Would removing the starting blue/red battlefield starting boxes help or hurt battles?

[Forward Observer]

Would the single player battles be improved or would they be ruined by the removal of the sleightly random and artificially constraining blue/red starting positions the opposing armies are forced to use prior to starting a battle.

One of the things that made the battlefields in both Shogun 1 and Medieval 1 seem very realistic (at least in my imagination) was that one had a lot more leeway in where one could set up their army before the battle started. I can remember one of the fun aspects of those particular TW games was trying to find just the right hill or slope to best place my boys to survive a desperate defense or having a lot more options when it came to setting up and springing a trap with hidden troops. This also made for battles that were not over in an arcade heartbeat.

I can see having such constraints if one lets themselves be ambushed or attacked by surprise, but if I am the attacker, or the defender who has maintained a position for at least one turn, I should have more of tactical leeway in where I can place my troops. Personally, I would like to see nothing more than a center line or a pre-determined dead zone dividing the battlefield before the battle starts--allowing one to place their army pretty much anywhere they want on their side of the battlefield. A pre-determined dead zone might be the best since it would prevent armies from spawning right next to each other.

Comments or opinions?

[snorky]

Something I'd still like to see when you are defending on the field is simply the ability to view the battlefield map when on the campaign and there by choice your deployment position. Viewing the battlefield might then lead to the conclusion that a particular sight is not the best place to make a stand so you can search some place else until you've found your spot, which I'd think is what any half decent general would have done when given the possibility to dictate the time and place of a battle. The deployment boxes could stay that way, so that when you make a stand you have to stick to the rough deployment you made before, forcing you to plan ahead and think in the enemy's shoes

[Forward Observer]

I think one does get a little message in the pre-battle screen telling one what the battle field is like, but that is about it. I guess like you indicated, I want to be more like a real military commander making rational decisions about the terrain as to when, where, and how I fight my battles. I guess I can live with manditory starting boxes in Shogun---since one's army is usually still mobile enough to move to a better location. However, it sure would be fun to occasionally get some good high ground, so the enemy is going to have to replicate Pickett's charge to get at me.

I found the boxes particularily irritating in Napoleon and Empire--simply because my armies were less mobile due to slow moving artillery. More than half the time there was no place to even set up my guns with a clear field of fire because my blue box had me confined in defilade on the rear slope of a hill. This was fine for protecting my infantry, but useless for direct artillery fire. I could hardly wait until I got howitzers simply because a direct line of fire was not needed.

I really would like to see the games evolve to where in open field battles, one has the ability to also plan their tactics before hand---based on the conditions and terrain--rather than being confined to only being able to react tactically after the battle starts.

Cheers

[quadalpha]

Ah, another opportunity to push for adding an operational layer between the campaign and the battle. Basically, it would be lovely to have a short, turn based pre-battle "manoeuvre" phase on map scaled between the campaign map and the battle map where the armies jockey for position. This would make the transition to a battlefield seem much less random. It could affect starting moral/fatigue (did you force march your men to occupy a hill? etc.), and give the agents attached to armies something to do other than provide a +x bonus. You can also play around with things like initiative, as well as flesh out generals' characteristics.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I've always thought the addition of a scouting skill, or perhaps the amount of cavalry in your army should grant you some sort of advantage in set-up if you are better at it than your opponent. I always hated the part in RTW (the last TW game I bought) where my general is standing at the mouth of a high mountain pass and the attacking army general is a full head-and-shoulders below.....but upon entering the battlemap, I'd find myself at the south end of a north-bound kangaroo.......

[antisocialmunky]

The Terrain in Showgun2 only slows down and tires units, it doesn't make your archers shoot farther :<

[Forward Observer]

Ah, another opportunity to push for adding an operational layer between the campaign and the battle. Basically, it would be lovely to have a short, turn based pre-battle "manoeuvre" phase on map scaled between the campaign map and the battle map where the armies jockey for position. This would make the transition to a battlefield seem much less random. It could affect starting moral/fatigue (did you force march your men to occupy a hill? etc.), and give the agents attached to armies something to do other than provide a +x bonus. You can also play around with things like initiative, as well as flesh out generals' characteristics.

I like the way you think--and the mind boggles at the possibilities---although probably hard to implement--especially given the fact that CA seems to want to cater to the "I want it now" arcade crowd. Of course we all know that is where the money is.


Cheers

[Dead Guy]

The Terrain in Showgun2 only slows down and tires units, it doesn't make your archers shoot farther :<

This is easily my biggest gripe with the game. It's painfully obvious why they left it out too.

As for choosing where to set up, I've wanted a way to look at the battlefield my army is standing on ever since they moved to the campaign map style introduced in Rome.

[Monk]

I dunno, i don't mind the restriction box too much mainly because in previous TW games... i'd find a hill and just park there. Unless I was attacking it's highly unlikely i'd ever move about.

In shogun 2 I rarely get a good starting position - it encourages me to maneuver around, wrestling with my opponent for terrain advantages before any actual fighting takes place. I get a lot more enjoyment out of that, but I can certainly understand the opposite view point since it's always nice to get all your ducks in a row before hitting "start".

[Nelson]

It would indeed make sense to have more of the battlefield available for deployment when simulating one army awaiting the approach of another for some period of time. If the battle is a meeting engagement then scrambling to assume the best position might be necessary. Granted, the turn based strategic movement doesn’t make it look like there are ever meeting engagements per se but the game could assume that any contact with a force that hasn’t moved for an entire turn will result in a set piece battle with more room for deployment. If either force has just marched then the deployment could remain more restricted. Imperfect, I think, but better when one force has had plenty of time to prepare.

With one field per province Shogun 1 could give players interesting albeit unchanging deployment options every time.

[Lord Benihana]

It seems that alot of the field battles in S2 have a hill located in the "no man's land"

I think this IS the manuevering - since the first one there has a definate advantage