I played CoH and it's hard to come back to M2...

[Hoplite7]

CoH=Company of Heroes

I was in a seige and the AI attacked with spies. This might be a challenge, I hoped. But alas, they charged the defenses anyways with a single ladder unit, not even attempting to go through the opened gates. Brilliantly, they attempted to fit 850 men onto four ladders, resulting in a big blob of militiamen at the base of my walls. They did more damage to my FPS than to my troops. After enduring several more glitches on my campaign, I laughed and exited the game.

I'm not whining or insulting fans of the series (which I was until this point), but how does anyone put up with this? After playing some other strategy games I see that in general, M2:TW was more of a failure than I had realized. :wall:

[sapi]

After playing M2TW, I can't go back to CoH

It's just a matter of opinion, and many of the bugs you described will be fixed in the new patch.

[Durallan]

I really liked playing the beta of Company of heroes, but CoH doesn't ahve the empire building that M2TW does, and while the battles in CoH are strategic and fun, they are no way near as majestic as the battles you can have in M2TW. for me, M2TW > CoH, I must admit there are a few problems with M2TW but not enough to make me laugh at playing a campaign and then quitting.

[Hoplite7]

I really liked playing the beta of Company of heroes, but CoH doesn't ahve the empire building that M2TW does, and while the battles in CoH are strategic and fun, they are no way near as majestic as the battles you can have in M2TW. for me, M2TW > CoH, I must admit there are a few problems with M2TW but not enough to make me laugh at playing a campaign and then quitting.

Well, after the seige glitch, my next battle was in the mountains. And ofcourse, the enemy was on top of an inpassable mountain, beyond reach of even arrows. So I had to quit and accept the loss, even though I would have easily had a "Clear Victory".

The next battle was a bridge battle, I was defending. They didn't even attempt to cross, because some units got stuck at the entrance.

A few battles later and my unstoppable army was sunk at sea by two pirate ships against my fleet of five. "Crushing Defeat"....:dizzy2:

People tend to have different experiences with glitches, for me it's unplayable. :no:

[TevashSzat]

Remember, always have timer on so if something happens and you cant win through attack, just put the battle of x3 speed and wait it out until the timer runs out

[Callahan9119]

fans of this series are huge gluttons for punishment, frankly ca has a monopoly on the market, as this is the only game that mixes the 2 types of gameply into a playable format that i know of

i despise the game, yet i come back to it and think about it (yet i almost always get bored of a campaign after about 60 or so turns) but i think i like the idea more than the actual reality of it

if civ 4 had real time battles....forget about it...:laugh4:

i think its just an underachieving company and series

[Marius Dynamite]

I dont think M2 or RTW compare to games like CoH (by games like CoH I means proven good games). However I think Mods like RTR certainly do. If no full mods are made for M2:TW then I wont get the next TW. If they are then I'll have another great game to play in my PC collection of games. :) CA make good engines but not good games. Infact I have had RTW twice. First time the disk broke and shattered inside my disc drive. Then I got Eras and that disc broke a few months later. Soon I am going to get RTW again and I wont even play it. Im going to get it so I can play EB.

Actually, Barbarian Invasion was a good game, so I am kinda wrong. Maybe MTW aswell though I never played but I hear it was good.

All hail this communitys fantastic modders.

[Matty]

Oh, another 'its really crap / oh no it isn't' thread. If you don't like it, don't play it - its a computer game ffs.

[Burns]

I like both games but right now CoH tends to work a bit better :).

[King Jeron]

CoH and M2 are the best RTS games out there. And the only thing those two have in common is that they are an RTS-genre. Other than that, they are two totally different games.

So if you prefer one game over the other, it's because that game is more your thing, not because it's better.

I like both games, but I need months to complete 1 grand campaign in M2, while I finished CoH in just 3 days.

[sapi]

I hate to drag this off topic, but one thing:

Once you've played SupCom, you'll never touch CoH again, whereas you will M2TW ~;)

[Durallan]

Well, after the seige glitch, my next battle was in the mountains. And ofcourse, the enemy was on top of an inpassable mountain, beyond reach of even arrows. So I had to quit and accept the loss, even though I would have easily had a "Clear Victory".

The next battle was a bridge battle, I was defending. They didn't even attempt to cross, because some units got stuck at the entrance.

A few battles later and my unstoppable army was sunk at sea by two pirate ships against my fleet of five. "Crushing Defeat"....:dizzy2:

People tend to have different experiences with glitches, for me it's unplayable. :no:

Ouch. I don't think I've ever had such a bad string of luck, I seriously recommend you reinstall TWM2 and install the leaked patch, that fixes the impassable mountain thing, and its meant to fix siege stuff too.

[Whacker]

I hate to drag this off topic, but one thing:

Once you've played SupCom, you'll never touch CoH again, whereas you will M2TW ~;)

SupCom absolutely destroyed my computer. I couldn't get that thing running at above 20 FPS even with crappy settings, and I have a decent rig with 6800 ultra's in SLI. Haven't played CoH yet but I hear it's awesome, if it plays like the Dawn of War games then I should enjoy it as well.


fans of this series are huge gluttons for punishment, frankly ca has a monopoly on the market, as this is the only game that mixes the 2 types of gameply into a playable format that i know of

I agree about the lack of competition. Hopefully the Lordz and Slitherine/BlackBean will come up with some good competition and incentive for CA to listen to us soon. Check it out: http://www.thelordzgamesstudio.com/ . I always tend to root for the indie/underdog developer anyway.

:balloon2:

[hellenes]

Wow you must be very lucky then...
After playing MTW in 2002 I havent touched a basebuilding RTS since then...
I just cant stomach resource collecting and the whole greenbar hitpoints system anymore...

[Sheogorath]

fans of this series are huge gluttons for punishment, frankly ca has a monopoly on the market, as this is the only game that mixes the 2 types of gameply into a playable format that i know of

i despise the game, yet i come back to it and think about it (yet i almost always get bored of a campaign after about 60 or so turns) but i think i like the idea more than the actual reality of it

if civ 4 had real time battles....forget about it...:laugh4:

i think its just an underachieving company and series

There are a few 'TW' style games out there. They just arent as good and/or publicized as the TW series.
And, of course, theres EA. I just like to blame EA for things, because I hate them for killing Dungeon Keeper 3.
But yeah, there was a Warhammer game set on the TW model a long time ago. Not Mark of Chaos, FYI.

[invalidopcode]

I totally agree. CoH is a fantastic game. It is not one of the "dumb" RTS games out there. It actually requires both strategy and tactics to win a battle. The finishing touches of the game are great as well - voice acting, effects, etc. The only failing is the peer-to-peer network architecture that makes it painful to connect to all of the players in large multiplayer games.

CoH is missing the empire building aspect of the M:TW2 campaign map, though, so it is not a 1-for-1 comparison.

If it were not for Lusted's LtoC mod with all the workarounds I probably would have put my M:TW2 disc away. That mod actually makes the game playable. I was hoping to try the vanilla again after the patch but we know how great that is going.... :dizzy2:

[Shahed]

I love CoH in multiplayer. It's a cool game, EXCELLENT GFX, IMO great unit balance, great sound. It's a great game.

I just installed Carl's PureFixer 1.13 and now I have to say M2TW is REALLY shining. I love M2TW as well, OF COURSE ! With the fixer and some extra personal preferences tweaks M2TW is so cool.

It is a great game but it's really a shame what condition it was shipped in.

[War Mogul]

I hate to drag this off topic, but one thing:

Once you've played SupCom, you'll never touch CoH again, whereas you will M2TW ~;)

hm, personally I don't even consider SupCom a true strategy game. The last time I played it the game was just far too unbalanced. The first person that hits T3 and spams the most bots will win. Secondly battling for land isn't too important after about 10 minutes of play because by then one can just spam generators and fabricators for a strong economy. I love the concept of the game, but the gameplay is lacking IMO. After playing for a couple weeks the game just became far too repetitive for me. I hope they fix some things because the game does have good potential.

For me I like
1. MTW2
2. CoH
3. SupCom

I'm still on the original version of MTW2 and haven't run into too many glitches I still love the game.

[sapi]

For me, CoH just turns into a land grabbing race pronto. There's no need to use tactics or strategy - just spam your vanillia unit while teching up to get tanks, and don't forget to grab the resource points. Add in a unit limit which won't let you get more than 2 and a half men at any one time and it just gets stupid.



SupCom absolutely destroyed my computer. I couldn't get that thing running at above 20 FPS even with crappy settings, and I have a decent rig with 6800 ultra's in SLI. Haven't played CoH yet but I hear it's awesome, if it plays like the Dawn of War games then I should enjoy it as well.It's the cpu that limits supcom, not surprisingly. It may be a pain to get working but it's worth it imo.


Wow you must be very lucky then...
After playing MTW in 2002 I havent touched a basebuilding RTS since then...
I just cant stomach resource collecting and the whole greenbar hitpoints system anymore...So true - another reason I dislike CoH.

With something like SupCom, on the other hand, where there isn't even a display that shows unit damage and where base building is actually an art, that's minimised.

I still much prefer the TW system though.



hm, personally I don't even consider SupCom a true strategy game. The last time I played it the game was just far too unbalanced. The first person that hits T3 and spams the most bots will win. Secondly battling for land isn't too important after about 10 minutes of play because by then one can just spam generators and fabricators for a strong economy. I love the concept of the game, but the gameplay is lacking IMO. After playing for a couple weeks the game just became far too repetitive for me. I hope they fix some things because the game does have good potential.
That's just not true at all - a land attack is the most common way to win. If your opponent is going to T3 pronto, you should be able to crush him with swarms of earlier tech units.

Still, I must admit that as I don't play games for weeks on end, these problems don't occur as much for me.

[War Mogul]

I like SupCom don't get me wrong and they are working to improve the areas I talked about so in a couple months I suppose the game will have better balance to it.
btw there is an indicator that shows unit damage in SupCom.

[sapi]

If you think about it, the 'indicator' showing unit damage in M2TW is in fact the number of men in the unit ~:)

[SoxSexSax]

CoH has been polished with dedication rarely seen outside of Blizzard.

M2TW is still buggy as hell.

I agree with the OP. It is hard to stomach playing M2 after an evening on CoH.

[Didz]

I'm confused....why are we comparing a WW2 tactical game with a medieval grand strategy game, is there any basis for comparison at all?

I don't own CoH mainly because I already have the the MOH series and assumed it was just a clone system. So, what exactly are the empire building aspects of CoH, the resource managment aspects and how good is the diplomatic system.

I am interested because I just bought Hearts of Iron 2 in order to be able to play a grand strategy game in the WW2 era and wonder if CoH would have been a better option.

[sapi]

CoH is a RTS - so no comparison with the strategic aspects of M2TW/HOI/whatever

[Furious Mental]

I used to love top down RTS games like CoH (although at that time it wasn't CoH but AOE) but then I played Shogun and haven't looked back since, although I have played Supreme Commander a bit. Simple fact is I want to command an army, not a company. CoH is finely polished as Blizzard games always are, but since I don't enjoy the types of games that Blizzard makes I personally could not care less. If you like that type of game you'll play it, and you don't you won't. That's really all there is too it. To my knowledge there really isn't a game to which the Total War can be legitimately compared, except perhaps Imperial Glory.

[Shahed]

Yeah, I used to play AOE as well, but since STW. No way !
Played Imperial Glory as well. But as you say, apples and oranges, not comparable.

Having said that though, CoH on LAN is a rush.
Plus I like WW2 era. Specially I like playing ZE GERMANS !!!!

JAWOHL MEIN HERR !!! NEU BEFEHL MEIN HERR !!! BEREIT MEIN HERR !!!

So militarist, it's also uncomparable.

I would'nt play CoH in SP though.
Too boring and IIRC you can't play ZE GERMANS !?
So what's the point, so bored of allies and allies and more allies.

[Didz]

So...CoH isn't a WW2 grand strategy game then....thought for a minute I'd missed something worthwhile.

[PutCashIn]

A good game to compare MTW2 too is 'Sword of Aragorn' (or Aragon, i never remember :> )
Except for Hero's, of course.

Check it out on an Abandonwares site close to you,
<link removed> for example.

[sapi]

Abandonware is legally dubious, to say the least, so no links please.

[Quickening]

Abandonware is legally dubious, to say the least, so no links please.

Bwahahaha! Bookmarked the site in time...

[Shahed]

So...CoH isn't a WW2 grand strategy game then....thought for a minute I'd missed something worthwhile.

Not at all. It's a game where you can command from one sniper, one tank, one squad etc. It's squad based. You have a battle map with control points which give you ammo, fuel, mapower. You have a base to protect and you assault the enemy's. And you can play ZE GERMANS !!!

Anyway it's really awesome, even though you can't play ZE GERMANS !!! (in singleplayer) :furious3: :help: :dizzy2: that's not gutt !!! Why can't they make a single frekin game where there's a German hero for a change ? I mean were they all n00bs or what ? They did'nt have any heroes ? :wall: :inquisitive: Obviously they did.

The GFX are incredible and you can also zoom down to man level. The sound is brilliant. When you are watching your sniper, for example, you cna hear him set up, the way he's moving is brilliant too. The interface is flawless (UNLIKE TW since RTW). But again it's not a so called grand strategy game but since I player Paradoxx games (such as Victoria, Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday) I dunno if TW is either.

That's it in a nutshell for multiplayer. I dunno about single player as when I saw you can't play ZE GERMANS ! I hit exit !

:2thumbsup: :smash: :yes: :smash: :2thumbsup:
Here's a tellyyoutubby:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMJKGy_s8R4

LOOK ! It's ZE GERMANS in zat video !

Just have a look there, there's tons of CoH videos.


A good game to compare MTW2 too is 'Sword of Aragorn' (or Aragon, i never remember :> )
Except for Hero's, of course.

Check it out on an Abandonwares site close to you,
<link removed> for example.

Is this the blasphemer !!!

Which game is Sword of Aragon, I remember the name. What was it like ?

[locked_thread]

... many of the bugs you described will be fixed in the new patch.
HAHAHAHAHA... good one Sapi...
Even if half the bugs are fixed the other half make the game unenjoyable. In fact even if they fixed 100% of the bugs we are still left with fundamental campaign problems...
... like wars that are fought as 1000 man skirmishes with no full-blown battles.
... like a campaign map that's so fancy, it's hard to spot armies and agents, and trade resources are often overlooked.
... like cities that spiral toward chaos with no effective remedy.
... like way too many sub-games with agents that make the game profoundly tedious.
... like the ability for defenders to "win" battles with a single unit of fast cav that simply evades until the timer runs out
... like boats taking YEARS to cross the med resulting in extremely tedious campaigns
... like the ever spiraling collection of contradictory character attributes that are a gigantic waste of time with effects that must be moused over (!), when a much shorter stat list would suffice
... like inquisitors that wander over from neighboring empires and execute your kings as fast as they can be crowned.
... like visible enemy agents that cannot be expelled from your borders
... like an AI that's suicidally aggressive on the campaign map and timid on the battlefield....

Sigh... so much potential and so many problems.

The length and severity of the buglist is depressing, especially since MT2 is nothing but a reskin of RTW.

Maybe CA is burned out from biting off more than they can chew...:wall:

[PutCashIn]

OOOOO golly may bad, wasnt thinking at all.

Well, if SSI want to hound me over my copy of Sword Of Aragorn then thats ok, I'll buy it a second time (for the PC rather than the Amiga).

SOA had a different campaign/battle map idea like M2TW, the combat system was incredibly detailed, but set in a fantasy world, so there were heroes and trolls etc.

Of course, being a wargame, it quickly ends up with 1000's of troops on different sides fighting it out, nothing better than a 400 strong horde of Demons (with Demon priest and mage support) crashing into your flank to really ruin your archers day.

And I mean detailed - Take of the Large Shield off a stack of infantry (for a rebate) and equip a Small Shield and Javelin/Sling/Thrown (your preference, cost vs ammo vs range vs encumberence vs support) for a more skirmish aspect, but still retain the Chain, Sword and Spear.

Running low on funds but need more men? Archers in Robes are alot cheaper than Archers with Chainmail.

Want a set of 'Lancers' or 'Genderarmes(sic)?' try a 50 strong unit of cav in plate, with a (nice n cheap) light or medium horse with no Barding.

Mongol Heavy Archers? 50 strong unit of MissileCav with Chain, Medium Horse, Heavy Barding, Mace and Composite Bow.

Valor or Level have a meaning: Train a unit of Archers beyond 'level' 4 and the Longbows are opened up, my favorite: An 100 strong infantry unit (lvl 6+) with Plate, X-bows and 2-handed swords.

[Shahed]

I remember that game ! I played it on the Amiga.

[sapi]

HAHAHAHAHA... good one Sapi...
Even if half the bugs are fixed the other half make the game unenjoyable. In fact even if they fixed 100% of the bugs we are still left with fundamental campaign problems...
... like wars that are fought as 1000 man skirmishes with no full-blown battles.
... like a campaign map that's so fancy, it's hard to spot armies and agents, and trade resources are often overlooked.
... like cities that spiral toward chaos with no effective remedy.
... like way too many sub-games with agents that make the game profoundly tedious.Are you looking for CA to fix bugs in the patch or release a new game?

... like the ability for defenders to "win" battles with a single unit of fast cav that simply evades until the timer runs outTurn the timer off?

... like boats taking YEARS to cross the med resulting in extremely tedious campaigns
... like the ever spiraling collection of contradictory character attributes that are a gigantic waste of time with effects that must be moused over (!), when a much shorter stat list would sufficeMod it?

... like inquisitors that wander over from neighboring empires and execute your kings as fast as they can be crowned.Keep the pope happy and that won't happen

... like visible enemy agents that cannot be expelled from your bordersIf you're that frustrated, use the army trick to kill them

... like an AI that's suicidally aggressive on the campaign map and timid on the battlefield....They're working on that...

[Didz]

Bottom line is that, whilst the TW series has its faults, there is nothing even remotely like it out there in the market that does what it does better.

I had hoped that CA would start a trend in high level turn based strategy games which justify low level tactical battles. But so far even paradox have failed to notice the benefits and have suck with their real time obsession.

Perhaps if there was more competition the improvements would be faster coming.

[hellenes]

Bottom line is that, whilst the TW series has its faults, there is nothing even remotely like it out there in the market that does what it does better.

I had hoped that CA would start a trend in high level turn based strategy games which justify low level tactical battles. But so far even paradox have failed to notice the benefits and have suck with their real time obsession.

Perhaps if there was more competition the improvements would be faster coming.

Thats why there is no pressure from any compatitors on CA...they dont have any competition at all..

[Afro Thunder]

... like the ability for defenders to "win" battles with a single unit of fast cav that simply evades until the timer runs out


Hey, thanks for informing me of this little exploit! I'll be sure to never use such a dastardly tactic in a defensive battle.

[Shahed]

Thats why there is no pressure from any compatitors on CA...they dont have any competition at all..

Evidently that is exactly what one of the fundamental issues has become for the quality of the TW series.

[fabiano]

... like boats taking YEARS to cross the med resulting in extremely tedious campaigns
... like the ever spiraling collection of contradictory character attributes that are a gigantic waste of time with effects that must be moused over (!), when a much shorter stat list would suffice



Mod it?

I agree with you, but only if CA send part of the money i paid for the game to the guy that mod it. He fix their game, he deserve the money. :)

Fabiano

[Whacker]

Evidently that is exactly what one of the fundamental issues has become for the quality of the TW series.

*whispers*

http://www.thelordzgamesstudio.com/

http://www.slitherine.com/

Competition is good.

:balloon2:

[Didz]

@whacker

Well the Lordz looks interesting...its about time someone managed to come up with a playable Napoleonic game that isn't totally bug-infested like 1812 was. However, the site doesn't really reveal much about its plans so I reserve judgement until I see at least a demo. Previous attempts have looked great on paper but fallen flat on their face in implementation just because of the designers fetish for real-time campaign movement.

As for the Slitherine games I have Spartan, Gates of Troy and Chariots of War gathering dust on the shelf above my PC. I'm afraid they are very poor compared to TW and show their age.

[locked_thread]

@SAPI:

hehe you're right, I'm looking for a major overhaul, eg expansion. Which I would happily pay for.... if things improve :laugh4:

Unfortunately, each sequel introduces as many problems as fixes. And we are on the seventh(!) release of TW and cavalry pursuit still doesn't work?! (As a programmer I'm impressed that battles work as well as they do, but the pursuit issue causes major grief.)

"Evasive cavalry": Turning the timer off allows battles of infinite duration. 1000 pikemen are fundamentally incapable of trapping a single unit of horse archers (realistic in itself, but they should be able to hold ground after enduring the arrows). Also, I've played many battles where the AI locked and the timer saved the day. The current skirmishing bug (feature?) actually helps in this regard, making evaders of all types easier/possible to catch.

I propose a solution to "endless evasion": at battle start, the game drops an objective square in the defender's depoyment zone. This would work like the town square in siege battles. Defending horse archers could still fulfill their role of evasion, distraction, harrassment, etc, but they must periodically contest the objective or lose the zone at the end of the countdown.

"Mass agents": I'd like to see a menu option to disable spies, assassins, and/or inquisitors. Using an exploit to pop them would be tedious, defeating my intention to refocus campaigns on economic developments and warfare. Modding is not an option for me, I've tried it in the past and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Too many options didn't match their descriptions or even caused CTDs when changed.

[sapi]

Hmmm - you've got some interesting ideas, but the idea of the 'objective square', in particular, just doesn't seem to me to fit into the idea of a TW game.

I for one detest this mechanism of removing tactical options in CoH/DoW/whatever, and I dont think it'd work well in M2, especially as it might end up in impassible terrain.

[Didz]

Well the objective square might make more sense if it was disquised in a less abstract fashion. Supposing it was shown as the opposing armies baggage train or camp which had to be occupied for a certain period of time to loot or destroy.

Most armies, even horse archer ones would have had a trail of women, children, tents and loot following them around and losing it would be a major defeat for them.

[sapi]

Historically that may be true, but I just don't see battlefield objectives being added to a TW game as a good thing...

[Didz]

Well in terms of CyanCentaur's proposal to overcome the 'endless evasion' expliot it would work, and it has some historical justification too. After all in real life an army of horse archers could not survive simply by galloping endlessly round in circles, they really would have a large group of camp followers, family, personal effects and loot to protect and so at some point they would have to make a stand if the enemy began to threaten them.

Its certainly far more justifiable as a victory condition than an abstract timer (which always reminds me of a football match, I half expect a little guy in black to run on blow a whistle and make both armies change ends) as that has no historical justification for existence at all.

The camp idea would even provide some explanation for the arbitary red lines that restrict the battle area, in that the current location of an armies camp would really restict the extent to which it was free to manouvre and deploy. Provided its initial location could be chosen at the start of the battle I think it would enhance the game no end.

[Ferret]

There are a few 'TW' style games out there. They just arent as good and/or publicized as the TW series.
And, of course, theres EA. I just like to blame EA for things, because I hate them for killing Dungeon Keeper 3.
But yeah, there was a Warhammer game set on the TW model a long time ago. Not Mark of Chaos, FYI.

imperial glory wasnt bad about taking the idea into the musket age but the melee combat was terrible

[Chaos Cornelius lucius]

... like the ability for defenders to "win" battles with a single unit of fast cav that simply evades until the timer runs out
Have you ever seen those units in the roster called cavalry or maybe archers?
If you have an all infantry army then of course you are not going to catch fast cavalry.

[locked_thread]

If you have an all infantry army then of course you are not going to catch fast cavalry.
I agree that melee infantry should have tactical difficulties against horse archers. But if defenders are continuously hiding/evading, they should lose claim to the territory. Skirmishing Mongol-style armies might inflict casualties then withdraw - but not hold ground by default.

In RTW, Parthian family members could singlehandedly conquer massive cities by laying seige, then running in circles during sally attempts. Any Parthian casualties would be replenished for free between battles, as these were bodyguards...

[Didz]

This is why I suggested the camp idea as an enhancement of Monarch's battlefield objective proposal. That way both armies would have to protect their camps or lose the game. This would certainly put an end to the 'constant evasion expliot' and would also provide a way out of the 'unending battle' issue.

[locked_thread]

I like Didz' idea of visually representing the objective as a camp. Would look better than red lines in the sand! I also like the idea that both sides have camps.

It could be argued that Mongol armies were so mobile that they didn't have stationary camps....but their vast horse herds ate incredible amounts of grass and needed constant access to fresh forage. Accordingly, the objective would represent access to local forage, without which they would be forced to eventually withdraw.

Um who is "Monarch"? :laugh4:

[Whacker]

The camps idea is cool, but in order to be more feasible in my view you need to increase the size of the field even more.

As I proposed in another thread to, it's possible to "lose" a battle with a horse archer army, but win tactically. If I eliminiate 50% of an enemy army and then withdraw with no casualties, have I really lost? You give up position sure, but you've delt a severe blow to the enemy stack with no losses. In theory in another battle you could "win" and eliminate the rest. Success in battle isn't just about killing your enemy, it's about position on the campaign map. It's possible to do like the Parthians and Mongols did, withdraw before a foe you can't beat in a straight on fight, wear them down until you can. I would like to see this tactic a viable option in the TW games, without having negative connotations to your generals.

[locked_thread]

I think if camps are implemented, increasing the battlefield size would make sense. And there'd be no reason not too.

And I agree, generals should score VnVs for total casualties inflicted, not just get rated on whether they "win" or "lose".

[Didz]

Um who is "Monarch"? :laugh4:
Monarch is Monarch....all I know is he's made over 1,300 posts on this forum, but I have no idea who he is in real life. I just felt I needed to recognise that the idea of battlefied objective was originally his idea and all I did was suggest that the objective could be depicted as a camp (or in the case of mongol armies perhaps a large herd of grazing animals.)

The point is that by providing some sort of battlefield objective one overcomes the problem of the constant evasion expliot because no matter what else it does an army must protect its camp/herds. Equally important the capture of an armies camp will always end the battle. So, the AI cannot simply go passive or it will lose to a well timed camp rush by the human player, helping to overcome the hung battle problem.

Another idea I quite literally just had was to use the camp as a location where ammunition can be replenished if units are placed upon it. That would mean that players who sit around behind castle walls waiting for the AI to run out of arrows would have a nasty shock when they wandered off and came back with full quivers.

[locked_thread]

And here I thought I was the first to propose battlefield objectives.... Great minds think alike... :beam:


Another idea I quite literally just had was to use the camp as a location where ammunition can be replenished if units are placed upon it.
Interesting idea. On the other hand, how do you know someone hasn't already proposed it in an obscure thread :laugh4:

[Didz]

Interesting idea. On the other hand, how do you know someone hasn't already proposed it in an obscure thread :laugh4:
I don't but then if I am not aware of someone elses contribution I don't really feel obliged to recognise it either.:dizzy2: