Reinforcements

**Ardri** · 03-11-2009, 23:27

I ran into a situation the other day in my UP campaign where I was taking the 2 inland cherokee nation territories. I had them both under siege, but when one city sallied it caused both my other besieging army and the army under siege to be reinforcements for each side. This would have been alright if not for the fact that I had room for 1 reinforcing unit to come on and the computer had room for 5 or 6 and that they brought our units on directly next to each other on the far side of the map from my army behind the initial computer army.

Needless to say my reinforcing army got destroyed pretty much a unit at at time as they came onto the map by literally walking into a 5 to 6 unit group of cherokee while I was on the other side of the map taking care of the initial cherokee force. Seems to me that an army under siege should not be able to be reinforcements to a battle involving two armies outside the siege. I guess my question is if ETW corresponds reinforcements to the strategic map like in the former games, because from my end I can't really tell one way or the other. I'm always left a little surprised. And also why they let an army that is in a siege reinforce an army outside. Seems like I should have had the option to use my 2nd army as reinforcements and if I didn't then the cherokee should have not be able to use theirs.

**Sir Beane** · 03-11-2009, 23:29

Originally Posted by Ardri

I ran into a situation the other day in my UP campaign where I was taking the 2 inland cherokee nation territories. I had them both under siege, but when one city sallied it caused both my other besieging army and the army under siege to be reinforcements for each side. This would have been alright if not for the fact that I had room for 1 reinforcing unit to come on and the computer had room for 5 or 6 and that they brought our units on directly next to each other on the far side of the map from my army behind the initial computer army.

Needless to say my reinforcing army got destroyed pretty much a unit at at time as they came onto the map by literally walking into a 5 to 6 unit group of cherokee while I was on the other side of the map taking care of the initial cherokee force. Seems to me that an army under siege should not be able to be reinforcements to a battle involving two armies outside the siege. I guess my question is if ETW corresponds reinforcements to the strategic map like in the former games, because from my end I can't really tell one way or the other. I'm always left a little surprised. And also why they let an army that is in a siege reinforce an army outside. Seems like I should have had the option to use my 2nd army as reinforcements and if I didn't then the cherokee should have not be able to use theirs.

The reinforcement system in ETW is awful, and a real step down from M2TW Kingdoms. I'e had no end of trouble with reinforcements not working correcntly on wandering in one at a time to die horribly.

**Fridgebadger** · 03-12-2009, 00:48

Enemy reinforcements seem to come from entirely random directions as well, ie, not where they are on the campaign map. Makes planning tricky...

**NimitsTexan** · 03-12-2009, 02:35

Actually, they (enemy reinforcementts) are pretty much guaranteed to come from directly behind you. (Seems like CA figures every reinforcement should be a reenactment of Waterloo). I really, really wish that (a) we had limited control of reinforcements and (b) they came from directions that corresponded to the strategic map. In fact, I really don't understand why E:TW is doing reinforcements as they do instead of as M2TWK did (which was a huge step in the right direction).

**Dogfish** · 03-12-2009, 05:25

For all the great improvements, there's been a few steps backwards in several key areas of the Total War series. Immersion (with the videos and sound), reinforcements, formations (where is mob formation for natives and pirates?)...

**Ardri** · 03-12-2009, 05:28

I was hoping for the Kingdoms reinforcement system where you could give general direction to AI armies. That would make for some truly epic battles in ETW.

**Megas Methuselah** · 03-12-2009, 05:29

That would be awesome, Ardi.

**Dogfish** · 03-12-2009, 05:35

Yes, that would be awesome. It's what I was expecting too. Maybe they have something planned but it just wasn't ready. With some of the stuff in the data files I've seen people post (some minor factions have data that indicates they were intended to be playable, the hooks for blood events on hits, etc) it feels like there was so much more they intended to have in there but just ran out of time.

I'm holding out hope that there will be a major, major patch in the next month or so that will basically be CA saying "this is how we wanted the game to be".

**Ardri** · 03-12-2009, 05:42

I'm holding out hope that there will be a major, major patch in the next month or so that will basically be CA saying "this is how we wanted the game to be".

I'm right there with you, the potential for a spectacular game is right there. Hopefully CA will make a push to actually get it where it needs to go.

**A Very Super Market** · 03-12-2009, 05:51

That is completely reasonable, since I found it silly that armies couldn't simply come from a different angle. Perhaps it could take more time to have an army from the South to swing to the North, than simply attacking straight on?