Debat about time limit... THE ANSWER!!!

Yeah, here's again the favourite Sweboz of all Swebii, DUGUNTZ! My children, I've come to you with the answer to what was deemed to have no answer. for that, if you want to consider me as a kind of porphet, feel free to do so, I accept any king of donation, reverances, sacrifices and cults in any kind (Hetero if it implies sexual act). Now the moment that you all waited : THE ANSWER to the question should we put time limit on or off during battle. YES, KEEP IT ON!

Sorry for all the long deployment lovers, but battles were lasting, historically, not much longer than 1 hour, especially between ''civilised'' people. The reason of such being that the men exausted fast due to the weight of their armour and weapons (I dunno if you guys, apart of marcille, have fought with real weapons, but I can tell you that after swigning your sword and axe while blocking with your ''heavy'' shield for one hour, you're more than impatient to have a break! And I do bodybuilding, so it's not by lack of strengh!) Of corse, that is just a norm and like every norm there are exceptions. And for the deploiment, there is a nice phase named deployment BEFORE THE BATTLE! as for redeployment during the battle, that is tactical mistake you made during the pre-battle as you, as Sun Tzu said, are supposed to have calculated and predicted the maneuvres of your opponant before engaging, and thus leaving him no other choice than to loose from the begining. Of corse, there are draw back, but heee, no general never lost a battle (even not Hannibal!) So, yes, battle time is not only usefull in battle, but also is historically accurate as armies generaly met on battlefield, fought, in general no longer than 45 min - one hour (apart from exception or Sweboz blood thirsty guys) then retired after short battle, in order to remeet later on in the day or even the day after. What took time is the deployment of armies, not the battle itself, and for deployment... THERE'S NO TIME LIMIT!!!

So my children, here was your answer to the legendary question. As for the deployment, redeployment and reredeployment lovers... well what the heck... Do like a worthy warrior should do, do like the mighty Swebii... RUSH IN!!!

And all of this was to say that, according to your oppinion, we should apply the time limit instead of disabling it? :inquisitive:

Maion

"battles were lasting, historically, not much longer than 1 hour, especially between ''civilised'' people. The reason of such being that the men exausted fast due to the weight of their armour and weapons"

Depends... for example i think i've read somewhere that the battle of Cannae lasted all day long , but this of course was due to the incredible amounts of Romans (some 70000) which were cornered and methodicaly slain, a massacre of such proportions takes some time...

Also it was very usual (for Greek armies anyway) to just stand opposite to eachother in phallanx formations in their bronze armour and under the hot sun for hours and provoke the enemy waiting for even the slightest tactical advantage to go into battle...in every battle there is a psychological dimension into it and Greeks tried to take advantage of this too,tiring and intimidating the enemy... i dont remember any examples now but if you read Thucidides there are such descriptions of pre-battle stalling or even undecisiveness...

fighting in armour would indeed be exhausting for troops but you have to remember that people back then were infinitely more physical... the Greeks especialy were trained from childhood to all kinds of sports spending endless hours at gymnasiums wrestling, running and testing themselves... they even had that contest of running in full armour ... So you see the antagonistic nature of such societies hardened people beyond our time's measures and prepared them for war... also look up for "dromaia efodos" (=running charge) the greek method of dealing with archers running at full speed the last hundred meters separating them from enemy lines and still have the required stamina to stab and push like crazy...

I prefer to play with no battle time limit... this is i think more realistic especialy during sieges where the clock is ticking against the attacker when usually it would have been the other way round... also it's not very realistic to think that any general would order his men forward without having spent every last arrow ,stone or missile against the enemy or taking the time to encircle those determined-to-die-to-the-last troops within the city center...

For battles i usually deploy my troops to the highest possible ground or in woods... i know it's naive to think that the AI will stupidly "come and get me" (it has never happened yet) but a guy can only hope,right??? usually then i have to march my army to the enemy at normal speed which merely "warms up" my troops ...9 times out of 10 the enemy has also camped somewhere were he has an advantage (height, woods)... when fighting on a copletely open field (all my battles with Sakas) i deploy my troops as close as possible to the enemy ...

I despise the timer, but that doesn't mean most of my battles last for hours and hours... The vast majority fought within three quarter of an hour. These rare occassions where I need more time wouldn't be historical inaccurate imo... but rather historical 'exceptions'. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS

"battles were lasting, historically, not much longer than 1 hour, especially between ''civilised'' people. The reason of such being that the men exausted fast due to the weight of their armour and weapons"

Depends... for example i think i've read somewhere that the battle of Cannae lasted all day long , but this of course was due to the incredible amounts of Romans (some 70000) which were cornered and methodicaly slain, a massacre of such proportions takes some time...

Also it was very usual (for Greek armies anyway) to just stand opposite to eachother in phallanx formations in their bronze armour and under the hot sun for hours and provoke the enemy waiting for even the slightest tactical advantage to go into battle...in every battle there is a psychological dimension into it and Greeks tried to take advantage of this too,tiring and intimidating the enemy... i dont remember any examples now but if you read Thucidides there are such descriptions of pre-battle stalling or even undecisiveness...

fighting in armour would indeed be exhausting for troops but you have to remember that people back then were infinitely more physical... the Greeks especialy were trained from childhood to all kinds of sports spending endless hours at gymnasiums wrestling, running and testing themselves... they even had that contest of running in full armour ... So you see the antagonistic nature of such societies hardened people beyond our time's measures and prepared them for war... also look up for "dromaia efodos" (=running charge) the greek method of dealing with archers running at full speed the last hundred meters separating them from enemy lines and still have the required stamina to stab and push like crazy...

I prefer to play with no battle time limit... this is i think more realistic especialy during sieges where the clock is ticking against the attacker when usually it would have been the other way round... also it's not very realistic to think that any general would order his men forward without having spent every last arrow ,stone or missile against the enemy or taking the time to encircle those determined-to-die-to-the-last troops within the city center...

For battles i usually deploy my troops to the highest possible ground or in woods... i know it's naive to think that the AI will stupidly "come and get me" (it has never happened yet) but a guy can only hope,right??? usually then i have to march my army to the enemy at normal speed which merely "warms up" my troops ...9 times out of 10 the enemy has also camped somewhere were he has an advantage (height, woods)... when fighting on a copletely open field (all my battles with Sakas) i deploy my troops as close as possible to the enemy ...

---

Deployment isn't about undecisiveness... i never said such a thing. I pointed out that Most (no all, there were battles that lasted all day long, they just don't make at all the majority) battle lasted around an hour, little more or little less... psychological effect is indeed a major part of every battle, you'e right, but then again, that was not my subject! I was talkin about the actual clashing of the weapon, wich is arguably onlyt a ''part'' of the full battle, if we take into account scouting skirmishes, fear and psychological war, then weapon clahes... but sorry, it's a fact that, NOT ALL but most battle were very short indeed, then the two parties seperate, to remeet later or the day after... of corse I'm no fool and I know that there werwe other example of gigantic battle that opposed counteless guys. But that was not the majority at all...

Cheers!

Honestly, I would ask, is there any method to elongate battle time in RTW engine? not only 45 min - 1 hour, but also 2 or even 3 hours? the 30 min battle in RTW was designed with their vanilla acute cowardice of most soldiers (rout on contact, 4 morale:dizzy2:) and with this kind of morale against peasants killing rate is like crazy, they'll last only 20 min in even matched field battle, so rarely lasts longer than 1 hour (except sieges)...

I also have to sadly disgaree on this one, but time forces brewity as I go in a small extended weekend in a few hours.

1. Written sources tells us about longer battles, Adrianopolis for example is definately described with longer fighting in intense heat. Though that was exactly one of the factors the Goths used to defeat the Romans.

2. I can fight longer than an hour in my 22 Kg chainmail + helmet if doing realistic style combat (huscarl). I originally came from oldfashioned carpentry where everything is done by hand and from Muay Thai, so I was pretty fit when I started and though I have grown softer I can still do about three hours of huscarl fighting if I really push it. Much more if I take small breaks. Martial arts and carpentry builds strength and stamina. Further, when fighing in groups and even sometimes one-on-one there will be lulls where you can get your breath, and the trick is to conserve your strength (something I learned from carpentry, banging in 1000+ 4'' nails in a day and lobbing heavy timbers as well as rafters about requires conservation of strength). Not fight 100 % all the times, but in fact mostly fight at 80-ish, sometimes only 50, sometimes 100. It is a hard trick to learn when young and energetic, but is is valuable in the long run ;-) To step back a bit (even if only within oneself and take a defensive stance without appearing to) and get a bretaher as well as an overview of the battle, I am also one of our tacticians, so I sort of have to do this even when I am not commanding.

3. There would have been small lulls in battles so to speak, and if you were Roman you would be relieved during these, and step back in line to get a breather while others took over. Not breakoffs, but small lulls where both sides would reorganise for next charge.

Our large-ish battles (350- 400 participants) are in phases: 1 Fight and attrition- enemy and we try our various tactics and plans to win and, 2 breakdown of order as attrition takes its toll, chaos ensues as both sides try to take advantage of the holes in enemy line and ensuing chaos. 3 Reorganisation and final battle. I would imagine if we were 50.000 instead of 150- 200 on each side there would be many such small phases and/or they would go on till one side routs.

Hannibal at Cannae Pfff, for real Roman-killing try Cimbri at Arausio WAAAAAARGH!!!

Edited fast to add.

Mano-a-mano much harder than formation figthing, in formation sword much harder than spear-shield or pike/two-hand-spear. It is solo I can still do 3 if I push it, with two-handed-spear in formation I can probably go for at least 6 hours. Greek-style fighting easiest. Also sprinting 100 m in chainmail (22 Kg) is hard, but not nearly as hard as a duel. Legs are strong and used to carrying weight, torso not used to so much added weight.

Off for holiday.

So in history there ringed a bell which had every guy stop cutting a fellow mans throat and giving a result...?

i understand the training , but you got to remember that usually you train for more than the event requires , because the event itself is usually much much more draining ( due to other factors that may be involved and you are not in your training routine) , by training for more i guess it is an attempt to condition the body for this ... and you can still tire during the event ... you see it all the time with athletes ...

of course it would come down to the individual..

i do recall reading the long standoff between hoplites , and fighting that would last until sunset etc ..

have not had a battle go for long enough yet (online) to see if the timer would be needed , i do not use it in campaigns.

in the end it is a battle , not training .. and people are being cut down all around you .. not the most relaxing situation i could think of.

I think I read somewhere once that romans would use training equpment that was much heavier than their battle gear, so that in battle their gear would seem light. Can't remember where I read it though so I'm not sure if that is correct or not.

The time limit in Battles is no sense. It encourage you to rush your decisions and exhaust your troops. I prefer a move cautions approach to battles. And as Duguntz said, that why I love fighting against barbarian factions, they simply rush at you with all their heroism and eager to war, until they are meet with a shower of javlins from the Hestati and the Velites, by the time the Principes charge in its all over. Naked bodies butchered on the blood soaked battlefield.

Cheers.

And by the way Duguntz, I sacrified a young bull in the temple of Mars to honour your nonsense topic:beam:

Battle time limit does make sense when you are playing against horse archers. Those keep running away, and nothing can catch them. Without time limit you have to quit and lose.

Don't forget it was part of the Germanic Strategy to disengage and regroup/reorganise/get-someting-to-drink/get-yelled-at-by-wife in order to charge again not like those Walhoz who run and flee once their charge has lost momentum.

in short, unrealistic, and I hate though I dominate the battles timer runs out and I lose ... bul...t !
there are a lot of battles that lasted more than 3 days...

one of the famous ones:

Quote:

---

The Battle of Yarmouk (Arabic: معركة اليرموك‎, also spelled Yarmuk, Yarmuq or Hieromyax) comprised a series of engagements between the Rashidun Caliphate and the Byzantine Empire over six days in August 636, near the Yarmouk River, along what is today the border between Syria and Jordan, south-east of the Sea of Galilee. It is regarded as one of the most decisive battles in human history. The battle marked the first great wave of Islamic conquests after the death of Muhammad, heralding the rapid advance of Islam into the then Christian Levant. The battle is also considered to be one of Khalid ibn al-Walid's most decisive victories, and cemented his reputation as a great tactician and cavalry commander.

Muslim conquest of Syria, By David Nicolle page 21

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

Battle time limit does make sense when you are playing against horse archers. Those keep running away, and nothing can catch them. Without time limit you have to quit and lose.

---

do not be so sure, when they run out of arrows, they are piece of cake, I do not mean cataphract archers, though.
Plus they are worthless in frontal arrow rain against phalanxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atraphoenix

do not be so sure, when they run out of arrows, they are piece of cake, I do not mean cataphract archers, though.
Plus they are worthless in frontal arrow rain against phalanxes.

---

Frontal fire, yes. However, HA can easily flank the phalanx line (providing that there isn't a great deal of missile support), fragment it into individual units, and then cut them down with fire from the rear. I did this multiple times in my first Getai campaign against the Makedonians.

I don't think you are supposed to take all their missiles. When I face these HA's in the open, I always make sure I can outshoot them. There's little need for expensive phalangites to stop lightly armoured horses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy1984

I don't think you are supposed to take all their missiles. When I face these HA's in the open, I always make sure I can outshoot them. There's little need for expensive phalangites to stop lightly armoured horses.

---

When I face them. I pin them with phalanx and massacre with medium cavalry. Because of them medium greek cavalry was formed by AS and others. also cataphract archers loves charging your phalanxes from front by AI after running out of arrows. fresh meat with metal souce :laugh4:

As I get tired of hit and tactics of nomads I started to play with mixed faction that has both heavy medium cavalry plus phalanx. If the macedons did not ignore their role(cavalry) they could easily vanquish romans. they ignored it then legions enveloped them. so in reality you need heavy infantry to support cavalry and vise versa .

battle should need variety, think about football no strikers just 10 defenders would be phalanx tactic while romans would be all offence and nomads would be just countrattacks :laugh4:

"battle should need variety, think about football no strikers just 10 defenders would be phalanx tactic while romans would be all offence and nomads would be just countrattacks"

:yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: