Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[Cruin]

OOps -- I see our replies were sent in together, so we missed each other.
Gigantus you said-
You cannot 'withdraw' single units during battle - "

Sorry, yes you can. There is a withdraw button on the wheel, when the unit card is selected. And if you are fielding large armies, it is the only way to clear a slot to bring in reinforcements.

Regards,

Cruin.

[Arjos]

That "withdraw button" is a "rout button" really, game engine-wise you are forcing the selected unit to panic off the battlefield...

Historically missiles troops were infamous for skirmishing, sitting the battle out and coming back to cut down heavier and slower opponents. Already choosing to "withdraw" them away from the battlefield is ahistorical and gamey...

About the delaying tactics, harassing etc. Perfectly agreed, but silly CA made an engine not based on actual tactics and warfare. The game will always consider those as routs, for example nomadic factions cannot shoot all their arrows, withdraw and call it a victory. That's the system we have to work with...

As for such functions "being part of the game", well the actual design behind the game isn't about accuracy, so in our mod those are cheats really...
You have the freedom to use them, but the mod is not tailored for their use...

Regarding the need to get reinforcements in, M2TW allows them to be led by the AI and you can even select their behaviour between defensive and offensive. Thus fielding more than 20 units on the battle map...

Even if in the manual it is called ordered, the workaround they used with the engine is to force a rout. Thus when we script that routing causes the General to have the possibility to gain the doubtful courage trait. The scenario you've described can happen...

Had they made that button an actual ordered retreat, then we'd have no issues here as the engine would register it as something else...

[Gigantus]

That "withdraw button" is a "rout button" really, game engine-wise you are forcing the selected unit to panic off the battlefield...

That's what I meant, sorry if I wasn't clear.

Well... you have the right to think that, but it is pretty common military tactics for a force to sometimes engage with the intention of withdrawing before the battle is "over" (whatever “over” means here). For instance, one might want to weaken the enemy, or delay him, or draw him out, or provoke him, or simply probe his forces

Sorry for being blunt: trying to apply that to a game engine one knows that it doesn't (can't) support it and then complain about it is what eventually led me to the 'dumb' response. Guerrilla tactics simply are not supported by the game, never have, never will. It has got 'Total' in the name = if you engage in a battle be prepared to be decimated, routed, annihilated. Expecting to be able walk away when it doesn't go well for you is a 'common' desire but utterly unrealistic in this game. You either win a battle, get annihilated or rout. And leaving the battle field during the battle is routing where the game engine is concerned - regardless what the reason is.

You want to weaken the enemy? Then you annihilate his armies and\or take his settlements.
You want to provoke him? Then raid his settlements (raze and leave to revolt).
You want to probe his forces? Send a spy, or sacrifice a cheap unit to reconnoiter.

If you wish to use more realistic tactics then I can recommend the 'Order of Battle' game series (I totally enjoyed the 'Morning Sun' DLC) - Total War is the wrong choice for it.

Once more - sorry for being blunt. But this is not an advanced combat\strategy simulator - ignoring the limitations and expecting otherwise is simply willful ignorance.

[Cruin]

When does a withdrawal become a rout?

I guess most of this is in reply to Arjos, but some is also to Gigantos. You guys are starting to circle the wagons, so I am having hard time seeing who is firing back from behind the wheels.

No– the withdraw button is what it says: a withdraw button – I know it uses the same icons (the white flags) but it is different from a a panicked rout.

For one, the unit will not, by itself “rally” or come back (they have been ordered to go)

Neither will they run off in crazy directions. They will head strait for the border.

It is reversible – if the unit has not left the field, you can change your mind and call them back.

Lastly, it is described in the TW manuals as serving this purpose, so obviously, that was the original intention. Rewriting or re-interpreting that intention might be your choice, but that is what you are doing here.

“Historically missiles troops were infamous for skirmishing, sitting the battle out and coming back to cut down heavier and slower opponents. Already choosing to "withdraw" them away from the battlefield is ahistorical and gamey...”

I'm not so sure about this – it was sometimes true during medieval times, where archers had some armor and carried swords, and I'm sure it happened during classical times, but I don't see some poor Greek slinger going into the fray to take on a roman legionary.

Anyway, that is not its purpose. Withdraw simply tells the unit to get itself out of harms way, so I (the general here) do not have to worry about it anymore. I expect them to go away and avoid trouble – it does not always work, sometimes they can get caught by some cavalry unit or other while withdrawing, and that is quite historical.

Whether CA made a game based on more complex strategy and tactics or not, I can still attempt to use them in play (can't stop myself really). As for whether it gives a bad mark for withdrawing from a battle or not, it does not, as far as I know (although, as I said, it tends to overemphasize a simplistic view of heroism, by, for instance, rewarding heroic victories, even if the general stupidly lost practically all his men).

But that does not mean EBII has to go further and penalize a general for withdrawing some troops. Forgive me if I am wrong here, but I believe the “Coward” attribute (level 1 being “Doubtful courage”) is an EBII attribute. Is this not so? If it is, then it was your decision to penalize withdrawal, not CA's.

As for bringing in reinforcements as AI-controlled armies – I know one can do this, I just prefer not too (they are just too stupid). But obviously if the game gave me a mechanism not to have to do this, and to bring in reinforcements (slowly) as I clear slots for them, then it is not a cheat for me to do so.

The enemy, AI armies, may actually need to rout some of their units to get in their reinforcements, I think the mechanism is a wee bit different, they seem to get all their reinforcing units at once. But anyway, the enemy AI gets reinforcements too – so it's all fair, there is no cheat here.

Lastly, as for enemies withdrawing, you said:
“nomadic factions cannot shoot all their arrows, withdraw and call it a victory”

Are you talking about withdrawing some archers to get their reinforcements? Or withdrawing all their army to save from losing too many men. They do both, often, at least in Vanilla TW. They have to withdraw (or in the simplified AI options, it might actually be rout) some of their forces before they can get reinforcements. They can then easily continue to a “victory.”

As for withdrawing all their forces, they don't get a “victory,” but neither do I get one if I withdraw all my forces. But as to them not doing it – don't kid yourself! In vanilla TW they do it all the time. Actually, I was always impressed by the way the Hun and Timmerid armies in MedII TW would attack fearlessly, and then, if the battle went against them, reverse and get the hell out of there. They seemed to care as little as I did as to whether the scroll said it was a “victory” or not.

You can't have this both ways. You claim that it is the CA game engine that actually considers withdrawals as routs, but then you go on to assert that “as for such functions "being part of the game", well the actual design behind the game isn't about accuracy, so in our mod those are cheats really...” Which is it? It is that they don't have a “withdrawal” function, or is it that they do, but it was not accurate, so those are cheats.

And as for saying “You have the freedom to use them, but the mod is not tailored for their use...” This misses the point: the whole intellectual discussion about what constitute good or bad generalship is interesting in terms of game design but is not the real issue – the problem of tagging generals with “doubtful courage” is an EB II problem, it does not occur in vanilla TW. If you are desciding you want to change the game and start penalizing what you percieve as some kind of cowardice, then so be it – but you must be ready to accept criticism from people who question that decission.

Also, it's a bit like saying – “Well maybe this mod is not for you. You should just like it or leave it.” Then why invite criticism at all? Even more blatent were statements from Gigantus such as:

“Total War is the wrong choice for it (deeper strategies). Once more - sorry for being blunt. But this is not an advanced combat\strategy simulator - ignoring the limitations and expecting otherwise is simply willful ignorance.”

The phrase “willful ignorance” is interesting. Let me assure you, I can be plenty ignorant without any act of will on my part. But the way I chose to play my games (whether rugby, chess, checkers, MMO Siege Wars, or TW) are how I chose to play them. If I have a keen sense of strategy, then that's how I play, and I work around the limitations of the game or game engine (do not we all play like this?)

I don't expect otherwise of the vanilla TW game engine – I expected otherwise of you – the creators of EBII. I expected if I told you of a problem, that you would say “Yup, that's a problem, we can fix that.” Which you can, quite easily, by changing export_character_attributes or whatever the file is called and fixing it. Instead you give me all this guff about the limitations of the CA game engine.

I thought these forums were about us users giving feedback? I kind of feel like I'm having to pull teeth here – I tell you of a problem, I explain why it's a problem. First you say my idea is “”BS and (by extension – seeing it it really me who is controlling the generals) that my strategies are “dumb” and “poor tactics.” When I gently are carefully explain that y ideas are quite fitting with historical military strategy, you agree, but then say that the TW engine is not built for historical accuracy – even though the whole point here was to try and improve on the TW engine. Then finally you start sort of ganging up and saying, “move on then, this game, and this mod, is just not for you!”

I think, perhaps, I have rubbed you the wrong way, or perhaps I have just found way too many faults in your baby, but like I say, it really feels like you guys are circling the wagons.


Look guys, I was for years a programmer, and I did a fair number of those years working in quality assurance. I am now a professional writer and editor. I am used to editing, and giving and receiving criticism.

I know that EBII is your baby, and you have every right to be proud of it. It is a marvelous piece of work. But it does (obviously) still have a few... uhem.... problems (I have seen, already, how you react to the word “bugs”). You have invited feedback (the battlefield general I mentioned before invites feedback every time one enters a battle). I am giving you just and honest feedback. But if you fight me so hard on these (what I consider) small and obvious problems, I fear to get into some of the deeper, but more subtle, historical inaccuracies in EBII.

So, I beg you all, try and accept the criticism I give as an attempt to help you improve EBII, and not a direct attack on your baby.

With fond regards,

Cruin.

[Arjos]

You've missed entirely the discussion...

The engine itself forces, mechanics-speaking, units to rout when you click the "withdraw" button. They might tag it as a withdraw, but they are mechanically routing...

We have a trait that triggers when there are routs, real routs. However since the engine registers those "withdrawals" using the button as routs, it can happen the scenario you've experienced...

As for historicity, I already said how missiles, nor any unit, left the battlefield while others kept on fighting. Unless of course generals ordered a retreat and rearguards or others slowed down the opponents. Soon as the opponent routed the missiles were again on the scene and killing routers. This is what I was referring to, not what you understood as slingers attacking legionaries...

The feature of single units leaving the field, running away, is indeed a gamey one. We'd remove it even, but it comes from the vanilla infrastructure we are working on...

We welcome feedbacks and continuously work on that, the whole Mechanics department is at it basically 24/7...
When there is a problem or sensible feedback on broken behaviour we do work on it. Right now yours was a "I prefer/want it like this. Make it so" and not an objective problem...

The point in this specific case is that you are using what we consider an exploit (removing units to have player-led reinforcements come in), but of course we cannot tell the players how to play, hence my statement that you have the freedom to use them. However that is not the playstyle, which is tailored to this mod...

As Gigantus pointed out units not engaged in combat were kept at a distance, it would even be crazier to order units to go home basically as their comrades kept on fighting. Having even missiles as reserves could be a life-saving precaution. Nor did it ever happen that units simply run off the battlefield. Nor those units would want to leave the army themselves, lest they either became deserters, or were left to themselves to survive...

As for the tangible problem at hand: the doubtful courage due to "withdraw". I tried and apparently failed to make you understand that for the engine, after you click that button, the unit is routing. Hence it can trigger the trait. Since for the engine all of that is routing, real routs and withdraws/retreats, we cannot script in a way that the engine distinguishes them. Thus since the doubtful courage due to actual routs is something we want in the game, we cannot change the collateral result due to withdraws...

This is an example of the engine's limitations...

Also we do not consider it as a problem, because the scenario you're talking about (using ammo and withdraw missiles) is to all effect an innacurate and exploitative playstyle in our opinion...

I work around the limitations of the game or game engine (do not we all play like this?)

Nope...

I expected if I told you of a problem, that you would say “Yup, that's a problem, we can fix that.”

The process is: we look at a feedback, we recognise what is going on, see whether it is a problem or not, see if "fixing" it would result in unwarranted consequences in other mechanics or not and then we fix it...

In this case there wasn't a problem and even if we acted on it, it would result in broken/undesired behaviour with the trait in question (since we cannot tell the engine, that if a player uses the withdraw button, he's not routing). The solution as we see it on our part, is to avoid exploitative playstyle on this one...

Using a fresh source of units, outside of the battlemap, which the enemy cannot interact with until the player himself decides, is indeed an exploit. Which again you are free to use, but the mod and its features isn't going to be edited for such scenarios. For example here we'd have to remove the trait, since the engine treats them all as routs...

[Cruin]

Finally – someone says “we like that trait, so we want to keep it!”

Arjos:

your tone was a bit better in that last one, if I ignore the slightly pejorative:
“You've missed entirely the discussion... “

As a matter of fact, I had understood entirely what you were trying to say about the TW engine using the “rout” mechanism to withdraw troops. I'm not entirely convinced it does, though – If you watch units routing and withdrawing, they act differently, especially when you watch AI run enemy units withdraw – it is much more ordered than when they rout. If you've disassembled or otherwise seen the code I will bow to your superior knowledge of this, but I would then be curious how they achieve the differences.

When I pointed out some of the more obvious differences to you before, I was trying to make clear the “intent” of the withdraw command, no matter how it is actually implemented in code.

But yes, I do understand that the game engine could be setting a flag that looked the same whether a unit was routing or withdrawing. And I did understand that EBII was then picking up that flag and using it as a trigger for the Coward trait. I had, in fact, suspected as much from the beginning.

My point was that this was a decision you made, to have the Coward trait in the first place, it has nothing to do with how it is implemented, or how limited or sophisticated or unsophisticated is the TW engine. and that is where enters the argument about what constitute cowardice on the part of a general (whether he withdraws some units, or withdraws his whole army).

I thought the fact that it had unwanted consequences, penalizing players who played the game in a way obviously intended by the original manufacturers (who included this mechanism specifically so reinforcements could be brought into a battle), would tip the balance of the argument in favor of removing the trait. Frankly, I am surprised that you would fight so hard to keep such and unrealistic and ahistoric trait – “cowardice” – really? I wonder if anyone would have dared call Caesar a coward for all the times he retreated?

As for your value judgments about withdrawing troops being an inaccurate and exploitative play-style, well... I would not be wanting to tell you how you should play your games. I do agree, though, that entirely removing units from the battlefield is unrealistic. I would love to tell my archers to go off and hide somewhere, only there is no option for doing so. But worse is that the battlefield interface only contain 20 unit cards, so the only way to have bigger armies, is to bring them in somehow. Trust me, I would be happy to keep those lazy slingers and archers in play to help mop up the battlefield – and despite what I said before, when I don't need the reinforcements, I usually do.

Then you say, that bringing in fresh troops is an exploit. I'm not sure how you figure this, seeing as the AI can, and does, bring up to three armies of extra troops. But I guess, if you want really “brave” generals, who fight armies that are up to three times the size, then you can try penalizing the player who tries to bring in reinforcements by giving his generals a Coward point (and its -1 moral penalty) every time he dares to try this.

Or you can insist that if he brings in reinforcements, he lets the AI control them (though, I'm not sure why this is not exploitative play, while if the player controls them himself it is).

But I hazard that all this talk of what is exploitative play-style is a bit of a superior stance that you are taking in order to tell me how I should want to play my games.

Or when I say:

“I work around the limitations of the game or game engine (do not we all play like this?)”

and you answer “Nope...” That is a cute, but nasty sarcasm (I assume you knew I was talking about finding ways to enjoy a game, despite its limitations, and not me asserting that one should exploit or cheat to win a game).

And all this superior moral stand on how a game should be played for what – exactly? You defend all this so that you can maintain the right to slap a coward sticker on generals who withdraw from battlefields – or are you going to claim that that is, somehow, realistic or historic?

Anyway, I did rather like your last answer. At least now I feel we are now having the discussion we should have been having all along, about why you want to keep this trait (and why I feel it is unjustified) – and not blaming it all on the TW engine.

Off course it is your design (or that of the EBII collective), and you have every right to take it in whatever direction you want. If you decide you really want this “coward” trait, and it is worthwhile despite it's unforeseen consequences to exploitative players like myself, then that is all fine.

Le Beanachdain,
With Blessings,

Cruin.

PS – this is nothing – wait till we start really talking about archers versus slingers.

[Arjos]

Again no, the trait "Doubtful courage" is there for when the units and the general actually rout, ie they engage and run away. We want that trait in...

Due to the engine limitations, we cannot discern the withdraw button and units withdrawing. As I said the engine thinks they rout. If you even listen to them, they start shouting run away etc (the audio files of routing units)...

The latter behaviour of the trait (when you click withdraw and get the trait) is collateral, since it occurs during exploits for us it is a non-issue. Also as I said the only solution, since the engine cannot discern, would be the removal of the trait. Which is there to work when the units actually rout...

I cannot for the life of me make this any clearer...

The trait is for routing, real bonafide routing. If you use the retreat vanilla feature, which is forced routing on the engine, the engine understands that you've routed...

We want the trait to trigger with real routs, unfortunately it gets triggered by the withdraw button, because for the engine it is a rout...

I assume you knew I was talking about finding ways to enjoy a game, despite its limitations, and not me asserting that one should exploit or cheat to win a game

Actually no, the way you posted that paragraph sounded that you use such quirks of the system to gain advantages and suit your tactics...
Still I'm in no way saying your playstyle is wrong or right, I merely stated that in our opinion using fresh reinforcements from withdrawn slots is an exploit and we do not tailor the mod around that...

There is no right or wrong playstyle, just we have to pick one to edit the mechanics around it...

When the player avoids the AI-led reinforcements, specifically to micro them, gains an advantage and he's exploiting the engine. Since even the AI's reinforcements get in the battlefield from the start (although on this point it might depend on the PC running the game)...

Still it isn't affected in anyway by the mod, as I said there is the freedom to use them. However in cases as this one, where a working trait has a collateral behaviour during an exploit, we won't remove the trait (had we had the engine tell the difference between rout and withdraw we'd edit that in already: we simply cannot do that)...