Pace of battles to fast

[ReluctantSamurai]

Pretty sure that won't be necessary

[Kocmoc]

Well, the point is, that just because a few people have problems to click more than 20 times a minute, CA wont make the game slower.
To have 40-60 cpm isnt asked too much.

I just see, that younger people tend to not wanting to work or work hard for something. They ask for "easier" things all the time.
If my kids would ask something like this they wouldnt see the sun for 2 weeks! :D

Anyway, good thing is, that treads like this wont change anything.

[Myth]

The whole nature of battles should be changed to be more historically accurate. In RTW/M2TW we are used to seeing the AI attack with a few militia/peasants/veites or some such trash units. Rebels with a few muddy peasant units inside spawn on the map regularly and annoy the player without producing any challenge, just a loading screen and 2 minutes walking towards the AI that is hill camping.

Less frequent annoying little skirmishes and more decisive battles are needed. I think they managed to fix that for S2TW since the AI frequently attacks with stacks of elite samurai units, though the autocalc is broken in that game.

[total relism]

I vote for slowing down both unit speed, than kill rates.

[Kocmoc]

The whole nature of battles should be changed to be more historically accurate. In RTW/M2TW we are used to seeing the AI attack with a few militia/peasants/veites or some such trash units. Rebels with a few muddy peasant units inside spawn on the map regularly and annoy the player without producing any challenge, just a loading screen and 2 minutes walking towards the AI that is hill camping.

Less frequent annoying little skirmishes and more decisive battles are needed. I think they managed to fix that for S2TW since the AI frequently attacks with stacks of elite samurai units, though the autocalc is broken in that game.

It cant be done, at least not with the average computer recourses of a normal human. To have anything close to smart AI is simply not possible with a engine like TW use.
Alone if you look how the AI react to your cav… well, its amazing.

I said that 12 years ago and I keep repeating it, TW will never see any good, smart and reactive AI controlling more than 10 units.
You would need hundreds of people to program it an you would need some a ton more of hardware than you can effort.
And since the battles are only a part of the big game…



Now to the kind of battle. I totally agree with you. The battles the AI is fighting are a big joke, in S2 you saw almost the same kind of "tactic" you already saw in S1.
I repeat myself, the basic idea of the whole game didnt changed since 12 years! The graphics got better, but the basic system kept same. instead of silly abilities, we should get more
momentum and things like Fog of war, scouting, better hidingsystem and a much better bonussystem… Its all there, the stats for scouting are in the game already, all what you have to do is, adjustments.

FOW is different, but would change a lot. In the End, you want the AI play smart and not just burn your time, while waiting (you put it probably on fullspeed) for you sitting on the hill.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think Rome had the perfect balance...

I honestly don't think I ever enjoyed the battles as much as I did in Rome TW. Medieval 2 was just way too buggy, Empire was just a bad game generally, and Shogun 2 was too repetitive.

Rome is still the game that stands out in the series. And most def if you talk about multiplayer. MP in Rome was 100x more fun than in any of the other releases.

[caravel]

Rome had lightening fast battles with cavalry which moved like a flock of birds/school of sardines... it certainly wasn't balanced. Battles were stupidly easily and I would get worn out purely through fighting one tedious battle after another...

This is why Rome was extensively modded (more so than any other TW title - and that's before we even get into the historical accuracy side of things). If Rome hadn't been so easily modified, it would easily have gone down in history as the worst TW game ever and would not have been even half as popular as it was. I agree as regards M2TW - the same rubbish as Rome. At that point I gave up and still play the first two games from time to time...

[Kralizec]

Speed is not the only problem. Rome's battle pace was pretty fast, but the problem was made worse by the crappy unit balancing. You should not be able to cost-effectively win battles by a series of frontal cavalry charges in under 3 minutes.

I like the EB mod for RTW, but in all honesty battles are sometimes too long, and because the overall kill-speed is so slow you have plenty of time to execute difficult moves. I'm currently considering wether to raise the lethality stats in my EB folder to make it a little more challenging.

In MTW original, killrates were faster than in EB (allthough still slower than RTW original). Hammer & anvil tacts were absolutely necessary, but it's not uncommon for your line to crumble before you can circle your cavalry around the flanks, whereas in EB you have plenty of time to do so. On the other hand; if I'm attacking with a slight disadvantage in troops in MTW, I carefully manage my missile units to cause as many casualties as possible, and opportunisticly pick off enemy units for easy kills. Those battles can last pretty long indeed.

It took some getting used to when I started playing MTW again, but I think that game pretty much nailed it.