Printable View
What's up Org...
I was curious as to how long battles (on average) will take compared to previous installments in the series.
Of course with Empires we now have naval battles and the Industrial Era technology...so I'm wondering if we can expect very long battles exceeding an hour relatively often. The gameplay footage that I've seen thus far leads me to believe this is the case.
Very good question, Im guessing with Naval, itll take some time, land too, especially if people want to make it realistic.
I'm pretty sure I read that the average battle will last about 20 minutes. This probably goes for land and naval battles. Slightly disappointing, in my opinion, but I'm sure that mods will change this.
They better be long. I remember the old RTW vanilla battles only lasted for like, 5 minutes or less. :no:
In RTW campaigns the overall number of battles would be much higher than in the previous games with the 2D map - so from a design point of view it made sense that they were brief affairs. If they were long then the game would drag endlessly for the casual gamer and CA designs for the casual gamer too. However this meant all the appalling results in tactical battle pace.
In ETW - the overall number of battles would be from starters high since there are also the naval battles now and also the map and number of factions are substantially larger.
They are left with two options - one to make battles numerous and brief like in RTW and the second to make the battles less frequent but longer. This in turn affects the pace of the battles - melee resolution time between units, unit speeds, reload times, unit type speeds etc. Its a complex issue and the root of all evil usually in these cases is the fact that CA designs for all sorts of fan types - they try to catch as many fish in the net as possible. The result typically is an average that is far from being golden.
Noir
Rest assured, there will be mods to correct it. :grin2:
There is only so much mods can do - especially for mp.
But yes you are right - mods offer a variety of gameplay within the engine provided.
Noir
Unless there is an agreed upon multiplayer balance mod. But even that would only go so far, in certain groups. It will either fall upon CA to balance, or maybe someone can do it for them, but I doubt they would change it if it wasnt done by themselves.
precisely. mods are not really good for mp - they split the community - the best thing is to have a well designed and balanced and bug free vanilla game. Thats were the rub is though because this kind of thing implies less unit variety that directly conflicts with SP.
There are many solutions that people proposed over the years the best being two different exes for SP and MP - but CA seems many times immune to suggestions or at least implements them at a very slow pace.
Noir
in every game so far there has been a option to turn off battle time limit. problem solved.
Not that, but how long a normal battle will actually take. Say for a 10 unit vs 10 unit skirmish. How long? How fast will units die?
While Knoddy refers to the battle time limit which is very important too ofcourse - as pevergreen notes this thread is about the (average i guess) battle length - how long a typical battle will last.
Noir
While it may be that a typical battle may not last longer than ten minutes, I am personally curious as to how the game will play out with the "do you want to declare war?" mechanic added to the attacking phase. Meaning that one can no longer send stacks across the border of a rival faction and wander the land. I hope the AI is less prone to attacking the player now that the process of fighting someone is more....resolute and also with the naval battles as someone mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
Hopefully (not that it would happen), I would very much like to see the return of the maneuver-heavy battles from MTW and STW. We might get an increase in time by a couple of minutes due to ranged combat playing a greater role, though.
Unless CA is planning to overplay the power of the bayonet charge and have units run at the speed of coked up quarterbacks....
Great responses in this thread. Thanks guys.
For clarification: Yes, I am indeed talking about average battle length. Sure you can turn off battle time limit but that has no effect on how fast units move, die, etc.
I guess all we can do is hope. As someone said though, I fondly remember the days of maneuver heavy battles from MTW.
On top of this, hopefully CA does not include some insane code that limits the amount of units that can participate in the battle. We had to turn unlimited men on battlefield on in the preference cfg with M2TW in order to allow this to happen. Not that this is a huge issue, but I hope the "out of the box" vanilla features unlimited men as standard. Several stack battles with waves of reinforcements would guarantee long battles later in our campaigns.
We'll see what CA does. I just hope the campaign and battles don't move at the speed of light to get to the meat and potatoes of the battles. That's only a fraction of what playing this game is about.
I share your concerns overall, and additionally I hope to see more dynamic (and in a way, more punishing) gameplay in terms of move and kill ratios.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke
Meaning that for example, an 18 lb:er firing canister shot at a column of men a certain distance away have a fairly great range a possible effects, due to weather/training/fatigue/elevation and pure chance.
If the odds are stacked against you, there is no telling if the fire will be quite as effective as you expect.
This is of course a regular and constant feature of the Total War series, but I feel that for ETW, this should be even more pronounced due to the more rigid nature of gunpowder. Hit and miss should be calculated with numbers and statistics in the background, just like the older games (In M2TW, you had animations as a factor in fighting, which at times produced game-ruining effects).
The most enjoyable way to play a TW game, is IMHO as a political simulator, in a way. Not purely management, as Civilisation, but heavily centered around diplomacy, religion, family dynasties and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke
Going out and randomly conquering is much less gratifying than having roleplayed different reasons for fighting (just as real life, war starts for a specific reason, not just for the sake of it). My empires are almost always one of the smaller ones on the map, as I in a Machiavellian way try to unbalance factions that are too big for their boots, and rarely do I gather my full army and go on a slaughtering rampage.
For just the right challenge, I often only attack with an army about 1/3 the size of the enemy. That is in MTW, mind you. In RTW, you can send forth your factionleader's wife equipped with a butterknife and still, claim victory! :yes:
If you are playing correctly then it may drag on infinitum. With all of the hedges, hills, and possibly entrenchments, maneuver can go on and on.
Of course if you charge into canister you might find it ending quicker than you would like…
:oops::skull::skull:
This is exactly the way I play the game.:2thumbsup: I often play merely to see what happens, rather than to go conquering the whole world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Durango
A favourite game of mine is to play as a faction that can easily defend it's position (England is best for this). I build up my economy early on, take all of Britain and Ireland as soon as possible, and then focus on building up a trading Empire.
After I'm rolling in florins I use bribery, agents, diplomacy and a small but high tech elite army to mess around with the rest of Europe. It's fun to cause wars, give random factions provinces in odd places, launch crusades at strange targets and occasionally invade the mainland for a laugh and then give the land I take to the Pope. :2thumbsup:
I very rarely end up actually winning these games (although I could If I actually tried) but it's rather a lot of fun just messing around creating a story within the campaign. If Englang had been ruled my way for the Medieval period history would be much, much more intersting. :laugh4:
Yeah, and the other factions are also interesting to watch as much as your own :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
In ETW, the possibilities are greater since the cultures of all the factions are more diverse. We could for example play as a European nation, and then abandon our capital after settling in the forests of North America! This way, an "empire in exile" could try to co-exist with the natives instead of subduing them. Maybe even try to be like them and fight off all your fellow European nations?
England is surely a favourite faction for me too, really good strategic position and very interesting unit roster as well. Sometimes I keep Scottish rebels around just to try and roleplay the rebellions there throughout the period :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
"The trouble with Scotland....... its that it's full of Scots!"
Ah, creating an army of battle-hardened Grognards from your very best troops have always been one of the pleasures of the Total War series, and ETW will even add to this by allowing us to name the units! Much rejoicing I have felt at such a simple feature, but the small things really matter. And as you said, "messing" rather than destroying is my Modus Operandi for maximum fun :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
Winning? No, no, winning is not the point. The journey is the goal, man. Awaiting bizarre and unexpected things to happen while I am just one of many factions in the political snakepit that is Europe is the real beauty of the game! Sometimes I also play according to the V&V/Traits of the ruling family (not just the king, but generals and princes also). Piety through the roof? Crusades it is then! And even trying your own family and friends for heresy - and the Pope must be obeyed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
Ha, ha, I have such an urge to play now, it's sickening! :dizzy2:
On topic now. I want battle times in the range of about 20 minutes realistically speaking. That is, what we can expect given the lengths of battles in previous games. And something which ties into this is the frequency of battles in the campaign game. Personally, having to fight smaller engagements is fun when I choose to do so, which is the difference between the old RTW engine and what I hope the new will deliver.
There should be small, optional battles. Almost like missions, that give a reward. Not purely a threat, since small skirmishes are by definition not threatening but only irritating if you have to fight. Say that a band of pirates pop up that mainly harasses your allies' fleets. Since I love the feeling of helping allies, they would present a neat oppurtunity for glory and practice. Contrast this with having the pirates constantly bothering only you... :wall:
Now, big battles should be DECISIVE and important. I also like units to be expensive and valuable so that you feel more attached to them. In fact, I have modded the MedMod for MTW:VI to have higher costs and upkeep, and longer training times to make gameplay more realistic. Immersion is lost to me
when you can just pump units to no end. I want planning to factor in, and want to be distressed when my "Garde Imperiale" is annihilated in a glorious charge against the thin red line.
I think 20 mins would be a max, after all, who knows what will pop up in real life when your in the middle of a battle.
You guys play too fast for me. I'm a pause button wuss. If I can play a battle in under an hour I'm happy. My wife's not, but I am. :yes:
I don't think of this as cheating. The computer knows where everything is and has perfect command and control. When the computer has to play based on what the general sees, then I will too.
SG
This is very much my favourite thread, I wish I could give tea and hobnobs to all involved...:balloon2:
I am so looking foreward to my ability to fight battles in the mould of Blenheim, vast armies commanded by different generals, playing a game of manouvre before one side beleives it has the upperhand, initiating the finishing move of a cavalry charge!
Just imagine all the streams, hills, hedgerows and walls to play with, I agree that proper battles should be long and important affairs, but seldom reccuring due to the devastating effect they could have. But they should not mean the full fledged destruction of an army or nation, merely the slight adjustment of a few red lines on a map.
My guess is land battles will be longer but it will depend on the number of units involved. The ability of infantry to form squares should prevent the RTW tactic of bringing cavalry around behind engaged infantry and causing them to panic. That, plus the ranged nature of battles and more involved terrain factors should extend the length.
Naval battles I don't know about but this video is a clue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxiRP1A0uKU
The battle entailed five ships on each side and appears to be nearing a conclusion after 8 1/2 minutes. There didn't appear to be much tactical maneuvering, just toe to toe fighting for the most part.
A interesting conversation.
I'd say 20 minutes sounds about right, bare in mind while some of the fanatics here may play battle after battle again and again, alot of casual gamers eventually just do auto resolve later on. So to do anything as elborate as a hour long battle is a bit much for the CA staff.
You can still have it with high enough numbers I assume, but we will see.
Usually for it comes down to how quickly morale breaks. So if morale starts breaking 10 minutes in, another 5 minutes to make it scatter through army, 5 minutes to mop up, and yep 20 minutes sounds about right.
Judging by the screens and videos i've seen it appears that musket fire is pretty deadly, so units will be dying alot faster then in past games I assume.
As for naval battles, all depends how many volleys a ship takes before sinking. However I've seen alot of people comment on 20 v 20. Just a small note, so far, in the game, it seems the standard encounter is about 5 v 5 or 3 v 2. So 20 v 20 will be the odd circumstance not the norm i assume.
I mean this is only a 200 turn game, and CA has stated ships will take time to build, so you may be quite a bit into the game before you can get a 20 ship fleet.
On average I think many of my battles tend to take a lot longer than 20 minutes. I have a tendency to micromanage formation and tactics for minimum casualties, and that can result in rather long battles.
A 20 minute average seems reasonable to me, not too long and not too short. :2thumbsup:
20 minutes may seem to short for many, but if you have 4 decent sized battles in a turn, thats 80 minutes, and if that happens next turn (it probably will, with naval and land battles) 80 minute turns arent so appealing as when you begin to get many enemies im sure that will be feasible amount of battles.
The battles are obviously going to be longer because of land mostly shooting, which could be lengthy, plus theres all these abilites to lay down fortifications and garrison buildings, that could delay things massively. Sea battles will take a while because boats will take ages to be destroyed and even if you board a ship the fighting will take a while and the other ships will still be fighting.
Whether there long enough for orgahs or not, there almost guaranteed to be longer than in previous total war games, and i wouldnt want them to drag on forever.
Total pause button wuss as well here. I enjoy it as something akin to a game of chess. Sure it might drag on but I just enjoy maximising strategy and minimising me having to micromanage 20 units.Quote:
Originally Posted by scipiosgoblin
And definitely agree with the earlier posts about how it's more fun making unusual events happen and playing with the balance of power. One of my favourite things to do is to invade an entire large faction with lots of neghbours, then abandon it to rebels and see who steps in to fill the void, started quite large wars this way. Or giving away some adjoining provinces to a faction that are well away from where the rest of their provinces are and see how long they last.
With the improved diplomacy system it looks like there's tons of fun to be had with this style. I'm going to try and create a complex web of alliances then start WWI early.
Should be alot of fun.
I like pausing it helps with the game length.
One thing I enjoyed doing was pausing, ordering all my units, then zooming into my general to see him raise his sword and all the units scatter about to do thier thing. After Shogun and MTW1 it was so nice to see that little animation.
Not sure if they will still do that in ETW but I'm hoping for a trumpet or something
Reasonable perhaps, but ideally the game would be so moddable that you could have 5 hour battles if one so pleased. I want to fear going to battle again :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
I see...I too enjoy a slower game of maneuvering, akin to chess.Quote:
Originally Posted by IlDuce
But the pause button? No way man. Might as well have your mommy bring you milk and cookies while the AI does their turns ~;p
Or try to survive limiting yourself to only a maximum of three provinces no matter what. Anything other than destroying everyone as fast as you can. I don't want to kill all my neighbours, they're my friends!Quote:
Originally Posted by IlDuce
Unless they cross me, then I'll bury them.
Grand Coalitions, yes. With me in the shadows, profiting, orchestrating, scheming, and turning friends against foes only to satisfy my dark desires of chaos and disruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by IlDuce
"Some men aren't looking for anything logical....some men just want to watch the world burn."
The only way I know to slow the game is the pause button, you can increase speed and decrease it but by default it starts at 1.0.Quote:
I see...I too enjoy a slower game of maneuvering, akin to chess.
But the pause button? No way man. Might as well have your mommy bring you milk and cookies while the AI does their turns
I enjoy pausing and issuing orders at the start, then seeing where things go from there.
Some people enjoy to just skip deployment and not even pause to issue orders, just push it forward in real time from go.
I prefer though the speech, the deployment, then issuing orders and watching it play out. Then I can always hit pause again if need or play the rest in real time.
It's one of the joys of Total War over other RTS, it's turn based and real time :) everyone happy.
Just judging from the screen shots I'd think most battles will take 10-20 minutes. Also the video in the "Musket Volley" thread is of Bunker Hill and it was like 15 minutes. Considering there are significantly less cities on the World Map and less turns I think we'll see less armies marching around. Then again who knows? We haven't played a full campaign yet and until then we'll never get our answer. (Unless there's a DEMO)
The deployment is definately one of the best phases, when you get to arrange the troops in heroic formations. I'm big on formations. They make life better, everything looks more ordered in formations. Even shoes, toothpicks, cars and cats. Formations rule, man :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Polemists
But the AI should have the benefit of being able to issue orders simultaneously, while I must do my best controlling the action. The AI needs to have the advantage here.
The AI does have several advantages over the player in terms of how quickly it can martial its troops and respond to threats. The AI sees all, knows all and can control all simultaneously. This is something the player can only replicate using the pause function.Quote:
Originally Posted by Durango
Sadly the AI uses its omniscience in the worst way possible, because it's as thick as two very short planks. :shame:
I too love formations. I often spend several minutes or more in the deployment phase setting up needlessly elaborate formations in order to beat opponents I often outnumber or outclass anway.
It's a shame your nice neat formations always go to pot as soon as you issue any sort of order to your troops. Moving does tend to ruin everything. Mass movement of soldiers and pathfinding are two things that CA haven't managed to nail since Medieval. :no:
I've never used the pause button. It's more exciting to have no choice but to squander your horse archers in the heat of battle due to being busy with the knights :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
But maybe ETW will have an additional difficulty level called Monty Python mode. On this special level, the AI gets air balloons that drop pianos on your general, elephants that explode into smaller elephants and give a -67 morale penalty, and traps on the battlefield that your units fall into randomly. Filled with lava, of course.
Formations are one of the things that I love most about the 18th century, as well. I hope that ETW will include a multitude of researchable formations that are also very advantageous to use. When bringing up MTW, remember how the wedge was actually useful? And the way you could form units into a single rank (like the Highlanders at the battle of Balaklava 1854).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
I want the following:
- Single rank line
- Column (confirmed)
- Square (confirmed)
- Wedge for cavalry
- Pikewall for the pikemen still around
- Skirmish dispersal for light infantry
Plus additional firing drills. I'm glad that individual stats for units has been expanded upon, with naming them a possibility as well.
I really, REALLY hope someone at CA sees this suggestion and makes it happen. It would be the perfect reward for defeating the campaign. It would be even better if all the unit descriptions and dialogue changed to become rife with Monty Python references :laugh4:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Durango
Formations are one of the things that I love most about the 18th century, as well. I hope that ETW will include a multitude of researchable formations that are also very advantageous to use. When bringing up MTW, remember how the wedge was actually useful? And the way you could form units into a single rank (like the Highlanders at the battle of Balaklava 1854).
I want the following:
- Single rank line
- Column (confirmed)
- Square (confirmed)
- Wedge for cavalry
- Pikewall for the pikemen still around
- Skirmish dispersal for light infantry
Plus additional firing drills. I'm glad that individual stats for units has been expanded upon, with naming them a possibility as well.[/QUOTE]
Single rank has also been confirmed, and skirmish dispersal is almost a certainty. :2thumbsup: I imagine there's a good chance of wedge formation and pike wall formation being in to.
After seeing the last naval battle video, I am wondering about the damage models they used. Sinking 5 or 6 ships in 5 minutes seemed a bit extreme to me.
Okay, so you want it decisive and quick, but that is a bit too quick. You might think that 10 ships going at it would take twenty minutes to half an hour to slug it out in a single pass down the line.
I think I saw 3 hours fighting conducted in a few minutes. One or two broadsides were enough to sink a ship.
It may have changed, but…
I hate to nerff things without a thought but am I alone in this impression?
Well I don't "know" ships so I can't tell you what types those were. I can say they did not look like very big ships or the so called "Ship of the Line"
So I'd expect smaller ships to solve skirmishes quicker then larger ones. Mainly do to the fact they are smaller and so a few hits and they start to sink.
The one ship they showed was a three decker. That translates to Big Motha in ‘Mercian and a First Rate or Second Rate for the British.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polemists
There was a second large ship that may have been a 74 gun two decker. A couple may have been smaller ships but even at that it was quick and bloody. The American ship listing and getting ready to sink only took one Broadside that I saw…then the damage went from zero to uh oh. I couldn’t tell her class but it may have been a frigate.
Are we sure this is anywhere near final and not just the CA guys testing out naval combat features such as sinking and collison physics?
We could hope that is the case or that things have been beefed up from that point.
But I don’t see us spending hours pouring shot into a gutted hulk in order to sink it being an option if things have remained as they were in that clip.