Am I The Only One ?

[LeftEyeNine]

Back in MTW days too, I used to prefer campaign-map play over a hybrid style in SP. Yeah, the TW merchandise has been the pioneer in proving out that mass battles in realistic proportions was possible in PC gaming and actually were quite revolutionary in strategy genre. However, blame the board game nerd living inside of me who used to prepare his own board games as a child or my battle-inexperienced and impatient-in-game nature, I have played and am playing all TW games with as less battlefield experience as possible, if not none at all.

How about you ? Am I the only one ?

[Hamata]

No it will be to much paradox then

[Gregoshi]

I don't like to auto-resolve unless the odds are too stacked for/against me, however I am usually pretty bad fighting the battles, so I usually dread fighting them. I enjoy the campaign part of the game more these days.

[Arjos]

Campaign-map is by far the best part, I love the traits and roleplay possibilities it gives...
I wish they'll add more strategy and supply features to it...
But at the same time I really like the battles aswell, not when it turns to endless wars against mini armies though :P

[Nowake]

As an old STW player, I used to love battles.

However, Shogun 2 changed the dinamic so much, they've become a chore. I still have to go through 80% of them by myself because I cannot afford losing on Legendary, yet there's little joy to it.
What happens is: maneuvers are simply dead.
Yes, you can change the outcome of a battle a lot if you march for thirty minutes to obtain the best direction of attack prior to engaging in melee. That's actually quite nice.
Yes, you get to outflank the enemy line with a few troops and turn it into a rout.
Yet, the big, pivotal maneuvers during the actual fray are very rare. Three reasons: the first is the least important to be honest, but ya, the AI is smarter; that is good. The second is the absolute ineptitude of cavalry in Shogun 2 -- you could have used a unit or two sometimes, but 90% of the time it won't do you much good, so they're not part of my standard army corps (which goes for eight Katana Samurai, 10 Yari Ashigaru and 1 Bow Ashigaru, plus the general of course, against anything the enemy can throw against me, including couples of stacks of very well experienced all samurai armies; this low cost mix will win it). The third, and the most important, is the speed at which the units die -- by the time I turn a flank, the melee in the center is almost over as well, so the maneuver did not prove crucial anyway.
I tried everything really, I am now playing a Legendary Hojo with Ultra unit sizes -- I hoped that, eventhough it just means more units kill more units, so the difference should be small, it would still have an effect on the speed with which lines of battle tear through each other.
It's just a pity, battles are now simply huge charges decided by timing and Stand and Fight. You'll occasionally envelop somewhere but in that time the other sectors have won or lost their fight aswell sigh.
So ya, I still play the large majority of the battles in single player, but only because I have to.

[econ21]

I need both the campaign and the manually fought battles for TW to be much fun.

For me, it's the battles that are what are distinctive and impressive about the TW series. I remember reading that the whole thing started off as a demo of an engine that showed hundreds of little men charging around in battle and that was how STW was born.

If I just wanted a campaign without battles, I would play Civ4 or maybe try the Paradox games many Orgah's love.

However, battles without the thread of a campaign to hook them together would be completely uninteresting to me (I've never played one historical battles ever, in a TW game). I'd rather play a campaign with autoresolved battles than battles without a campaign.

I agree with Nowake about STW2 battles though - they are a little too fast paced to be that enjoyable. (In that respect, the sieges feel better paced - despite the flawed AI - just because things happen more slowly). I should try that slower speed mod, I guess, although it will make archers even more powerful than they already are.

In my only full length STW2 campaign, I did end up autoresolving right at the end, when it was obvious I would win. It was not that fun (and not that fast - it was like playing whack a mole with one rebellious province or vassal after another). The most fun battles tend to be the early ones where you are just establishing dominance by superior generalship or the backs to the walls one where you are holding onto a province you should really be losing.

The autoresolve in STW2 is very tempting though - it seems far more favorable to the player than the punitive ones in previous titles.

[Peasant Phill]

I purely play for the battles. I'll quit far faster because I'm sure I'll win the campaign than because the battles become to tedious.

[Furunculus]

Back in MTW days too, I used to prefer campaign-map play over a hybrid style in SP. Yeah, the TW merchandise has been the pioneer in proving out that mass battles in realistic proportions was possible in PC gaming and actually were quite revolutionary in strategy genre. However, blame the board game nerd living inside of me who used to prepare his own board games as a child or my battle-inexperienced and impatient-in-game nature, I have played and am playing all TW games with as less battlefield experience as possible, if not none at all.

How about you ? Am I the only one ?

i rarely, if ever, play the battles.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Whats important for me is that the battle must remain realistic, otherwise no point in playing it.

[A Nerd]

I play all the battles, even the easy ones. Nine times out of ten I will even conduct the siege on a castle that has only a unit of samurai retainers in it. I might take more casualties than in autoresolve, but I just find the battles quite fun. I don't fight the naval battles though. Those are always autoresolve. I faired poorly in one I was predicted to win and I find maneuvering the ships around just firing arrows to be a tad bit tedious. To play without battles would be like playing only half a game in my opinion.

[GoldenToad]

I enjoy the campaign map more, however I do play nearly all of the earlier battles so that I can 'level up' my generals, I find that having 'battle scarred' and 'bloody' in Roman generals helps make them stronger in the later game.

I also find the battles in the end game more interesting than managing the 'economy' and recruitment because things start to get too large and become boring.

[Eliian]

I really enjoy the campaign map in this game. Most of the time I do enjoy doing the battles, however the campaign gives them meaning. What I hate is doing sieges, or when near the end of a campaign and you know you are going to win.

This is my first Total War/Strategy game experience. I have never enjoyed RTS, but enjoy campaign (Civ games, Might and Magic,ECT).