Lesser battles and more important armies

This is a quote from my own thread. And i would really see some CA staff to read this


-----------------


The problem with RTW (in my opinion) was that there was so many battles and none of them where not particulary important. I mean was the 314 men near our capitol battle that necessary for your survival?

If you have seen the movie kingdom of heaven you understand the importance of an army. There was a big decisive battle betwen the two "factions" and the need of victory really mattered.

Now if that happens in the game we can all (a well i can recruit some troops before they get here and when they arrive i can watch them die at the walls while our troops is bottlenecking all entrences to the townsquare) .....Victory

what i want is that the army should really be hard to attain and it would be very important for the nation. I dont like the cheap spamming of units all over the place in rtw. I dont really have a solution to this but some ideas would help.

Maybe.

1. very expensive units
2. units rely on food/equipment
3. a list of the population mix in a settlement so only like 14% of the pop is recruitable (12-45) not 60 years old men
4. certain building must be meet to recruit
5. a population loyalty meter so you got the peoples support when recruiting their sons and husbands
6. like a force recruit option so you get *many* *low* quality soldiers availible and a free will recruit option to get avarage units
And maybe a secret recruit option where your priests steal babies to train them as elite knights lol
7. 2D MAP

What do you think about this?

I agree strongly with this.

On the fewer battles: The few RTW campaigns I have finished have had me fighting around 200 battles - granted some may be naval, but most were not. However, only around 25% or less were really worth fighting - the rest were "make work" where the outcome was predetermined. STW and MTW were also exhausting, but at least with the Risk maps, the battles tended to be more epic scaled (the AI retreated when heavily outgunned).

On the more important armies: I think reducing the number of units is key here. If you had say, 25 decent units (field units, not garrisons) in your kingdom, you might care about them. At the moment, you have so many - or can replace them so easily, they are just cannon fodder. Also, personalising the units might help - at a bear minimum, give us the option to name them; maybe customise their liverie (how cool would that be); ideally let us customise their combat effectiveness (choose alternative kit, captains or unit skills - rather like the Civ4 promotions).

Wow, you guys are thiefs, stole the words from my mouth ~D

The AI should just try to bundle its forces and use concentrated attacks. In an early Brutii game 2 days ago (hey, all this talk of MTWII made me want to give RTW another shot) Greece attack my one army with 4 armies, in three separate attacks. In the one attack that had two armies they didn't coordinate on the battle map, making them easy pickings. I would not have survived if they had all attacked at once (well, probably not) but now it was easy.

I'm not sure what to do about using your cities as unit spawners, it's unrealistic, but in Rome, if you had a city with a low population limit, you couldn't really do much with it. Good gameplay comes (mostly) from the ability to make choices, limiting those choices tends to be a bad idea.

A human tends to manipulate every aspects of a game to survive. Be it sending 1 unit to halt a marching army or buildspam units before a siege. A human never willingly accepts defeat Even if it is ahistorical or unrealistic. Thats why a 2d map should help a bit. Knowing that you are far more vulnerable by an invading (2-3) armys. You begin to think in a different angle "strategical" and "tactical" the way you should think in this game.


I dont know just speculations

Let me ask a few questions. Do you think we are fighting many unimportant battles due to the way the game is structured or due to the poor AI? Would we still be fighting all of these unimportant battles if there were fewer/no rebels and the AI massed its troops better?

Yes the AI is a huge part in this. But its hard to speak of AI to a game developer. Even if it was the easiest thing in the world to implent.

im not fighting with you guys or anything but i really see this as an issue in RTW and possible M2TW so i would really hear your opinon about it

Hopefully they can fix this.

Touche and less sieges too...

I felt Romes system was more historical than Medievals 30 armies in the one province tactic.

Battles don't mean anything because like was said before your armies are cannon fodder, it doesn't matter what you loose, when and how, unless it's very early in the campaign and you are extremely vulnerable, you can usually replace lost troops without much hassle, too easy to raise an army, too easy to keep that army (upkeep, no real supply issues, etc.), too easy to replace that army - battles will hardly have a significant meaning, win or loose, next turn or next few turns it's the same ol same ol, but this is a tough one, it's what we'll get with a very simple strategic game, the other option is to make the game as complex as Victoria, and that's not really enjoyable, if CA can come up with a middle ground somewhere between cannon-fodder troops and valuable armies, they get the gold medal, maybe we just need a few steps towards Europa Universalis.

Perhaps we should do away with retraining.

Going back to the Caesar 3 game where it was very hard to raise an army
was very fun. first you need money to build so people imigrate. Then you need quite a few buildings to actually be able to just build the most basic unit. Then you need a blacksmith to produce armour/weapons. Ofcourse the blacksmith needs iron from a mine. after a while you get to produce "1" legionarie. That was very fun when you really struggled to raise a army before the carthaginian army appeared.


But thats a whole other game. But its a good example of a fun Battle even if it was very basic. In RTW we can produce a whole unit in 2 mouseclicks and still win most battles. I remembered when i got 3 legions in caesar 3 and i was so confident in my defence and all. But i lost badly then i saw the enemy sack the whole city. I got a little sad after like 3 hours play but it was rewarding.

Hm, a Total War game mainly is about war, and battles, that´s the strong point of the series. In MTW the battles were more important because you had to win the field battle in order to capture the province while in Rome, due to the map system of free army movement, you could maneuvre troops about in one-unit stacks if you wanted (something the AI does a lot). Perhaps armies should have a general (a.k.a family member in RTW) as prerequisite to move an army about, no more no-name captains. That would certainly lead to more concentrated armies and - potentially - more decisive battles.

Nah, just move them on offensive operations... Or else you will be very open to enemy attacks since your troops can only stay in their city/castle. They should be able to throw the enemy out.

But part of the problem with RTW is also, besides the faster battles, that the battles tends to much much more decisive in terms of kills.
The speed of the battle often means the losing side hasn't got the time to inflict any losses that matters. In MTW, I have had many battles where a large percentage of the enemy force managed to retreat to the castle and my own army was now too weak to stay in such an exposed position (given the other enemy provinces around me had plenty troops). That was not teh case in RTW. It happened though, at times that the enemy managed to force me away from my sieges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Nah, just move them on offensive operations... Or else you will be very open to enemy attacks since your troops can only stay in their city/castle. They should be able to throw the enemy out.

---

Good thought. Garrison armies could take care of that, armies that are stationed in cities and can move about the province they´re in.

I just came up with the idea that would suit both 3D people AND 2D people


Keep the 3D map as it is But use the Risk style movement of mtw

what do you think about that?. Each regions should get smaller for more movement so more strategic will be involved

You do know that teh reason there wasn't taht many big battles were becouse of the mindset of the one in charge and the proplem of organising troops.
I mean look at teh battel of agincourt or Cresy can't remeber which, but the french managed to gather several tens of thousands of feudal troops to hunt the english (40 k i think), but becouse tehy were to slow the king drooped tehm and used his cav to get to teh english.

And most of the fighting were either pillaging or sieges (often both).
Becouse it took time to get your troops in to a battle line, and if one side was weaker tehy could yust walk away. And there whould be no battle. So battles only accured when one side was forced to fight becouse he could not flee or was cought up by cav. And of course when both side thought they had a chance to win teh battle.

But the fact remains taht during (can't remember in head, but in the 100 years war, 20-0 years before the battle of cresy) the french had pushed he english out of france whit out any mayor battle, this changed after a battel which the english won and tehn took much of northen french back.

So the ability to raise troops was there, but becouse of outher factors was not used that much. I could mention that as a general you may need to think that if you gave battle you might lose it. And that in practise means losing that sector you are in and a lot of lives. And that feusal troops need to return to the fields.

So more sieges and an option to plunder enemies fields.

Yes i read that in RTW forum :) i have yet to respond in a some good way though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirex1

You do know that teh reason there wasn't taht many big battles were becouse of the mindset of the one in charge and the proplem of organising troops.
I mean look at teh battel of agincourt or Cresy can't remeber which, but the french managed to gather several tens of thousands of feudal troops to hunt the english (40 k i think), but becouse tehy were to slow the king drooped tehm and used his cav to get to teh english.

And most of the fighting were either pillaging or sieges (often both).
Becouse it took time to get your troops in to a battle line, and if one side was weaker tehy could yust walk away. And there whould be no battle. So battles only accured when one side was forced to fight becouse he could not flee or was cought up by cav. And of course when both side thought they had a chance to win teh battle.

But the fact remains taht during (can't remember in head, but in the 100 years war, 20-0 years before the battle of cresy) the french had pushed he english out of france whit out any mayor battle, this changed after a battel which the english won and tehn took much of northen french back.

So the ability to raise troops was there, but becouse of outher factors was not used that much. I could mention that as a general you may need to think that if you gave battle you might lose it. And that in practise means losing that sector you are in and a lot of lives. And that feusal troops need to return to the fields.

So more sieges and an option to plunder enemies fields.

---

I dont mean to be mean but could someone explain what he/she is trying to say?

I'll tell you what would make the free movement work would be to increase the importance of roads. Make the movement off road VERY slow, esspecially for artillery units. Walking through soft, boggy, wooded ground is hard work, more so when you have horse-drawn wagons of supplies with the army.

Roads would then provide the means for army movement on the correct level, holding bridges would be vital. Crossroads need to be guarded.
The AI cud be quite easilly programmed to be told that these locations are important for if they hold the province.

On top of this, patrol and scout units could be used to watch for enemy movement so that the main army knows where the battle could be best fought.

It would make good use of the strategic level of the game.

Field Battles would be important, if the defending army looses here it could then fall back to the city/fort/castle to defend itself against a siege. Attacking armies would have to flee home if they lose the battle.

Maybe raising an army should be done in a block. Choose a commander from the list (who is in that town), choose the size from -
- Recon Foce (3 Units)
- Light Force (5 Units)
- Medium Force (8 Units)
- Large Force (12 Units)
- Main Army (20 Units)

The army could be named, chosen speicific uniform settings etc.

Quite simple the smaller the army the more maneuverable they are. So when I attack a small stack with odds like 5:1 they can do a long retreat. Whereas if the odds are 1:1 and they try to retreat theres a much smaller chance for a long retreat.

And if they are rebels at against odds they just fertilize your fields and dissapear killing the need for autoresolve or to fight them to stop the poor calculation of autresolve.

Naked fanatics are a great example 5 hastati vs 1 fanatic. I win the battle but lose 2 units of hastati in the process of autoresolve. I mean come on even if I was the fanatics on the battlefield at most I'd destroy a half a unit.

Kill the need for autoresolve and kill the need to have to go into battle against such a worthless foe.