Battle Speed

**Obadiah** · 04-08-2009, 19:16

Am I the only player who finds it necessary to play significant portions of the battles on the "slow" setting? its kind of ridiculous, b'c it makes them take forever, but on "regular" speed, insanity seems to break out among my men. In MTW2, I often played at either regular speed, or 0.9 speed. (ps- wish there were more gradations of battle speed than just Fast/Regular/Slow.)

**Slaists** · 04-08-2009, 19:40

I wish for more gradations too, but I am one of those who need to slow down once the units collide.

On a different note, I wish for 'super speed' that used to be available in MTW2 and RTW (one had to assign a custom keyboard shortcut to achieve it. At times, the 'double speed' available in ETW is just too slow to wait through while the sides approach each other or if there is a need to wait the timer out.

**Rothe** · 04-09-2009, 07:07

I agree. I think the normal speed should be a bit slower and the "top" speed should be a lot faster. I would not use the fastest speed for much except to finish off routers when I already have the field. For the normal speed, it seems really fast when you have full stacks of troops close to each other. Especially since vanilla E:TW has the tendency to go into melee mode quite fast. I have been playing the DarthMod (some of you may be familiar) and it is totally different in the battles, more musketry and all. Still, it looks like the speed could be a bit slower.

Optionally the walk/run speed could be slower, but overall the other stuff could be on normal.

**loony** · 04-09-2009, 07:29

How unrealistic is that? After a long battle you would of course like to rack up kills and destroy enemy army. You had to work for it. You could not take off your dirty uniform, you could not go to have a bath, etc. What the hell? That is why routing armies were rarely pursued for too much.
People are lazy and bored with the stupid hunting...
And still want all the benefit and "super speed" to make it all less tiresome? Where are you, realism fans?

**Rothe** · 04-09-2009, 11:19

Realism =/= slower gameplay

Otherwise you could argue that it is nonsense to allow a player to play a 100 year period in just a few weeks of real time. Same goes for the tactical battles.

Still, the normal speed is too fast for comfortably controlling a large army. Or, you should have some kind of adjustment possibility, since in multiplayer some people may prefer more "hectic" gameplay.

**NimitsTexan** · 04-09-2009, 18:39

A 3/4 speed might be nice.

**TinCow** · 04-09-2009, 18:59

I have no problems with the lower and normal speeds, but the fastest speed isn't fast enough for me. Any time I want to use that fast speed setting, it means I'm just sitting back and watching for an extended period of time for some reason. Since I'm not controlling anything, I wish there was a setting that really blazed through the battle. As it stands, the top setting isn't really that fast at all.

**Alsn** · 04-11-2009, 12:41

I always play on the second fastest or the fastest speed.

Pause(hotkey 'P') is your friend.

**Khorak** · 04-11-2009, 13:19

I have roughly the same level of situational awareness as a squashed hedgehog. I actually fight on the normal setting, because I like seeing the guys fighting and also because if I used a higher speed and the pause button (I use normal and pause anyway), instead of a unit somewhere being shot in the back by a completely random infantry unit the computer has been maneuvering in the most unrealistic ways possible for ten seconds, a unit somewhere will be completely decimated by a random infantry unit the computer has been maneuvering in the most unrealistic ways possible.

**Feanaro** · 04-11-2009, 18:19

In general, I find combat is too fast paced for my tastes. It's not so much a problem of control, though battles can be a handful on the default speed, but also of feel. The current pace doesn't seem fitting to the period, plus I general prefer slower, more sweeping battles. If I wanted to save time, I'd autocalc.