When you use the staked archers command, do the archers still shoot arrows?
Do you guys use time limits on battles or not? any reasons?
thanks
Printable View
When you use the staked archers command, do the archers still shoot arrows?
Do you guys use time limits on battles or not? any reasons?
thanks
Sure, the archers still shoot arrows. The command to use stakes is really handy because the archers can shoot arrows over the stakes and still be relatively safe from frontal attacks.
I personally use time limits because the AI will sometimes get stuck on sieges and you'll just have to wait it out. It also helps on defensive battles where you don't want to forsake your nice position and the AI doesn't want to attack you.
My reasons for not using time limits are:
I don't use time limits as I like to play the battle out to the end.
In the field as I use mostly all cavalry armies, one good spot can quickly be substituted with another. Also playing defensive with an all cav army is not the same as playing defensive with a balanced or mostly infantry army. You move anyway, and almost never stop, except to shoot, then you move again. Usually you don't hold a single position but many and force the enemy to react. Sometimes you do get nice cliffs, so you go up there shoot as much as you can and then move. Point is you're not stationary long.
I also feel that I can win otherwise unwinnable battles with the time limit. I can just run around the map as defender until the time runs out. Though I actually don't do that, but I feel tempted to .. lol.
I rarely let an enemy siege a city, I always catch the enemy army outside and cut it downm before it gets to it's target.
If, on rare, occasion, an enemy sieges a city it's usually met by a relieving army from outside the city. If, on even rarer occasion, an enemy assualts the city, I have'nt seen the AI loop bug, or just standing there, I usually end up attacking anyway.
Lastly I like to take my time and I don't want to be looking at the time.
For me the time limit is a negative. I don't like it, never use it.
I couldn't imagine not using time limits. I often fight very outnumbered and sometimes it is great fun, desperately trying to survive until the counter runs down. I feel like Wellington at Waterloo "Give me night or give me Blucher".
I always use time limits. It feels more realistic, to me, that there should be some time pressure on. It also offers the possibility of more "even" outcomes to battles.
That being said, I rarely find that field battles take a long time to resolve - the only occasions when the time limit actually expires are in siege battles.
I never used to use time limits in MTW and RTW because as far as I was concerned a lot of battles used to take all day, certainly not 45 minutes max.
But then sometimes on Rome I'd notice something which have become much more prevalant with M2TW- passive ai.
So now I do have them on just because when I'm on the defensive it forces the ai into action.
Although sometimes it winds me up because I've got at fantastic defensive position and the ai just doesn't bother to try and assault me at all.
I've always had the time limit on in all TW games. I can't remember that it ever was a problem, like not having enough time for an assault (Maybe the one or other castle attack in MTW, not sure). There's plenty of time for all battles and I always play them out to the end.
As it is now I need to have it on, because when the AI siege-attacks you and runs out of possibilities to break/scale your walls, it will just stand there and wait.
I'd prefer it when the AI would consider retreating rather than us waiting for sunset.
I always use time limits. Only once or twice have I ever come close to the time limit, both times when I was assaulting a city in the RTR mod. Once I ran out of time, and once I killed the last greek pikeman in the city square with 10 seconds left. Both times I was assaulting a city with 16+ defensive units, mostly pike. Killing them took time.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think this behavior is tied to the AI's siege weapon ammunition stock. I've had two sieges now where the AI busted down my walls and then just kept on flinging rocks for a while. None of their units were moving, so I decided to wait it out. Then, when the timer was about at the halfway mark, the catapults quit firing and the army started to move.Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
Back OT, I have played every TW game with the timer on and never had a problem. Sometimes the AI will get stuck in a bunch of rocks or something, and it's the only way to end the battle without losing.
The timer in MTW used to scale to the battle; you'd get like ten minutes to fight off the suicidal attack of the Danish king and his six sons, but you'd have a 3-hour + slugfest when the Mongols appeared in one of your provinces.
Since the advent of RTW, I've found that I never need the full amount of the timer to kick the AI's tail in a field battle (or occasionally lose because my stupid general runs away or gets himself killed) and I've only even come close in a really huge siege.
I never used to have battle time limits. I use them in my current campaign because of several battles that annoyed me. I was attacked on a bridge more than once by a large force, when I only had 5 or so very experienced units of infantry. I would have been cut down by the opposing archers if I tried to cross the bridge, and the AI was attacking me...but they just stood there.
They should have attacked me. I attack in 95% of situations, but not that one.
I have yet to actually encounter a battle that expired, so its been a non-issue for me. The closest I got was about half of the time remaining, and I spent a good portion of the first half creating 6-8 holes in walls/heads.
The AI tends to become passive in sieges so playing with time limits is a must for me, even waiting for the the time limit to end gets annoying when you have the AI do nothing and just wait.
I use time limits.
In M2TW I think they are a must because the AI will just stand there when it is the attacker sometimes, and I'm not going to come off my hill or from behind my walls.
The other thing I do which feels like a bit more of an exploit is win battles on the 3 minute city square rule. For example, if the AI has a small garrison but a lot of reinforcements coming I'll make a mad dash for the square and occupy it for 3 minutes before it can get the reinforcements brought up. I've also been known to blow the gate with cannon and run my army right past the guys on the walls to the city square.
As a side note, the city square clock seems a little buggy in M2TW. Sometimes I will get credit for occupying the square while there are still enemies in it.
That's not buggy; it's not the same mechanic as it was in RTW. Back in Rome, you only controlled the square when you had troops in it and there were no enemy in the square at all. Even one enemy trooper in the square and you didn't control it. In this game, it's based on the number of troops on both sides in the square. I'm not sure of the exact number, but generally if you outnumber them by 2-3:1 you'll have control of the square even if their entire remaining garrison is standing there.
I only use it when enemy forces are besieging my settlement.
i never use the timer, i had a few multiple stack fights in mtw where the ai defender won when the time ran out, even tho i was kicking its ass and it still had reinforcements on the way. never turned the timer on again, and even turned off the second rtw and m2tw was installed. Just as i turn off the green arrow markers and use the minimal ui. those are the first changes to the game i make when i (re)install.
I used time limits until the AI sieged a city of mine and didn't budge. I couldn't win if I sallied forth but would easily win if they assaulted. They didn't budge and I ended up exiting the battle which killed all of my troops and lost me the city, even though they wouldn't move.
since then I have used a time limit.
The stakes archers shoot and the stakes pulverize cavalry chrges.
I use the timer on when I'm being attacked, timer off when I am attacking.
My reason is that I sometimes find that the AI does not attack is the timer is not on, which can be somewhat frustrating when they are assaulting a settlement and decide not to move.
Hmm well I guess because I play all cav, I'm always attacking, hence I have very rarely seen the passive AI. In a siege defintely not, I have'nt seen it.
On field I've seen it, when it's completely screwed it just stands there (lol). In a siege, horses are (mostly) useless in the confines of the city and the cruddy garrison militia is (more useful but) useless too, so I sally out and do my thing.
That's only IF I ever get into a (defensive) siege situation. That has happened a total of about 2-3 times out of a total of 165 battles fought in current campaign.
There have been some huge battles, 1500 vs 2500, 700 vs 4000. For these battles I really get nervous with the timer one. It happened to me in MTW that I lost battles pointlessly, because of that timer. I was winning big time but there were too many enemy to kill in allocated time span.
Taught me another lesson too, quicksave at end of each turn.
Exactly the same here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brighdaasa
the green arrow markers that show you where you're going? also, the mad dash technique to the square has gotten me soooo many regions. what you do is get spies in there to give you an open gate (i usually do it so i have a 100% chance, but you dont need to...you can have whatever you like but sometimes it doesnt open) and then you run in your guys to the square and win it before reinforcements arrive. you dont even need that much more superior of a force.
How can you tell if armies are causing devestation on your land?
I don't think you'd likely have this problem anymore. MTW produced much longer, more epic multistack battles than RTW or M2TW. I can't recall ever coming close to time limiting out while on attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brighdaasa
On the campaign map there is black/grey darkened tiles on the land which has been pillaged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Test112345
On the settlement details scroll, under the income heading there is a "devastation" outflow.
I always played with the timer in RTW, but never really relied upon it---battles almost always ended pretty quickly and decisively. I think I ran out of time on a siege once when most of my siege equipment got torched and it took forever to get the troops up a single ladder. In M2TW with the passive AI you have to have the timer or else you end up with nothing happening (or being forced into a suicidal charge in order to get it over with).
I'm getting curious now... does this passive AI happen to people in every single siege battle ?
I use the battle time limit's always have. They help in sieges were the AI just stands there. They also truly put a bit of a worry when attacking a settlement, trying to take it in time can take a bit. They also allow for more even outcomes in large field battles involving a few stacks.
In MTW the timer scaled with the number of troops. I've had one that had a timer near 6 hours. It really used to help with those 30,000+ battles. Quite honestly the battle speed is the single greatest improvement from MTW to M2TW, no longer do you have those 4 hour fights between you and the next biggest kid in europe. Which I might add became pointless after 30 minutes :skull: .Quote:
I never used to use time limits in MTW and RTW because as far as I was concerned a lot of battles used to take all day, certainly not 45 minutes max.
Always use time limit. Tried without for a short time but had 2 or 3 battles where I was defending and greatly outnumbered yet the AI sat there. Only way to end the battle would be to attack the AI (suicide) or end the battle with a loss. At least if the AI attacked me I'd be able to inflict reasonable losses on it before I'd have lost.
Anyway, after those 2 or 3 experiences, I went back to always using the timer.
If the AI realizes it doesn't have enought troops to take the city (or just successfully attack you on a normal battle) it will just sit there and do nothing, even if it was the attacker. So time limits are essential to end the battle. I don't mind that either, since the limits are generous enough that I have never been pressed to end a battle because of time.Quote:
I'm getting curious now... does this passive AI happen to people in every single siege battle ?
I have always used time limit,, rtw, bi and now mtw2
can i play as a faction only if i have DESTROYED them or if i just face them in battle at some point during my campaign?
oh, and does sacking seem to not damage buildings for anyone else either? i sack cities but no buildings get damaged. wierd.
when you cotinue playing after your victory, how long can you keep on going, or doesnt it count turns anymore?
Yes, I have never once had an AI army actually attack me during a siege they started.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
I don't like having time limits in my battles so they are turned off. This means I that I have to run some light cav out of the walls and lure some of the enemy into the range of my towers. I repeat this over and over and I can generally destroy their entire army in this manner.
You can start as one of 5 factions - England, Venice/Milan (one or the other), HRE, and two others (I don't have the game up ATM). Once you beat any campaign, you can play as all the factions except the Papacy, Rebels, and the Mongols. You can play as England in the short campaign, then beat Scotland and France (and grab the last few provinces you need), and then that will unlock all the Muslims Orthodox factions, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Test112345
Noob question: how important are stars for generals and experience for units? and is anything else important to generals besides stars? dread makes a diff, right? anything else?
That's just plain bizarre. The programmed opponent attacks me close to 100% of the time when besieging.Quote:
Originally Posted by IRONxMortlock
It does often wait until it's made big holes in the walls with siege weapons, though, which is perfectly fair. It's what I'd do, I wouldn't throw my troops forwards to get pwned by intact defences if I had a bunch of trebuchets I could use first.
(It also does some strange things - if you sally with cavalry and slaughter troops manning a ram, it can be a very long time before more troops arrive to pick up the ram again. Not always, but often. It will eventually pick the ram up again, though.)
Even so, the opponent is not very good at coordinating assaults. I can confidently expect to defeat besieging armies which are two or three times more powerful than the garrison, and I'm not a skilled player. Plus, even when spies have opened the gates, the opponent doesn't take advantage of this - a critical flaw IMHO - and will attempt to attack the walls with ladders and crap instead of just punching through the gates.
I've seen them hammering at the walls and then I wait for the attack...Quote:
Originally Posted by John Johnston
Never occurs.
They just punch holes in the wall then wait. My "cav lure" trick certainly works but I've NEVER once seen them even move a ladder towards my walls and when they chase my cav they are only pursuing and simply follow them wherever they go; oblivious to the holes created by their own catapults etc.
Perhaps this is the key point - I play by RTW "Smackimus Maximus" rules. I develop a strong economy and then come at enemies with such force that they cannot think of withstanding. I NEVER leave cities/castles lightly defended in places near enemies. Every time the AI has besieged a city I have either relieved the city with reinforcements from elsewhere or have such a force within the walls that it would be suicide to even approach them. I guess I can't blame them for not trying.:beam:
The AI isn't really passive, imo. It brings siege gear and starts the attack properly. Tearing down walls, ladder and tower assaults. When breaches are made it will charge one opening. However, as your defenses get stronger it is reluctant to attack even when the walls are breached. Sometimes it will empty all its ammo and then attempt a charge. Sometimes, when no useful units remain it will just stand there and sit it out, sometimes it even retreats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
For me, two situations prevail: either it attacks a breach or it becomes passive after it runs out of viable options.
Yes, I am inclined to agree. The AI attacks robustly enough when it thinks it can win. When it doesn't it'll just stand around. Unfortunately, this is not consistent with the defender's advantage I work rather hard to earn.
I have experienced the problem not only in sieges but with hills. I get a nice defensive position on a hill and the AI won't come up and play with me.
I never used to play with the timer on because it was a pain in MTW. I didn't play Rome for long enough to matter cause it sucked but listening to you guys talk about siege behavior I guess I will have to try M2TW with the timer turned back on. So far I haven't been sieged where I didn't break the siege but it would suck to lose a city and an army because the AI won't attack.
I don't like the idea of a timer on principle, but I got in the habit of using it in RTW to break out of silly situations. For example, I once sent a small stack army after a small band of rebels. I had only heavy infantry, they had a couple peasant units and a fast foot skirmisher (peltasts, IIRC). I killed the peasants easily, the peltasts ran out of ammo but still stayed in skirmish mode, dancing away from my slower infantry. My guys couldn't corner them, and the peltasts refused to go into melee, but they didn't retreat off the map either. With the game speed on high, it looked like the end credits for a Benny Hill episode. Without a timer, I couldn't exit without an auto-lose, due to the exit penalty, I guess. So I started using the timer.
I should try turning it off in M2TW, since I haven't seen as much battlefield silliness. Outclassed units are more likely to retreat off the field now. And it looks like the patch is coming later this week (see other threads) which should fix any passive AI bugs.
I'm not sure I've heard anyone suggest a reason why you wouldn't want the timer.
Does anyone actually run out of time in M2TW?
I've been in long battles that required regrouping, where the enemy routed and then reformed for another go. With terrain obstacles and re-positioning, I've been down to a half or 3/4 time gone on the timer. I've never had a battle like that ended by the timer, but I don't like feeling pressured.Quote:
Originally Posted by dismal
Also it just feels artificial. Real battles don't have arbitrary, forced endings (except by weather or nightfall). As far as I can tell, the reason we have the timer at all, is to get out of jams where the AI isn't working right.
Quote:
For me, two situations prevail: either it attacks a breach or it becomes passive after it runs out of viable options.
Yep, I think this the best explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by dismal
I wouldn't discount that as a reason, at least until the patch arrives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus