Cinematic vs. Realistic

How do you want YOUR battles?
The cinematic portrayal of battles of this era tend to involve the entire first row of men in a line keeling over in each volley, grand cavalry charges, massive batterys of cannon and so forth. Naval battles are fast paced and a bit random too.
Realistic battles of the era tend to involve very few casualties (with, again, notable exceptions.), a distinct lack of grand cavalry charges (again, with exceptions) and the only people who frequently used grand batteries being the Russians.

My word, that IS a hard descision. I imagine it will turn out neither way (probably leaning towards the cinematic), as we mere immortal emperors of these nations don't have to deal with the logistics of running an army (let alone a scattered, pursuing one!) at all.


-Max :dizzy2:

I definitely want realistic! Because realistic IS more epic and cinematic than the typical portrayals are!

Just think of the tension as you're on the offensive... You really need a conclusive battle against the enemy, but he keeps conducting successful withdrawals. Next battle, you HAVE TO find a way of pressuring or possibly encircling him, wrapping up the flank more heavily... But he has positioned himself in a well fortified position, using rivers and hills to his advantage. If that isn't epic compared to complete annihilation in almost every single battle, then I don't know what is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

I definitely want realistic! Because realistic IS more epic and cinematic than the typical portrayals are!

Just think of the tension as you're on the offensive... You really need a conclusive battle against the enemy, but he keeps conducting successful withdrawals. Next battle, you HAVE TO find a way of pressuring or possibly encircling him, wrapping up the flank more heavily... But he has positioned himself in a well fortified position, using rivers and hills to his advantage. If that isn't epic compared to complete annihilation in almost every single battle, then I don't know what is!

---

The idiot masses who will make up the vast majority of sales don't care for tactics though - all they care for is WOW LOL ZOMG DEAD PPL EVERYWERE EPIC!!!11!

If they can pull of an AI capable of doing what Rodion described than definately realistic. If they aren't though, I'd prefer cinematic. The better the AI, the more realistic I'd like it. Worse the AI, the more cinematic.

(A realistic battles and campaigns require an excellent AI capable of handling the finer points of what is occuring and what could occur. Without that excellent AI a realistic game becomes almost a joke to beat.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

Realistic battles of the era tend to involve very few casualties (with, again, notable exceptions.), a distinct lack of grand cavalry charges (again, with exceptions) and the only people who frequently used grand batteries being the Russians.

---

I remember a description of an American War of Independence board wargame (Richard Berg's Birth of a Nation) that described warfare around that time as being largely decorative. Regiments and artillery lined up and engaged each other at fairly long range. Charges were relatively bloodless morale contests. In the game, the main killing came from the American regiments equipped with long rifles.

However, I think all that changed at the end of the period. Napoleonic battles were pretty bloody - by the time of Waterloo, the lethality of artillery, skirmishers and short range volley fire made clashes between close order infantry decisive. Most Napoleonic battles involved some cavalry charges - often grand ones. And Napoleon himself joined the Russians in favouring the grand battery.

I doubt Total War will ever model the "largely decorative" realistic warfare that Richard Berg described. The games all give ahistorically high casualty rates and quick combat - that won't change. If anything, we've been promised fewer and more decisive battles.

I can live with cinematic as long as the abstractions feel right. If ETW can model Napoleonic warfare in a way that feels right, I will be happy. I won't miss the bloodless decorative earlier period combat (Birth of a Nation was rather a boring wargame). If one combat arm - say, long range artillery or the cavalry charge - comes to dominate, then that will be when I become unhappy.

What is your definition of "very few casualties"? When going through the list of 18th century battles I seem to find a lot of those exceptions...


CBR

It will always be hard to create realistic battles as long as the Generals (ie: players) have the ability to float around the battlefields like ghosts, assimilating all the data relevant to each individual unit instantly and moving them into precise posistions on the tabletop. This perfect control makes realistic battle re-creating very difficult indeed. No need to worry that the guy in charge of defending Blenheim has packed your entire left flank into one village and been surrounded because you told him to "Hold it at all costs!"

As pointed out above, long to medium range musket fire of the period was inaccurate, but generals indulged in it. If ETW models this then as an armchair general I'll simply hold fire until my troops are about six feet from the enemy line then give them both metaphorical barrels. I'll do the same with artillery if Grapeshot is a lot better than round shot. I expect it will be just like wielding a giant shotgun around the battlefield.

The obvious solution in my mind is an old (Tabletop *gasp shock horror*) wargame rule called "Morale check to charge". I'll explain what I would like (but know I won't) to see. I imagine that units getting within a certain distance of the enemy will have to check morale or become disorganised, like on R:TW, where some units were moe cohesive than others. Obviously no one was pushing peasants into the line in the age of enlightenment, but when it comes to close contact with the enemy your totally green line infantry will act an awful lot like them.

I'd like to see extremely low morale for recruited troops, so that an attack on a solid enemy line (I sincerely hope the E:TW AI will present the player with such a line) by green troops will have them all scampering for cover round about the time your holding down alt to have them bayoet attack.

How then, you crazy out of control renegade, your asking, are we ever to win a battle? I think it would be cool to have barracks buildings that would add a level of morale to units stationed in them each turn up to maybe 2 Silver Chevrons? Morale would also only affect "morale" not attack and defence as it has done in previous titles.

In this manner players would have to reckon risking their trained, seasoned troops (Which would take at least 5 turns to rebuild, let alone reassemble) against an opportunity to trounce the enemy in front of them.

It perhaps needs a little more elaboration to explain fully, but theirs something on the TV I want to watch,

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I remember a description of an American War of Independence board wargame (Richard Berg's Birth of a Nation) that described warfare around that time as being largely decorative. Regiments and artillery lined up and engaged each other at fairly long range. Charges were relatively bloodless morale contests. In the game, the main killing came from the American regiments equipped with long rifles.

However, I think all that changed at the end of the period. Napoleonic battles were pretty bloody - by the time of Waterloo, the lethality of artillery, skirmishers and short range volley fire made clashes between close order infantry decisive. Most Napoleonic battles involved some cavalry charges - often grand ones. And Napoleon himself joined the Russians in favouring the grand battery.

I doubt Total War will ever model the "largely decorative" realistic warfare that Richard Berg described. The games all give ahistorically high casualty rates and quick combat - that won't change. If anything, we've been promised fewer and more decisive battles.

I can live with cinematic as long as the abstractions feel right. If ETW can model Napoleonic warfare in a way that feels right, I will be happy. I won't miss the bloodless decorative earlier period combat (Birth of a Nation was rather a boring wargame). If one combat arm - say, long range artillery or the cavalry charge - comes to dominate, then that will be when I become unhappy.

---

Tell that to the guys in the other topic. They wont listen to me :P

I was under the impression that ETW as going to end either just before or after the Napoleonic Wars, which means that the majority of the game will be pre-napoleonic, IE: 'decorative warfare', minimal casualties, etc.

But yeah, Napoleon seems to have been a bit of a Russo-phile, he's been quoted as saying that he could've taken over Europe a lot faster if he'd had Russian troops :P

As to the style, I think a healthy mix of the two would be nice. As has been mentioned, the AI just isnt good enough to understand how to fight a realistic battle, so we have to dumb things down a bit for the computer to be a decent opponent.
(This is assuming the AI is comprable to MTW2's minus the suicide-charge option.)
I'd like to see expensive cannons and cavalry, making the ol' 'LOL CAVY SPAM!' option less viable and less effective, but we'll see, wont we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

But yeah, Napoleon seems to have been a bit of a Russo-phile, he's been quoted as saying that he could've taken over Europe a lot faster if he'd had Russian troops :P

---

lol. And here I was just reading War and Peace. I tell you, Prince Andrew was GAR in Austerlitz.

Bloody as bloody ever was.

Although I do admit a little anxiousness. Lining up guys to shoot at each other doesn't sound as fun as sending them charging into violent melees really. Napoleonic warfare was quite brutal and fast-paced but I have little knowledge about the period prior to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

lol. And here I was just reading War and Peace. I tell you, Prince Andrew was GAR in Austerlitz.

Bloody as bloody ever was.

Although I do admit a little anxiousness. Lining up guys to shoot at each other doesn't sound as fun as sending them charging into violent melees really. Napoleonic warfare was quite brutal and fast-paced but I have little knowledge about the period prior to that.

---

Slow and plodding, in Europe anyway. As has been mentioned, warfare was mainly decorative in nature. Line up and give the enemy a good show, maybe trade a few volleys, MAYBE a nice bayonette charge.
Again, exceptions as always. The Great Northern War was a particularly bloody bit of work, mainly because it was a struggle to be an Imperial Power. If Sweden had won we might be looking at a very different world today.
Glory to the United Soviet Swedish Republic!

I think that referring to battles of the 18th Century as "dull", "plodding" and "decorative" really is a gross exaggeration. :no:

Many battles in the European theatre ended in the deaths of several thousand men on each side. The co-ordinated use of combined artillery and cavalry with massed infantry was often essential for success.

Blenheim for example resulted in the French losing 20,000 troops and having a further 14,000 captured. Not exactly a "dull", "plodding", battle fought for "decorative" purposes.

Even in smaller battles like Culloden the casualties were horrendous when compared to the numbers involved.

We must remember that there have been more indecisive actions all through history than decisive actions, in fact, in most eras, most encounters were indecisive.

For example: It took the Romans years to bring Hannibal to heel during his invasion of Italy. Most of the encounters between the Romans and the Carthaginians during that period were stand-offs. It doesn’t mean our games have to be like that.

Our battles are about decisive actions not the dull encounters where neither side felt like dying that day.

I'm surprised at how many people believe that battles in the 18th century were little more than glorified "line up and fire then charge" sort of thing.

I was, as I have repeatedly stated, comparing the early-mid 18th century to the late-18th/early 19th century. When you line most (again, MOST. I'm going to be VERY clear this time, MOST battles, not ALL battles, but rather MOST, as in the majority, the larger number, not ALL.) of those battles up against the battles of Napoleons time, they look pretty damn slow and plodding.
Yet again, I urge people to note that I frequently use MOST or 'the majority' in my posts, because there are ALWAYS exceptions, especially when it comes to history. Commanders like Suvurov and La Fayyete were exceptions. The whole American Revolution was pretty much an exception, although it was in the somewhat transitional period when tactics were just starting to shift a bit.
But again, EXCEPTIONS EVERYWHERE LOL, PLEASE NOTE, K?

:clown: Hmm I'm not sure I get your point, Sheogorath. Do you think you could repeat it? :clown:

Slow and plodding? Sounds like a misinterpretation of deliberate and tactical to me. Unless I'm thinking of a different eighteenth century.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that classical battles involved huge amounts of men generally shoving against each other for the better part of the day with relatively few casualties, except for the side that broke, and even then the majority would escape. Despite that RTW was a game that to me might not have been a prefect representation of the era, but by and large felt right. Cinematic liberties are necessary for a game if battles are to have defining moments and have the player feel like he's in charge.

It's important to use properly scaled speeds to retain a sense of realism. That would be speed of movement and speed of reload. Unrealistic speeds undermine the realism achieved by the graphics. The pacing of the battle can be controlled by the rate of damage inflicted and the amount of ammunition available. I like to see moral level used to balance the attritional vs postitional elements in the gameplay rather than using it to adjust the battle's pacing. Rate of fatigue due to movement should be optimized for the size of the maps, and rate of fatigue due to reload for the typical length of the battle. In original STW, these parameters were well optimized, but haven't been in subsequent titles.

-Sidekick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/most
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exception
>_>

-Geoffry
The terms arent mutually exclusive. Slow and deliberate and plodding and tactical. 18th century tactics were pretty plodding by Napoleonic standards. Hence Napoleon kicking everybodys ass all over Europe until he decided it'd be a good idea to take a trip to Moscow.
Again, there are exceptions, yes.

-Puzz
I agree. It would be quite nice to see musketeers and riflemen firing at different rates. Anybody whose fired a musket and a muzzle loading rifle can tell you that muskets take FAR less time to load. From what I know, a trained musketeer can get off 3-5 shots a minute in good conditions, whereas a rifleman was only expected to get off one or two (when firing quickly, obviously.)
Things like formation, terrain and so forth should affect the rate of movement of men (and, obviously, firepower). One of the great debates of Napoleons era was the line vs. the column on the battlefield. Lines had more firepower, but columns gave more manuverability and speed, and made it easier to position cannons. I understand that the Russians favored a 'checkerboard' formation of troops in column formation, putting artillery between each column at the start of battle.
Lines are hard to maintain on the march as well, especially in uneven terrain. A column formation stays pretty much intact and doesnt require men to pace themselves as carefully as a line.
I wont even go into the issues of cavalry formations...figuring out who goes where and which guys get the lances in lancer formations and what sort of dragoon that particular army is using...urgh.

On an unrelated note...

Seeing the Russians using their own unique style of artillery (unicorns/licorns) would be nice. Apparently the Russians didnt favor howitzers too much, prefering the unicorn, which was a mix between a field gun and a howitzer, and could be employed in either role effectivly.
That ones one of the things about Imperial Glory that particularly annoyed me. The British got congreve rockets, but the Russians got the same old howitzers as severybody else.
(Insert disjointed rant about British bias and all that good stuff.)

It's too bad CA have to have this uphill battle concerning perception of 18th c battles; I for one shared them. But I am willing to give CA a chance and let them do their magic and see what comes up in terms of exciting battles. No need to have foregone conclusions.

I'll have to reinforce the opinion that battles in the era were dull. The idea of making battles in this era exciting reminds me of the "pomp and pageantry" line used to promote Medieval 2 :inquisitive: , and cannon elephants.

Wars of this era were largely about maneuver: Strategically exciting but tactically dull, in less you like the noise and smoke. Maneuver around the enemy so that any attack is difficult, threaten his supplies and he will flee the field. How do you make logistics exciting?

Since the strategy is remarkably improved from Medieval to Medieval 2, I hope further emphasis will be placed on it as the battles fall short. This is the revolutionary step so let’s see what you guys can come up with. Without detailed naval battles I won’t even consider buying it. I’d rather play Europa Universalis.

Realistic definitely. Cinematic portrayals frequently appear retarded. For instance, everyone lines up like toy soldiers, one side fires a volley, then they wait about 30 feet away for the other side to fire a volley, then they charge. If one is going to charge it should obviously be done before the other side shoots you in the face.

I would hope that there is a proper skirmishing system, e.g. that if one sends a column on the attack some of its members will detach to form a continually replenished defensive vidette around it.

I'd like battles being more realistic insted of cinematic too.......becuase, I think, even though its a game, but nothing can beat authenticity.......

Hmmm, You folks are starting to take this thread in to some interesting territory that I cant talk about without permision of the evil marketing folks. :embarassed: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick

Hmmm, You folks are starting to take this thread in to some interesting territory that I cant talk about without permision of the evil marketing folks. :embarassed: .

---

Can u comment on the use of secondary weapons then?
1. Will inf use bajonets after they run out of ammo, or when ordered too?
2. Will cav use sabres after their pistols has run dry?
3. Will art personell pick up a rifle/ pistol when their cannon ammo is depleted?

4. Will u incl battlefield fortifications placeable by certain units?


How about movement?
5. Can units move sideways, left-right-back, still facing the enemy or a fixed direction? (This feat is the most important one IMHO. It´s utterly unrealistic as it is now where the units rotate around their centers when moving sideways)

6. In Kingdoms u introduced permanent forts which is great but I still think you should be able to build temp.forts too. Any insight on that?


Thx

All will be revealed in time.:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick

All will be revealed in time.:egypt:

---

You have already said too much.

REPORT FOR RE-ADJUSTMENT! :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick

Hmmm, You folks are starting to take this thread in to some interesting territory that I cant talk about without permision of the evil marketing folks. :embarassed: .

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants

You have already said too much.

REPORT FOR RE-ADJUSTMENT! :dizzy2:

---

Intrepid, seems like you should have checked with Marketing before commenting about having to check with Marketing. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Intrepid, seems like you should have checked with Marketing before commenting about having to check with Marketing. :laugh4:

---

Pshaw! I'm not in marketing. I'm much more dangerous than that. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Intrepid, seems like you should have checked with Marketing before commenting about having to check with Marketing. :laugh4:

---

:laugh4: :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants

Pshaw! I'm not in marketing. I'm much more dangerous than that. :laugh4:

---

I know you aren't marketing Captain. but the irony wouldn't have been as good had I said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi's Alternate Quote

Intrepid, seems like you should have checked with Captain Fishpants before commenting about having to check with Marketing.

---

Actually, now that I see it, it wouldn't have been too bad that way.

Anyway, my lesson learned is to not cross swords with the Capt'n. :pirate2:

:laugh4:

I'd say a mix of both.

whatever keeps me playing for a year. I want to be entertained AFTER the novelty wears off.

Quote:

---

Our battles are about decisive actions not the dull encounters where neither side felt like dying that day.

---

I actually found the indecisive battles in STW & MTW to be amongst the high points of the TW series.

After suffering a major defeat the AI would fall back, building up forces as the player advances into enemy territory.
Sometimes it would fight the unwinnable battle, seemingly attempting to hold a bridge or fort for a turn while reinforcements are brought up.
Sometimes it would come to battle & then either have a minor skirmish before retiring in good order or simply flee at the sight of your glorious elite army.
But sometimes it would bring in extra reinforcements & force your overstretched invasion to fall back & consolidate or fight a battle at severe disadvantage.

Probably my most memorable case was in MTW where the Golden Horde attacked me with the bulk of their forces & I dug in within a forrest area with my vastly outnumbered army.
The Horde skirmished and feinted left & right, took a few losses then withdrew.
It was technically a draw but my tactical victory in forcing the much more powerful army to withdraw.
More importantly it was a huge strategic victory for me as the Horde then split & expanded over the next few turns allowing my smaller army to break their power in a series of smaller battles.

In RTW & M2TW, with per-turn movement rather than province hopping, its far too easy to wipe out an enemy army that is trying to withdraw.
They'll withdraw a few grids but then can normally be forced to battle anyway since their movement is exhausted.
Also the withdrawal after skirmish/just taking a peek at the player army, while still there is much less frequent.

And now, back to your regular thread topic :balloon2: