactical, battle system.

I don't think you can sell 'slow' to your average marketing guy, but then, most of them probably never played a Total War game either...

[Gustav II Adolf]

Pleeease CA and Sega!

Less is more!

I like the speed as it was in MTW. In RTW i found the battle speeds a bit too fast. Over all the game improves if the suspense is allowed to grow before the battle. Well into the fighting there should be room for tactical maneuvers. It´s all about balancing, i know. :juggle2: I just dont like when a game becomes repetitive or when someone believes exlusively that more of the same more intense makes it better.

[Ciaran]

One of the reasons the MTW battles last so blasted long is the reinforcement system. The units come in stacks one after another instead all at once. And honestly, I much more like the all-at-once Rome battles.
However, I do agree that the actual movement and fighting speed in Rome is a bit too fast, things tend to get a bit too hectic.

[Kraxis]

Ahh it is nice that somebody cares if I live or not, but honestly I'm a little disappointed nobody would give mouth to mouth... I mean I have brushed my teeth two weeks ago.~;p


I don't think you can sell 'slow' to your average marketing guy, but then, most of them probably never played a Total War game either...
Of course you can't, that is why you would use 'Epic' instead.

I can still remember a lot of battles in MTW or STW where most of my army wasrouted and I had only a few units that I had managed to rally left, all of them depleted, tired and in not too good a mood. Then the enemy would come at me and we would fight on and on and on until I would realize that it served no purpose anymore.

That can't happen in RTW.

[Zatoichi]

They should also bring back individual units' ability to rally rather than having it just in the general's hands. Many's a MTW battle where I would be desperately waiting to rally a unit which might just be able to turn the tide. That didn't happen in RTW, which was that game's loss.

Seriously though, we need confirmation that this is just marketing speak, and not a fundamental rejigging of the engine - faster paced battles is just not what I want to hear. What's the point of the lovely new graphics and fancy motion-captured animations if the battles are too fast to enjoy them?

[Templar Knight]

I expect we will know more in PC Zone's 'first look' on February 2nd :2thumbsup:

Followed by a preview in PC Gamer in March :2thumbsup:

[x-dANGEr]

Man, you guys are too free or.. :S

Are R: TW battles fast in Huge scale as in Normal? Frankly, from the ashes of M: TW remaining in my head, I do remember battles being slow, but like I don't care. Wheather they are fast or slow, I'll still get the fun, and the result will still be the same. Won't it?

[Doug-Thompson]

To be precise, I don't think people want slowness just for slowness' sake. What I want back is some control.

You don't command as much in R:TW. You deploy your toops and click attack. It's not quite like the same as using auto-resolve and getting to watch, but it's too close.

Sure, command and control was limited in the Medieval Era. However, at least you had time to spring a trap or watch for a gap in the line and go charging in with your knights.

The excitement of striking at just the right moment is what I miss in R:TW. It still happens, sometimes, but not often enough.

[Oaty]

They should also bring back individual units' ability to rally rather than having it just in the general's hands. Many's a MTW battle where I would be desperately waiting to rally a unit which might just be able to turn the tide. That didn't happen in RTW, which was that game's loss.

I'm a bit against that. Plus RTW's rally style is much more historically accurate, and as much heat CA gets............

Anyways a question for someone who's played some of the mods with reduced kill rates while also stretching there system. To me it seems I can get more troops on the battlefield with RTR before the lag kicks in as opposed to vanilla. I'm not saying this is fact but I'm suspicous RTR takes more units to lag. Cavalry have a fast kill rate but most infantrys kill rate is reduced by over one third in RTR. So on average theres up to over 50 percent less calculations the processor has to calculate wich ups the performance. Since MTW 2 is claiming much more epic battles without probably upping the system requirements by much (I hope). So one way to increase troop count is to make the calculations needed per second less. So for MTW2's engine the calculations are probably reduced, but the chances to kill could be increased.

Anyways the way it's stated could mean multiple things such as instead of fighting a bunch of small stacks fighting your way to a city you could find 1 major battle where either the A.I. keeps marching thier army away from yours in the case of defeat while gaining reenforcements or you are retreating yours in the case of defeat while being persued.

1 major battle is a quicker pace than 5 or 6 small battles

Anyways RTW's kilm rate is a little fast but acceptable for me but it's the way routers = instadeath that bothers me.

[Reenk Roink]

I give in, you should all enjoy the longer battles, I'll admit, I like them as well, but in Rome there were just so many friggin' battles that it really got boring quick. I just hope the AI is improved so that battles actually matter, and you are not bombarded with 1/4 full stacks every turn...

And anyways, there's still the speed up :2thumbsup:.

[Quietus]

Three main problems of the RTW battlefield IMO:

1) High unit speed (unrealistic acceleration included).
2) High kill-rate (including unbalanced units).
3) Small useable map area ( there's no room to maneuver, march, hide or even rally - if even possible).

[AquaLurker]

Have anyone notice the "1 player offline, 6 player online" under multiplayer features in the link? I hope they are not saying max 6 player online again...I love 4v4s and if possible 5v5 6v6 7v7 8v8!!!

[Sardo]

This was posted at the .com forums by CA staff:


Hi Guys,

Just to clarify, M2 battles haven’t been sped up or turned into an arcade game. The pace of combat on the battlemaps is comparable to previous TW games.
I think that may have been some miss-wording on the PR’s Behalf.
We do have a lot more animation though, which simply beefs up the realism aspect of combat in the battlemaps. Single units now track and acquire targets on the battlefield before engaging and have a range of moves to be used depending on the situation. Finishing moves refers to the way in which a single unit decides to kill their opposition. I wouldn’t relate it to an arcade fighting game at all.
We actually employed some historical actors to help out with the fight sequencing to allow our animators to deliver more realistic looking battlefields. They left behind some cool practice weapons as well which is really useful for ‘motivating’ the artists ;)

In short, death to PR people.

[doc_bean]

In short, death to PR people.

~:cheers:

But does 'comparable to previous total war games' mean comparable to Rome or medieval though ?



I give in, you should all enjoy the longer battles, I'll admit, I like them as well, but in Rome there were just so many friggin' battles that it really got boring quick. I just hope the AI is improved so that battles actually matter, and you are not bombarded with 1/4 full stacks every turn...

And anyways, there's still the speed up .

I found battles in MTW to be more diverse and generally more interesting than in Rome. You had a wider range of units (per faction) at your disposal who were often good at specific things. Cavalry wasn't quite as dominant as in Rome either, you could flank one unit but then you would be engaged for a while so you couldn't provide backup for the rest of your army. In Rome you can just outflank and kill one unit at a time. Bigger armies also make outflanking harder. Also cavalry was (imho) relatively expensive and since you could get serious losses even if you flanked, you weren't so eager to just charge in before you had the enemy units pinned down.

Honestly I hope they find some middle ground, MTW battles tended to be better, but I don't want to fight 3+ huge battles (taking up to or over an hour each) a turn again, since I usually play games in 1 hour doses.

[x-dANGEr]

Can't their just be a drop-down menu in options where you decide what battle speed you want in SP? And in MP, the host decides it and problem solved :P

[Kraxis]

Can't their just be a drop-down menu in options where you decide what battle speed you want in SP? And in MP, the host decides it and problem solved :P
I think that would be a most acceptable solution to us all. We can't assume everybody want the solid and lengthy combat of MTW.

But I really want the uncertainty to come back, the slow development of who is getting the upper hand. The battle that lasts across the entire map. The rallying of desperate forces to last just one more charge. The furious engagement of outnumbered forces on a hill when you have all the troops engaged and the enemy is flanking you. The last one is in Rome too seldom given that you often rout your enemy to the front and then deal with the flankers. In MTW you sit a bite your nails as they edge closer and your troops are still engaged with an enemy unit with 90% if it's strength.

[Ludens]

Just to clarify, M2 battles haven’t been sped up or turned into an arcade game. The pace of combat on the battlemaps is comparable to previous TW games.
I think that may have been some miss-wording on the PR’s Behalf.
We do have a lot more animation though, which simply beefs up the realism aspect of combat in the battlemaps. Single units now track and acquire targets on the battlefield before engaging and have a range of moves to be used depending on the situation. Finishing moves refers to the way in which a single unit decides to kill their opposition. I wouldn’t relate it to an arcade fighting game at all.
We actually employed some historical actors to help out with the fight sequencing to allow our animators to deliver more realistic looking battlefields. They left behind some cool practice weapons as well which is really useful for ‘motivating’ the artists ;)
~:thumb:


But I really want the uncertainty to come back, the slow development of who is getting the upper hand. The battle that lasts across the entire map. The rallying of desperate forces to last just one more charge. The furious engagement of outnumbered forces on a hill when you have all the troops engaged and the enemy is flanking you. The last one is in Rome too seldom given that you often rout your enemy to the front and then deal with the flankers. In MTW you sit a bite your nails as they edge closer and your troops are still engaged with an enemy unit with 90% if it's strength.
Amen to that. R:TW may have been intented to go as fast as M:TW, it never worked for me that way. Off course, fast is a relative term.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The battle that lasts across the entire map.

Or better still - if they expand the map so you still have room for a lot of manouvering and flanking and similar while still allowing for really big battle lines. In RTW it was a little sad that on huge unit settings you could sometimes create a line of phalanxes that covered pretty much the entire width of the map... I really always wanted to play huge but never did because it removed all possibilities for manouvering...

Anyway it's slower battle speed and better AI for me, I don't like the speed of the RTW engagements, it removes both the tactical game, the historical realism, and the epic feeling of battles. Too often in RTW I just collected 5-6 cavalry units and move them around, isolating one enemy unit at the time and charging it. Repeating that for a while, the enemy army is eliminated, no matter how strong it was from the start of the battle (except if it was a horse archer army). That was the cause of the fourth downside of RTW battles - that I suffered too few casualties to have any worries on the campaign map and long term strategy. More losses in the battles equals more interesting campaign map game. But it mustn't be more losses while keeping the RTW battle speed, because then defeat usually means total annihilation of the army. It's more interesting in EB when often 60% of defeated armies (both my own and those of the enemy) get away. Makes it a tougher decision to know whether to push on or not.

[ajaxfetish]

Caliban deserves a big hug!! That is so comforting to hear. My day suddenly improved dramatically, and it wasn't even a bad day to begin with.

Ajax

[Kraxis]

Legio what I meant was that the battle would roll back and forth if you were too uncareful and chased after the enemy when and if he routed. Then you would be beaten back when hid reinforcements arrived. Or even if you slowly crept ahead, jumping from tactical position to the next until you realized you were far from safety.

Btw, I want a return of the diluge of experienced troops if you send them home for reinforcements. You should be forced to be forced to merge your experienced troops.

[hrvojej]

Btw, I want a return of the diluge of experienced troops if you send them home for reinforcements. You should be forced to be forced to merge your experienced troops.
Yeah, easy replacement of depleted units in RTW was a big thing that made waging war so much easier, and yet it was too tempting not to use it (for me at least). Something should be done with the retraining system to make it harder to just regrow your entire army in a turn or two: maybe something along the lines of "homelands" that one of the mods to RTW had?

Sorry for the OT.

[Kraxis]

Limiting the amount of replacements you can order would be nice. Say three units perhaps.
But the amount of possible replacements were never a problem in MTW in my mind as they were after all normally green anyway (the veterans would normally only come home to be upgraded and smaller veteran forces would be in special replacement armies near the front).
And often I merged so many forces that I didn't even have that many forces to send home for replacements. Most new troops coming as raw recruits.

This is very much unlike RTW where I basically retrained units as often as I could and in basically any settlement.

[Gen_Lee]

In Mtw, Bkb, Med, Nap, Atw or P&m I loose a lot due to umproper management of reeformcents/usage of units.
But in Rtw seems even I, a bad commander by all means, still manage to win despite all.
So hope MIItw will be an improvement over Mtw rather then Rtw, lol.

[Voigtkampf]

One of the communities biggest (and ongoing) problems with RTW is that compared to MTW and STW the battles are much shorter in length. Movement speeds are faster, killing rates are faster, units route quicker. Even battles between 2 full stacks rarely last more than 10 minutes. Whereas in MTW a battle between 2 full stacks could last 30 minutes or more, with the battle ebbing and flowing. With RTW, the lines meet, fight for a few seconds, then one side chain routes. I've not even come close to the epic 3 and 4 hour fights I had in MTW whilst playing RTW. Battles that will live long in the memory.

Like most MTW and STW vets I miss those epic battles in RTW, and I am apprehensive at this talk of a quicker pace in MTW2...

Listen to him! He speaketh the truteth!!! :end:

I miss those long, epic, huge battles of M:TW...

[Duke John]

One of the communities biggest issues is not accepting mods. A mod that slows down running speed and combat is a piece of cake but it seems that MPers much rather yell at CA.

[Sardo]

One of the communities biggest issues is not accepting mods. A mod that slows down running speed and combat is a piece of cake but it seems that MPers much rather yell at CA.
I would submit that this is because most people do not wish to rely on third-party mods for a good game. Mods are supposed to add new content, not fix the game.

[Duke John]

If R:TW was the ideal game, then yes. But people are complaining about speeds and CA is doing nothing about it. The solution by the community? Keep whining because mods are not official.

[Kraxis]

I think most of us here want it for SP...

But in any case I did mod that stuff myself. And I ended up putting it back (well mostly). It just looked wrong with the sliding and the long pauses between attacks were horrible.

In te ned I even tried upping defense immensely, that seemed to work but then I found out that it only works 100% on the unshielded side. Nice... Suddenly the shield became a liability.

In the end the solutions were at best a bandaid over a gushing wound.

[Reenk Roink]

Well I would want it for both SP and MP (SP more), but I really wouldn't mind longer battles for MP, the thing that makes playing a MP game in Rome take so long is when you try to start one...

But that's a discussion for a different thread...

[Duke John]

But in any case I did mod that stuff myself. And I ended up putting it back (well mostly). It just looked wrong with the sliding and the long pauses between attacks were horrible.
The solution of editing the terrain movement modifiers is indeed bad as it also slows walking (which is fine). I was talking about editing the animations, since they are the ones who dictate the speed of movement.

[Kraxis]

Ah... Then I must say that I have not been familiar with a speedmod for that. An I thought I was rather well versed in that department, at least until mid autumn.

[Orda Khan]

I can not understand why only RTW comes in for abuse when considering unit speed. STW/MI was too fast but nobody goes on and on about that. I have played MP RTW battles that have lasted over an hour. I have played MP MTW battles that lasted less than 10 minutes. The combat phase is governed by many things other than movement speed.
I found unit speeds (walking/running) less than perfect in MTW, cav appeared to be running but getting nowhere, many times an arbalest unit would manage to escape light cav.
Lack of control and limited space in RTW is possibly governed by the AI habit of stretching its units into one wide line.
Deployment zones have always been arranged far too close so manoeuvre is of secondary importance and that horrible red zone is a wonderful flank protector.

A few map extras would significantly improve battles. Surprise features like marshy ground etc, things that prevent units working at optimum levels, realistic and IMO it would add more drama to the battlefield

......Orda

[x-dANGEr]

I agree to you Orda. I have experienced battles that lasted 1:50 hours.. And it all depends on the players experience (In MP) and how a fool the A.I is (In SP). So, I say no to blame the speed of the battle for such things, after all, if we want it as it was, increase the number of men to 1000 and see how long will the battle last.

[sapi]

I agree to you Orda. I have experienced battles that lasted 1:50 hours.. And it all depends on the players experience (In MP) and how a fool the A.I is (In SP). So, I say no to blame the speed of the battle for such things, after all, if we want it as it was, increase the number of men to 1000 and see how long will the battle last.
I have never seen a battle that long in rtw in sp, but i did in mtw, so i'd like to see the speeds reduced to what they were then...

[x-dANGEr]

But the problem is the A.I I think. All it's armies are weak a bunch of peasents and it also can't handle them..

[Craterus]

I never played MTW. But 8 hour epic battles sound quite cool. As long as they're not too common.

It would be helpful if you could save during battles. I'm not sure if that was in MTW?

[Mithrandir]

Lack of control and limited space in RTW is possibly governed by the AI habit of stretching its units into one wide line.


......Orda

I think that's because CA learned from their online MTW game vs AMP (and magy+Koc) ;).

[fester]

Don't kill me, but I liked the speed of the RTW battles, and actually wouldn't mind if they were a tad bit quicker... :tomato2:
So what do you want?any faster and two units would meet, Decide emediately who was the best and the lesser would route. This is one of the most fundamental floors with RTW the fact that things happen so fast that your not given time to implement any tactics.Thats the main reason I went back to MTW. Rome just feels like a very pretty arcade game.

[Orda Khan]

I think that's because CA learned from their online MTW game vs AMP (and magy+Koc) ;).
.....And they would still lose badly, even implementing this tactic ( which is fundamentally weak). RTW armies insist on being single lined and this is the major reason for quick routs. The centre or flank (depending on your point of attack) crumbles and the rest of the battle is chasing off the rest

....Orda

[fester]

[Martok comes at Reenk Roink with a club] Hold still! I promise I'll be quick. :viking: ~D


Seriously, though, shorter battles would be very very bad. I admittedly could usually do without the epic 5-10 hour-long battles we sometimes have in Medieval, but I was very dismayed that most battles in Rome didn't last more than 5 minutes or so.
Could'nt agree more. Some battles in MTW are responsible for the black bags under my eyes but the lets clash and dash crap in Rome leads me to believe the CA think the mass PC gamer market is over ran with brain dead lets blast the crap out of it dudes, and I dont believe this is true.Surely thats the console market......

[SirGrotius]

I look back fondly on those few battles in MTW which I would call "epic" battles. Fighting against the first incursions of the Horde comes to mind.

Most of my battles for MTW lasted between 10-30/40 minutes. I thought this was perfect, especially since turns were abstracted to take place within a full year.

My RTW battles last about 2-3 minutes of getting units into position (on the fastest setting), then back on normal, engagement, which lasts, oh, maybe 3-5 minutes, before someone routes. Usually, the greatest difficulty is making sure I'm able to click on my units fast enough so that the battles is not decided before everyone has been issued an order. Very frustrating.

That was a long-winded way of saying "faster paced" battles in MTW2 would make me cry.

Things that have me worried:

1) I do not think that that CA post effectively eliminated my concerns (the reference to other TW titles could mean RTW, of course)

2) I do not think Game Informer/PC Gamer reviewers (or previewers) will bother to talk about the length of battles, just about graphics and probably the campaign map and factions. Sigh

[Martok]

Things that have me worried:

1) I do not think that that CA post effectively eliminated my concerns (the reference to other TW titles could mean RTW, of course)

2) I do not think Game Informer/PC Gamer reviewers (or previewers) will bother to talk about the length of battles, just about graphics and probably the campaign map and factions. Sigh


I pretty much agree with your entire post, SirGrotius, but especially that part. Unless battle speeds are closer to what they were in Medieval and Shogun--or better yet, give players the choice of two battle speeds--then combat still won't be very much fun for me.

And I too very much doubt that reviewers will even mention battle speeds. I'm also concerned that they won't discuss the AI very much; and/or that they'll say the AI is great, except that it's difficult to say such things if you've only been playing the game for a few days before writing up your review.

[Orda Khan]

I think it is safe to say that the majority of .ORG members want the pace slowed down. The manoeuvre aspect of the game should rate highly in the tactical battles and this is not the case at present. I want the deployment zones radically re thought, especially for MP. One large zone for all allied armies?
I want greater distance between opposing zones to allow you to manoeuvre and initiate counter moves. A large scale battle deserves the time for it to be thought out and executed. If this takes an hour or two, great. There is the choice to save before a battle if time is an issue, allowing you to come back when you have the time to play it through. Hopefully, after so much discussion on this subject, we will see some improvement

......Orda

[Ludens]

While I agree with Orda's recommendations, I also think that large map would be an annoyance when fighting small skirmishes. Perhaps map size should be dependent on army size? Or for small battles the opposing armies start closer together?

[GFX707]

This would be a really great time for a dev to step in and reassure me that the combat will indeed take longer than 30 seconds after impact.


30 seconds in RTW? If only! I think once I measured it at about 10....

[Reenk Roink]

So what do you want?any faster and two units would meet, Decide emediately who was the best and the lesser would route. This is one of the most fundamental floors with RTW the fact that things happen so fast that your not given time to implement any tactics.Thats the main reason I went back to MTW. Rome just feels like a very pretty arcade game.

Hey, with all fairness, read my second post:


I give in, you should all enjoy the longer battles, I'll admit, I like them as well, but in Rome there were just so many friggin' battles that it really got boring quick. I just hope the AI is improved so that battles actually matter, and you are not bombarded with 1/4 full stacks every turn...

And anyways, there's still the speed up.

[King Yngvar]

I think BI was a step in the right direction with less provinces, a shorter campaign

Nooo... there were too few provinces in BI, I had my victory by 410 AD the first game I played, it's just too quick.

[x-dANGEr]

I take it for granted that most of you who say battles in R: TW are short have never played MP.. How long would it take 40 men to kill 40 men with swords in these days.. 2 minutes? It's just the same in game. I don't know why you have the idea that men need 10 seconds to move their swords. I myself don't remember a more-than-hour battle in M: TW in SP. And maybe one of the factors that you think M: TW had 'epic' battles, is because you could reinforce your army with more than just 2-3 packs.. But with semi-unlimited number of stacks. Everyone has his opinon and I appericiate that. But I still blame the A.I., not that engine for being fast.

[Doug-Thompson]

On a related note, I wish CA would make it so that if you put decent garrison troops in a city, it would suppress rebels in that province. It seems like 90 percent of the battles I fight are rat-killing anti-bandit battles. That's what's time consuming, even if you auto-resolve. You have to move troops out and move troops back, etc.

I'd like to see putting a castle in a province help suppress bandits, too.

[GFX707]

I agree with the above idea....the brigands in RTW were too annoying to deal with, especially if you played one of the Steppe factions.

[Ignoramus]

Exactly, I mean there were robbers and brigands, but seriously, there was actually a period called the "Pax Romana".

[Orda Khan]

Yes bandits appeared far too frequently IMO

......Orda

[Puzz3D]

Speed does matter. You have to balance movement speed and fighting speed to allow enough time for flanking. This also allows units within a certain distance to come to the aid of another unit or allied army. The effectiveness of ranged units then has to be balanced for the movement speed selected. Fatigue rates also have to be adjusted for movement speed so they are not too high or too low.

If the speed chosen is too high, it becomes impossible to effectively control all of your units, and supporting units have to be very close to units they are intended to support because the mechanics of issuing movement orders has a fixed time associated with it. The only way you can make up the time is by using anticipation which benefits the player who moves first thereby unbalancing the offensive/defensive aspect of the battle.

RTW is the worst of all the total war games in this respect (fixing the charge bonus has slowed down the combat resolution for cavalry and spears are more effect vs cav which does help the gameplay). It's not possible to effectively control all 20 units during the fighting. You can control a few units while the rest fight on their own or you can put your army into a few groups and control it that way. Massing armies and attacking with everything before the opponent can mass is the best strategy especialy since there is no penalty for overlapping units. Fatigue rate is low as well which helps. It's called rushing. Of course, if both sides only utilize a few units at a time, that will provide a different kind of battle, but it's not the best strategy.

I'll simply say that by not providing a better tactical game in multiplayer, CA has alienated a large portion of the online community that used to play this game.

[GFX707]

I would honestly just be happy if they included a "realistic" setting which would give us more of a MTW feel besides the default "moronic child with ADHD" setting.

[x-dANGEr]

I agree on the 'low fatigue effect' in R: TW. I never saw a differnece between a fresh unit charge and a tired one.. Though, it 'does' matter with cav, but the deal with rush battles is that they are too close to get any tired.

@The ability to control all units is dependance on speed idea: Isn't the ability of moving all units around at the same time is 'skill' and 'adjusting' ? I think the thing we all should try to do, is adjusting to the next addition, rather than moddelling it to become what it once was.

[AquaLurker]

I can say for sure that the BI settings for movement speed and kill speed is the best, its the same as MTW only difference is that BI archers are more deadly and effective.

Problem lies in AI and has alway been that, charging archers into combat, attacking one at a time, suicidal generals and cav is the real issues. You can modd kill speed/movement speed as low as you like, increase morale as high as you wish but that will only offer slow battles, not tough battles.

[Voigtkampf]

Speed does matter. You have to balance movement speed and fighting speed to allow enough time for flanking. This also allows units within a certain distance to come to the aid of another unit or allied army. The effectiveness of ranged units then has to be balanced for the movement speed selected. Fatigue rates also have to be adjusted for movement speed so they are not too high or too low.

If the speed chosen is too high, it becomes impossible to effectively control all of your units, and supporting units have to be very close to units they are intended to support because the mechanics of issuing movement orders has a fixed time associated with it. The only way you can make up the time is by using anticipation which benefits the player who moves first thereby unbalancing the offensive/defensive aspect of the battle.

RTW is the worst of all the total war games in this respect (fixing the charge bonus has slowed down the combat resolution for cavalry and spears are more effect vs cav which does help the gameplay). It's not possible to effectively control all 20 units during the fighting. You can control a few units while the rest fight on their own or you can put your army into a few groups and control it that way. Massing armies and attacking with everything before the opponent can mass is the best strategy especialy since there is no penalty for overlapping units. Fatigue rate is low as well which helps. It's called rushing. Of course, if both sides only utilize a few units at a time, that will provide a different kind of battle, but it's not the best strategy.

I'll simply say that by not providing a better tactical game in multiplayer, CA has alienated a large portion of the online community that used to play this game.


Carve this into a stone. :bow: My feelings exactly.

All Rome battles were far too fast; it is not the complaint of a man who is unable to cope with speed, but of a man who wants to enjoy the game, revel in it, observe the conflicts and close quarters, wage long battles instead of ten minutes long skirmishes. It is like playing chess or making love to a woman; you can play blitz chess or you can have a "quickie" with a girl, but though I can handle the stresses of both, I prefer both - like my TW battles - to last for hours. :smug:

[Puzz3D]

I can say for sure that the BI settings for movement speed and kill speed is the best, its the same as MTW only difference is that BI archers are more deadly and effective.
The running speeds in RTW were measured as 50% faster than MTW, you have a delay before a unit starts to move and you have 25% more units to control.



Problem lies in AI and has alway been that, charging archers into combat, attacking one at a time, suicidal generals and cav is the real issues. You can modd kill speed/movement speed as low as you like, increase morale as high as you wish but that will only offer slow battles, not tough battles.
The AI isn't as aggressive as a human player. That's why the speed is less of an issue in SP, but it's a big issue in MP. All of those AI issues were addressed to some degree in the patches, but speed was unchanged. There is a bias in the battle AI which causes the AI to overestimate it's winning chances. I've tested it and the AI makes frontal charges with units that have no chance of winning. The AI doesn't do this in STW. I believe that contributes to suicide generals, archers charging into melee and units attacking one at a time. Many players have asked CA to get rid of the AI bias in the battles and also in the auto-resolve, but they have steadfastly refused to do so.

[Puzz3D]

All Rome battles were far too fast; it is not the complaint of a man who is unable to cope with speed, but of a man who wants to enjoy the game, revel in it, observe the conflicts and close quarters, wage long battles instead of ten minutes long skirmishes.
Actually, I don't want 1 hour battles in MP. A better pacing for MP is an average of 15 to 20 minute battles. In the STWmod for MTW/VI, we have that kind of pacing with the movement speeds low enough that you can control all 16 units and make many tactical moves during the height of the battle. Part of the reason for this pacing is that ranged units use their ammo fast enough. Guns will use all their ammo in 7 minutes of continuous shooting, and archers will use all of theirs in about 4 minutes. Contrast that with MTW where it takes 15 minutes for an xbow to use all of it's ammo.

[Duke John]

To get an idea who greatly speed was increased from M:TW to R:TW (100% being the walking speed of infantry in either game):


R:TW M:TW
Infantry walking 100% 3.7 mph 100% 3.7 mph
Infantry running 280% 10.4 mph 166% 6.2 mph
Infantry charging 348% 12.9 mph 183% 6.8 mph
Fast infantry running 337% 12.5 mph 200% 7.4 mph

Cavalry walking 127% 4.72 mph 150% 5.6 mph
Cavalry running 470% 17.5 mph 333% 12.4 mph
Cavalry charging 716% 26.6 mph 367% 13.7 mph
Fast cavalry running 630% 23.4 mph 400% 14.9 mph
I really hope that it is reduced somewhat in M2:TW, it would save me alot of animating. By the way, NTW2 will have the M:TW movement speeds :grin:

[AquaLurker]

The AI isn't as aggressive as a human player. That's why the speed is less of an issue in SP, but it's a big issue in MP. All of those AI issues were addressed to some degree in the patches, but speed was unchanged. There is a bias in the battle AI which causes the AI to overestimate it's winning chances. I've tested it and the AI makes frontal charges with units that have no chance of winning. The AI doesn't do this in STW. I believe that contributes to suicide generals, archers charging into melee and units attacking one at a time. Many players have asked CA to get rid of the AI bias in the battles and also in the auto-resolve, but they have steadfastly refused to do so.

Errhhh...so the problem is still the AI:shame: :sweatdrop: :laugh4:

The running speed have to match the archers effectiviness in BI, MTW archers were not as effective compared to BI.

[Duke John]

The running speed have to match the archers effectiviness in BI, MTW archers were not as effective compared to BI.
It takes more time to animate than to change a few stats. Besides the animations were motion captured, so it was probably that the archers were given increased stats to match the higher running speeds and not the other way around.

[AquaLurker]

Actually, I don't want 1 hour battles in MP. A better pacing for MP is an average of 15 to 20 minute battles. In the STWmod for MTW/VI, we have that kind of pacing with the movement speeds low enough that you can control all 16 units and make many tactical moves during the height of the battle. Part of the reason for this pacing is that ranged units use their ammo fast enough. Guns will use all their ammo in 7 minutes of continuous shooting, and archers will use all of theirs in about 4 minutes. Contrast that with MTW where it takes 15 minutes for an xbow to use all of it's ammo.

So if you have units thats shoot slower and move slower you have a slower game, will not want 1 hours battle but will enjoy slower pace games. I have did some test, AI isn't aggressive enough, samiliar tactical desicion can be made on a slower pace.

[AquaLurker]

It takes more time to animate than to change a few stats. Besides the animations were motion captured, so it was probably that the archers were given increased stats to match the higher running speeds and not the other way around.

Probably, but it sure does makes BI a very dynamic multiplayer game.

[Orda Khan]

The speed is less of an issue than the other things like no overlap penalty. I was fed up of seeing a writhing mass of units, which in essence should be ineffective but on the contrary,in reality they are anything but. If I had to state a preference it would be neither MTW nor RTW/BI. I would like to see MTW inf speed and somewhere in between both games for cav. I would however like to see a considerable difference between heavy and light cav running/charge speeds

.....Orda

[x-dANGEr]

But their is a difference between light/heavy cav speeds. In R: TW, that's the exact reason why in many cases a Scythia Horse Archers unit is better than a noble archers units (In MP). Because a Scythian Horse Archers unit can get away of it's enemies and surely heavy cav, unlike the Noble Archers Unit which is slow.

I muself can't understand how you expect the A.I to be as good as even a basic new player tactic-wise..

[DukeofSerbia]

We want Sonic speed in battles...:laugh4:

[AquaLurker]

Well that reminds me of one thing about RTW and BI light cav and heavy cav difference.

In BI the fast cav is really difficult to catch if you use heavy cav to chase them, thats why alot of seasoned players hate horse archers, you can catch up with them. But in RTW ha is pretty easy to catch even if you use heavy cav like the preatorian cav.

[x-dANGEr]

It's pretty easy if the HA is 'Tired' or less.. And that's a great thing that shows the effect of fatigue. And not all HA in Rome are fast.. Only the light ones (Militia Cav, Numidian Mercenaries/cav, Scythia Horse Archers, etc..). And those can be matched by Equites, Roman cav (With Romans) and the other light cav in other factions. Though, they can't be matched by Praetorian cav for sure, at least, not when their fatigue level is fresh.

[Voigtkampf]

Actually, I don't want 1 hour battles in MP. A better pacing for MP is an average of 15 to 20 minute battles. In the STWmod for MTW/VI, we have that kind of pacing with the movement speeds low enough that you can control all 16 units and make many tactical moves during the height of the battle. Part of the reason for this pacing is that ranged units use their ammo fast enough. Guns will use all their ammo in 7 minutes of continuous shooting, and archers will use all of theirs in about 4 minutes. Contrast that with MTW where it takes 15 minutes for an xbow to use all of it's ammo.

Well, most of the battles that last 15-20 have been unsatisfactory, border-line to rush fights. The most enjoyable game of Rome for me was one 2 on 2 fight that lasted for one and a half hour. That was before the time everybody just started rushing you at the very start, that is.

[Doug-Thompson]

Re: Catching HA

Many HA are "very hardy" or "hardy," giving them great endurance compared to most cavalry. Heat doesn't effect them as much, either.

So HA are faster to begin with, and don't get as tired as quickly — given the same amount of movement.

The trick with catching HA is to keep them moving all the time with missile troops of some sort, then charge them while the charging unit is fresh.

Getting them to go into Cantabrian circle doesn't seem to tire them out as quickly as it did in earlier versions of R:TW, but I haven't tested that.

=============

The skirmish "zone" for HA is almost too generous. I often have to turn skirmish off to get them where they need to go. Otherwise, they'll turn away from enemies that are still a safe distance away.

On the other hand, they won't hold the distance far enough between themselves and troops armed with javelins or pilum. If left to themselves on skirmish, pilum or javelin troops can get close enough for throwing. You can't charge HA with infantry, but you can throw missiles until you're out of ammo.

[Servius]

Bring back the speed bar, definitely.

That, and I want the damn Alt+click option back, which would turn the selected unit at where ever you just clicked. That was so cool and easy. I never understood why both features were removed in RTW. They were so handy.

It should take a while for 200 men to kill each other. 100-man spear units should not be decimated in under a minute, that's just silly. I really think the base speed should be slow, and if a player wants faster action, just use the speed bar. It's simple to do, and it allows each person to choose the pace they're comfortable with.

And no more hard-coded crap.

And...a shrubbery! One that's nice. And not too expensive.

[Orda Khan]

But their is a difference between light/heavy cav speeds. In R: TW, that's the exact reason why in many cases a Scythia Horse Archers unit is better than a noble archers units (In MP). Because a Scythian Horse Archers unit can get away of it's enemies and surely heavy cav, unlike the Noble Archers Unit which is slow.

I muself can't understand how you expect the A.I to be as good as even a basic new player tactic-wise..
I realise that there is a difference, however this difference was not so pronounced in MTW. Medieval heavy cav was heavier than that of the Rome period but light cav and HA was not heavier than their earlier counterparts. We should also expect to see less kills using HA against heavy cav due to better armour

......Orda