Printable View
I know the issue of RTW being too fast has been hashed before. But I have a simple question :
Has anyone who felt overwhelmed by the speed initally started to feel comfortable with it after playing for a while?
I still feel the battles are too quick although I have played several hours already.
Afrit
After playing a lot of battles on large maps, I've come to edited conclusions about the demo speed... ~:)
OK, so I thought to myself after the post about the relative strength of the Roman units, "What if I fought battles against Carthaginian armies WITHOUT Sacred Band anything in them?"
The result... excellent control, a feeling of balance, and battles that don't result in instant routs of units that come within twenty feet of the Sacred Band.
This reminded me of the very first mod I played of the demo, as the Julii at Trebbia. I was able to win that one because I focused all my efforts on their Sacred Band cavalry, then picked the rest of their army apart with pila, velite fire, and a determined overwhelming charge after their elephants had routed.
I think the SBC and SBP units must have some intense valour modifiers built into them, which completely tip the scales when it comes to routing units.
Yep after a few battles I felt good with the speed of the game, but its still too fast and the battles last nothing. Let's hope they fix that in the full version.
The speed is still too fast with anything more than about four units per side. Formations just disintegrate. Part of the problem with disintegration is similar to MTW (only faster.) The issue with MTW was that the AI did a lot of "crossing patterns" where units start to engage, then run back behind other engaged troops to the other side of the line. If you direct units against them they get strung out elsewhere. The AI did this in the extremis with royal cav that would charge in, hit your spear line, then disengage and do this 3 or 4 times up and down your line. How the heck it could disengage I don't know. I rarely could when I tried similar things. With RTW the faster speed amplifies the problem several fold.
I felt a bit better about the speed after a while, but movement speed still didn't feel correct. Rather, I think I just changed tactics to suit the situation a bit more.
Two units face to face took 2 full minutes to before one routed being 3/4 destroyed. Does not sound like much time, but as I watched blow by blow close up, it seemed like an eternity.
Not sure about this one. Was not able to pit two same type units against one another, which would be a better way to judge.
I do remember (I think) in Homer's writings that the armys at Troy could fight all day and not sustain any losses.
The actual combat could be beefed up in rate of active fighting (more hacking per interval) and the possibility of an actual kill reduced I guess :frog:
But on the other side, I think the encounters in MTW lasted much to long :duel:
Exactly. I think it's a combination of factors, one being that MTW-style strategies just don't work as clean-and-neatly as they did in MTW. This isn't surprising when you think about it but it's a bit shocking at first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aelwyn
I think a lot of us have formed our opinion of what is "correct" based on perceptions of MTW, rather than perceptions of reality. Of course, where are we going to find a Roman legion who we can tell to charge the Carthaginian flank at a full run, and then measure how fast they run, and how fast they kill?
Anyway, lots of adjustments later it seems like it's sinking in a bit.
I have had similar observations (with the exception that MTW battles didn't last too long.) With two units of similar low level upgrades, the combat time is reasonable (although most likely quite short by historical standards.) However, when you get multiple units things go nuts in a hurry, especially with the "swirling" of formations that the AI is fond of. Units rout in a couple of seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi says
From what I've read, the phalanx and legions could fight for some time without many casualties, the positions would shift, and if they should become flanked, things would collapse rapidly. In ancient battles, loser casualties are often about 10 times those of the winner and losing armies are often nearly annihilated. To be more realistic, battle would need to be much slower, and instead of having your numbers decline rapidly with combat, your morale/cohesion would decline and fatigue increase. Eventually a formation would be flanked or otherwise overcome and collapse. Most casualties would come in the resulting rout. There would be gameplay issues from trying to do this historically, but it does illustrate some of the apples to oranges comparisons when trying to compare the game engine to normal combat speed.
Imagine how exhausted a man must be to surrender when they know what sort of tortured fate awaits them (in that time)? If they had any energy left they would fight to the end, because the death is swifter. They would have been utterly drained by battle. If you have run a marathon or boxed 8-10 three minute regulation rounds you can get an idea of what physical and mental state they must be in at the end of a losing battle.
The "swirling" (I like that) effect, or “do-se-do” (not sure of spelling :p ) is I think, a direct result of units under the “group” control option. I imagine the AI uses it unconsciously, not knowing it’s ridicules :rolleyes3:
Since I stopped trying to use “group” in any form with this demo, I am having much better success and more fun.
Something for the wish list:
(besides “no” artificial intelligence command assistance in battle, thank you)
Though I haven’t mentioned it in years, I still think “Multi-level nested grouping” would be a fantastic asset. Build your control structure like you would in a real command. Just a few clicks and you could have it all set up “your way”.
It would be especially helpful now with more units to control.
(but turning over control and perhaps the success of the battle to an AI which even I can beat, does not sound like a good plan to me)
I agree the speed is too fast in comparison to the previous incarnations of TW. I think this speed increase will fundamentally change the way we play RTW, for the better or worse depends on peoples willingness to adapt to change.
What I believe we will see is, a more realistic interpretation of warfare of this era, we won't be able to micromanage EVERYTHING in a battle like STW and MTW. What we will be able to do is take more direct control over few specific units with a real ability to make a serious impact. With the more realistic battlefield behavior such as pushing and the initial brutality of a heavy cavalry charge, employing these to your advantage are generally going to pay off more than the sweeping highly coordinated flanking manuevers of STW and MTW. I don't doubt for a moment people will be able to coordinate such endeavors but for most forcing a gap to plow your heavy cav into is going to be about all they can coordinate.
In anycase im looking forward to the changes, its like a new game with a proven track record ;p
Ok. The consensus of the replies to my original question so far (does practice improve control of the demo or is it still too fast?) seems to be a partial yes.
I liked Tamur's initial post (which he edited out!) stating that the "rout engine is on full throttle". I agree with that feeling. Which got me to wonder whether this is due to low command generals. In MTW having a zero-star general (which this demo seems to have) meant almost immediate routs of vanilla spears and other low-level troops. Could it be different in the final version with better generals?
Afrit
I reassigned the key controls to the MTW one and I am quite skilful with them. Still to control the battle I have to press very often PAUSE. Without PAUSE all my units are routed in no time, doesn't matter do I play as Romans or as the Carthaginian’s.
I am very curious to know from CA why the speed is so fast and why the MTW/STW time bar was removed.
~:cheers:
Sorry for the deviations Afrit ~:(
My answer is a definite “yes”!
:bow:
No problem.
It's rare that I feel ambivalent about things, but this is one where I definitely do... should have left that post in and just replied to m'self I guess :tomato:Quote:
Originally Posted by afrit
Nope, stilll too fast. I can't get through a game without having to use the Pause button, and it's annoying to have to use it.
For me the speed still feels overwealming at times but i'm getting more used to it now.
What i have come to enjoy is that some of the 'bonuses' seem to have been exaggerated. Flanking, for example, seems to be so much more effective. I hated in MTW when you will pull off a great flanking manuvure with caverly just to have them run straight into the bank of the unit and do practically nothing ... then they would stand and fight and do little damage
same thing with chasing routing units .... i remember times when i would take big loses to my cavalry when they were chasing down routers ... now in RTW you simply decimate routers (which is the way it should be imo ... i mean they have turned there backs in terror and no longer want to fight. They should be easy pickings ;) )
for me it kind of ups the stakes of commanding ... it is faster, more hectic (which makes things more challanging) but good strategies and flanking pays off much more than in MTW it seems