A proposed change in the way TW orchestrates battles

[DensterNY]

I was able to watch an episode of Time Commanders some time back which is a British television show where contestants to pitch themselves into historic battles using the Total War engine.

The producers modified the engine and also divided contestants into different hierarchies of command to simulate the fog of war/communication problems of war. The general would be stationed at the highest point with a grand view of the battlefield where he'd issue orders. These orders would be communicated to 2nd-in-commands who would then deliver instructions to captains of units to execute. Of course, there were problems in miscommunication and orders were messed up which caused problems in the battlefield.

Anyways, I was wondering if for these new revisions to the Total War series if they could change your role in leading battles. Whereas now we micromanage every individual or group units and specifically command them - perhaps we could play more of a role like a football coach. In the pre-battle preparations you could outline a general strategy and send out runners to your majors and captains during combat to adjust tactics.

Its just an idea for a potential different approach to TW warfare. I mean I love the current system but its either a choice between pausing every two seconds to fine tune what units are doing or else I play without pause and scroll frantically across the screen trying to get units to do what I want inevitably leaving somebody to stand still like idiots 20 feet away from archers who are pelting them to death.

[screwtype]

Nice idea! It sounds as though it could work very well and be a lot of fun. However it would have to be presented as an alternative to the normal hands-on approach, because I don't think everybody would go for such a system.

[PROMETHEUS]

It would be even more realistic , So I am all for it , but as well keep the classical TW style , but not introduce any rts type please ....

[cannon_fodder]

I've thought about such things myself. Just wondering, have you ever played Combat Mission? The system handling such things in that was quite good. You would give orders to units, but the time it took for them to recieve the orders depended on their seniority, or the seniority of officers around them.

I think it could work in TW. It just feels really unconvincing to order a unit to halt, and see them react immediately. Also, it would put more focus on planning, rather than on-the-fly tactics. This would lessen the frequently present chaos seen in RTW.

[GFX707]

I am all for realism but I don't see people liking this idea enough to want it implemented into the game....which is why I think the TW series needs a "realism" section in its game options a lot more substantial than the one it currently has or has ever had....things like this should be included there. I think it's a great idea....I remember reading early in MTW's and RTW's development about certain features along these lines that never made it into the game....for example in MTW I read that a mounted unit would sometimes refuse to charge pikemen, or in RTW that there would be a delay between when you gave an order and when it was carried out depending on the distance from the General's unit to the actual unit being ordered. Little things like this would make the game so much more realistic and immersive, rather than the feeling of having an army of robot clones at your disposal who will run off to certain death if you tell them to. Which brings me on to the subject of....

Another thing that I would like to see is for each unit to have a degree of autonomy....or to make it more simple a "limit" after which it will no longer obey ridiculous or suicidal orders given to them by you....for example if you order a unit of peasants to charge a unit of foot knights and they get slaughtered, retreat, and rally and you give them that order again....you can bet that they won't be doing that again.

Similarly, if a unit comes under attack from archers there should only be so long it will stand there taking casualties before its AI commander intervenes and takes it out of range....the "we're under attack" of RTW could be claimed to be sufficient at this, but really it was just annoying, especially when you are trying to do 20 other things at once thanks to the insane battle speed.

[The Hun]

It sounds a good idea but what way to send orders? And those commands need to be recognised and programed in which would be difficult. MP battles would be good like this.

[DensterNY]

Of course with most good ideas for change in the TW system it would require a nightmare to program which is a shame. However, the battle system that I envisioned would be like before a play in football where you set your line and assign respective roles to individual players (units).

I mean the current system is still great and you can pull off some complex tactics but it requires you to micromanage every move and keep the pause button on rapid fire.

Overall though, if they keep whatever AI combat logic in place from the original MTW instead of the crappy one they came up with in Rome then it will be a fun game to continue playing.

[Orda Khan]

Allocating units within an army to seperate commanders..eg. Ranged, Inf, Cav with an overall general giving the orders would be one way to implement this idea. The general would be free to type commands and the captains,lieutenants or whatever would then move their units accordingly. This idea still has the stumbling block of deployment zones but same faction can be selected by all allies. Therefore, a 4v4 would need to be hosted whereby the general selects one unit, the general's bodyguard and the other three players choose their selected unit type. With a single deployment zone each side, the individuals could deploy as one army and await orders. I am sure a group of like minded people could experiment with this, I tried a similar thing with friends, however that was just controlling unit type and deciding tactics between allies. I like the sound of this idea

.........Orda