Graphics OR unit control ?

[Joker II]

Hi guys,


Imagine, CA let's you choose between these two for their next Fast as a Shark III, Yeah Baby engine, graphics or improved unit control which leads to more units, what would you choose ?

What I mean is, creating graphics that would blow your mind of, detailed destructions, extra realistic looking units with detailed animations, the works. But, the limit of 20 units would remain !

OR

You can have an improved unit control system with superb AI that makes it so easy to control your army, you could have like 30 of 40 units without actually having to micromanage them, though, if you wanted you could and control everything or part of it.


What do you think CA should invest their time and money in?

Graphics or AI ?

[RLucid]

I like idea of having configurable Tab-ed Army-Groups, to permit easier control of more units. Should make it simpler to createl a wing of army (or centre) and tell it to attack "that lot", and it'd be great if that included pre-paratory movement eg) flanking attempt. I absolutely hate having re-inforcements under AI control, and never trust AI to order any of my units; even when it seems all sewn up.

Also if Batlle AI, understood to fight as a combined arms group, it is more likely not to have units getting isolated drawn off, to be defeated in detail; so it might be good from more than player control PoV.

There should also be degrees of attack (all out, determined, cautious, fixing etc), and abilities to make fighting withdrawals to slowly trade ground.

Graphics, is good for first few hours in game for immersion, after that it's more about gameplay. Without better game play, there's no way I'm going to upgrade from RTW, just for more modern unit types, and some flashy features that look good in reviews.

Perhaps a compromise would be to be able to review all battles in higher graphical detail (not necessarily strict Real Time), afterwards when both player & AI is relieved of burden of decision making.

[rajpoot]

Graphics in M2TW are good enough. What we need now is realistic number of units, and detailed controls. the latter we are getting to some extent I believe, with the ability to have units occupy structures and all. The former too we will get to some extent with the new engine. And the graphics ofcourse are better. What you get now is a balanced, slightly better, system hog.

Ofcourse I would have rather had it that they left the graphics and actually made controlling armies of 50000 men possible......really epic. But you can't have everything can you.

[Martok]

Given that my opinion of Rome and Medieval 2 isn't exactly a secret, I don't think anyone'll be surprised that I'd absolutely vote for a better control scheme....particularly if the the "friendly" battle AI were capable of a certain degree of competence (something like what RLucid suggests). I agree with asj_india that the graphics are already more than good enough -- so give us the ability to command & control more troops! After all, Empire takes place in an era that saw quite a few battles in which the opposing armies numbered in the tens of thousands; it would be nice to see the game actually be able to reflect this.

[Furious Mental]

More units, bigger units, either is good.

[Caius]

There should be a balance between both.

[PBI]

I voted for unit control, in the way the OP phrased it, of being able to have about 30-40 units. I'd be a bit wary of anything more than that, with really huge armies I'd worry that it would all turn into a huge free-for-all where tactics would become useless.

[pevergreen]

20 unit limit is fine with me. pretty colours please!

[Joker II]

Well, in my humble opinion, that is the way CA will keep on going, increase the details of animation/graphics and keep on the same level they have been for years related towards amount of units and unit control.

I think it's time CA REVOLUTIONIZED the controlling end of the units and in doing so has the ability to increase the amount of units a person can take control over without adding to much micromanagement ! Of course, this is all intertwined with the ability to get a descent AI, if you can't/won't invest in AI, then having more units who act the same as before won't improve the game, it'll make it worse.

Think 99% of the people who want more units are not asking for controlling 200.000 men or 50 or a 100 units.

But an increase to 30 or 40 should be made so you can have that feeling of a war being played instead of skirmishes !

I just want the ability to for instance send a part of my army on a flanking maneuver and still have my MAIN army consist of enough units that it feels and looks like my MAIN army ! Having 20 units just doesn't cut it for me !

I know it is (probably) to late for Empire, but really hope CA will reconsider this for the next engine !

[pevergreen]

Their product do follow the evolution/revolution cycle, ETW is an evolution.

I do expect a bigger amount of units possible, with better graphics.

[Joker II]

..., ETW is an evolution.

I'm sure you meant revolution

MedII = evolution.

[Raz]

Wasn't there another thread on unit numbers... "Magic number 24" or something?
Anyway, having more units under your control would insta-fail the multiplayer aspect of Empires. I couldn't imagine people playing real-time with no pause trying to get 5 units of cavalry to flank on one side and another 5 units to flank on the other whilst ensuring that the already engaged 20 units of infantry aren't flanked themselves. Of course, I doubt this player would even have thought that his 10 other units of reserves are being slaughtered just across the woods. I also doubt he'd have much time to admire the scenery, the funny hats, the detailed horsies and the cool ragdoll physics of his Lights whilst they are ambushed and promptly slaughtered en route to his main force.

That is of course if anyone still plays MP. Do they?

[RLucid]

That's why you need to be able to group units really effectively, "merging" them into larger entities for command & control. As it stands, controlling 20 units is too difficult, because you have to micro-manage (or put your faith on the deficient battle AI), that sucks on all kinds of levels.

A successful revolution in unit control would address that issue.

[rajpoot]

Give us 500 'units' per unit. Or even better, base it on the real numbers and scale it down if needed. I might be wrong, but it seems to me, what we have right now, is just a random number size of the units, the weaker ones having more numbers and stronger ones less.
The Rome engine did not have the capability, but did not a legion have atleast around 5000 men?
We can have battalions of 1000 men each for small skirmishes, regiments of a few 5000 for battles, and divisional commands of several regiments.

[CBR]

Lowering the movement rates would come a long way in enabling players to control 20+ units. In Total War normal infantry marches faster than Quick Pace or Pas de Charge! And dont get me started on the infantry run speed...


CBR

[pevergreen]

I'm sure you meant revolution

MedII = evolution.

Thank you for pointing that out

You are of course correct.

[batemonkey]

i wish there were comand buttons like flank the enemy, or advance to firing range that kind of thing. In a real battle a general would n't have to order his men to just this far fromthere wing then to just here behind and then charge he would just order " major sharpe i want you to flank x unit and then open fire" "yes sir" would be his response and off he'd go (god i hope sharpe's men are the uks unique unit)

[Joker II]

If CA could create a way that more men in a unit fight at the same time, then, I'd be all for increasing the size of a unit, but, as it is now, no thank you.

The only thing you'd create is a bigger blob where the majority would stand still, doing nothing but picking their nose !

The advantage you have with more units is that you could have a much more strategical game, having 40 units of each 100 men in comparison to 20 units of 200 men would give the advantage of having more flanking/splitting abilities with the 40 units.

Think it's important that if this is incorporated, it is incorporated as an option, just like setting the size of each unit, one could set the amount of units one wishes to control.

This would give the benefit for those with lower PC specs to still use the 40 units for instance with a lower amount of men per unit.

[pevergreen]

JokerII, have you played RTW? The reason M2TW does it is because of the unit spacing.

As you yourself pointed out, this is an revolution. It is a new engine. Why harp on about old problems, when we havent seen land battle screenshots yet?

[rajpoot]

The only thing you'd create is a bigger blob where the majority would stand still, doing nothing but picking their nose !

I don't know why are you saying this, this 'problem' has been mentioned before, let me point out that this is actually not a problem at all. The units in the front ranks all fight, only those in the rear stay still, and this is what actually happened. The rear ranks are supposed to come forward only when the first line falls. Everyone did not rush to the frontline, the people behind stayed behind until there was a gap in the line in front of them.

[Raz]

... Unless you want the dreaded unit clipping bugs that you see so much of in video games these days. Soldiers literally inside other soldiers...