Where Are All The Open Field Battles

[fallen851]

Thats why when garrisons sally out its an open field battle.

My point was there shouldn't be an option. Your settlement gets attacked? The garrison now engages the army in an open field battle.

There is no trying to defend city streets.

[Hooahguy]

Well that depends. If its a walled settlement then it makes no sense to sally out unless there is a strong garrison and it was confident in victory or was on the verge of surrender, and historically thats what would happen. But in a village battle when you are fighting five village tribesmen and a bunch of slingers, or defending with five village tribesmen and some slingers, do you really want an open field battle for that? In my opinion you have a greater chance of victory through the use of bottlenecks by fighting in the village than an open field battle.

[Sp4]

Well that depends. If its a walled settlement then it makes no sense to sally out unless there is a strong garrison and it was confident in victory or was on the verge of surrender, and historically thats what would happen. But in a village battle when you are fighting five village tribesmen and a bunch of slingers, or defending with five village tribesmen and some slingers, do you really want an open field battle for that? In my opinion you have a greater chance of victory through the use of bottlenecks by fighting in the village than an open field battle.

If only the AI knew how to make use of these things when attacking or defending.

[Hooahguy]

Do you think the AI would perform better in an open field battle in this case?

[Sp4]

With the amazing quality of garrison troops, no probably not but more of your stuff would die since it's more confusing =p

If -you- are defending, it is entirely possible for settlements that spawn just one sort of good melee unit for its garrison army to win a battle against all odds simply by only having to fight the AI on one road, because it never uses any other roads or any flanking, so you can keep your crap units away from the main fight, ensure they don't rout, while at the same time creating a killing zone, where especially low quality AI armies like to mass rout in a 3 minute battle from what started as a fight where the odds were 3:1 in their favour.

[Hooahguy]

In the one defending town battle Ive played, the AI actually did use a number of paths into the town, shattering my defenses. So maybe that was the one time where the AI shone through.

[fallen851]

Well that depends. If its a walled settlement then it makes no sense to sally out unless there is a strong garrison and it was confident in victory or was on the verge of surrender, and historically thats what would happen. But in a village battle when you are fighting five village tribesmen and a bunch of slingers, or defending with five village tribesmen and some slingers, do you really want an open field battle for that? In my opinion you have a greater chance of victory through the use of bottlenecks by fighting in the village than an open field battle.

You are correct if we want RTW II to be a game more removed from history, while I am correct if we want to be RTW II a game less removed from history. The fact that street fighting is somehow advantageous in is simply not historically accurate.

The point of defending a city is so it doesn't get destroyed and the population annihilated. Street by street fighting does both, and attackers can move in and light the city ablaze and when the fire gets out of control, move back and watch from a distance. Furthermore, it doesn't restrict movement as much as depicted. Men can enter buildings and maneuver through tight alleyways and such.

Certainly, you're correct when the city has walls. In that case, the defenders should be defending the walls. When the defenses at the walls fell in pretty much any siege, it was over. I'd put up with the settlement fights (as I did in RTW) if they didn't eat into open field engagements, but they do.

So me, this isn't about obtaining a greater chance of victory, or making it harder for me against the AI. It is about making it more historically accurate, because often times, historical accuracy itself is fun. And in this case for me, doubly so, field battles are the cream of the crop in RTW. I'd love to fight outnumbered in the field against an AI attacking a settlement, and have to use my brain in order to win.

[Hooahguy]

That wasnt my original point. My original point was that an outnumbered garrison is much less likely to sally out than to stay and defend the walls/sit out the siege. I never said that fighting in the streets was better, I merely stated that when there was no chance of victory in the open field, the garrison would defend the walls. I agree that once the walls are breached then the battle is over from a historical point, but from a gameplay point of view I disagree.

[AntiDamascus]

I seem to get open field battles a lot. If it was harder to put armies into fleets you would see a lot more fights as factions would block off their land from moving armies and form choke points. Now you just head out to sea and land near the next settlement.

[Wilbo]

I have far more field battles than sieges, and it's all down to play style. Towns often have an army, or three, nearby. I always attack the armies directly, in an attempt to drive them off - or have them bring the garrison to the field as reinforcements. This means the final battle for the settlement is normally a minor mop-up operation, safely done with auto resolve.

[Sp4]

On the split between open field battles and settlement battles. I think I autoresolved the majority of the settlement, ambush and port battles though.

[Barkhorn1x]

I have far more field battles than sieges, and it's all down to play style. Towns often have an army, or three, nearby. I always attack the armies directly, in an attempt to drive them off - or have them bring the garrison to the field as reinforcements. This means the final battle for the settlement is normally a minor mop-up operation, safely done with auto resolve.

That must be it then.