Rome Total War and Realism

[webwing]

I was watching several in game videos from IGN.com and I remembered the famous “shock and awe” strategy that was so talked about at the start of the Iraqui war. Not that the game emulates that but that’s what I felt watching the videos. There is another thread “What if RTW sucks” and i just say: if this game was only for you to use its engine to generate cut scenes it would already be an awesome product, breathtaking really. Even in the Hollywood they have never managed to make battles of that magnitude.
But anyway lets talk about realism. I have trouble controlling 16 units during battle in STW sometimes so I have no idea how could a normal individual be able to control such a massive army like the ones shown in RTW. I guess one would have to use the PAUSE feature a lot.
Seeing this game I was even more impressed by the battles commanded by the great generals of the past. It also made me wonder how in the name of god could they keep control of the armies they were in charge of. Its overwhelming in a game, imagine that in real life In the game there is no chain of command, in a way you give orders to the individual soldiers since you click on a unit and tell it what to do. If a unit is engaged you just click on it and tell it to disengage and go some where else, etc. We watch the battles from a birds eye view which is an amazing advantage.
Now you read about the reall life battles and some commanders managed to pull out some extraordinary maneuvers without any of this This game made me admire them even more. Geniuses, they were.
Then I fell ashamed of complaining about how am I to control armies that big. But then again I'm no military genius.

[]’s

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (webwing @ June 24 2004,12:36)]...
But anyway lets talk about realism. I have trouble controlling 16 units during battle in STW sometimes so I have no idea how could a normal individual be able to control such a massive army like the ones shown in RTW. I guess one would have to use the PAUSE feature a lot.
...

Hi Welcome to the .org


You raised a pretty good point here. In MP there is no pause, and army control is the difference between winning and losing.

A 20 units army is likely to be harder to control than a 16 units army IF CA keeps the same interface.

From the screenshot and trailer, it's difficult to know how key shortcuts will be implemented. All we can see is the mouse 'placing' groups of units and the green stuff. It would be interesting to know if CA plans to change the interface and how, but AFAIK, they have not communicated about this.

Louis,

[Gregoshi]

The other thing to consider is how much control we do have over the armies in the game. I'm sure the generals from back then would give their right arm to have as much control as we do in the game.

Imagine ordering a unit of cav to flank the enemy at a certain spot. You send a messenger with the order to the cav. The messenger takes time to get there. But what if the messenger is killed on the way? What if he gets lost? What if the cav unit isn't there anymore and the messenger must search for it? Assuming the order gets delivered, what if the situation has changed? Maybe the cav is under attack. Maybe the cav commander sees what he thinks is a better opportunity. Maybe the cav commander doesn't understand the order correctly. Kind of a nightmare isn't it?

There was a Waterloo-based game on my old Amiga that simulated this. It was fun, but a bear of a game to play. That was the one game in which I really felt like a general. And it also gave me a good sense as to how little control a general actually has, especially once the fighting starts.

[makkyo]

The one player controls all system that is used in the TW games is realy what gives you an edge in battle while directing units. Though unrealistic, the ability to coordinate a battle from a birds eye view gives you one over a real general without these abilities. The game just wouldn't be a fun if you can't control what the heck is going on in a batle while having to wait for messengers. I'm glad the system is how it is. But then again they are called Creative Assembly right?

[Ard-Ri McCullaugh]

But you also have to think, that divisional commanders and those leading the units also had human intelligence to somewhat assume what they should do, or react to it rather then just stand idly whilst they get flanked by some Kats. Also, a real general can layout an overall strategy, and the commanders could act on this. In the TW series, you can't tell your cavalry officers to flank their infantry if a situation presents itself, but if not, concentrate on archers. So they make your absolute control of the units make up for this, so they can work into your overall strategy.

[amir]

and they aint really used a lot of tactic just use a bit of intelligence, to know from where the enemy gonna attack came behind and charge

[SirGonkSevenT3]

I thought I read that you will be able to assign AI commanders control over certain aspects of the battle. Or was that in reference to city governors? Not sure.

I read about the battle of Agincourt recently and it mentioned the English King Henry V observed the battle from a hill with a windmill. I was quite excited to see the windmill is actually on the battle map in M:TW. So I tried to direct the battle from that spot zoomed down to eye-level.

I lost.

[amir]

roflmao
maybe i should try this (if my comp would be able to run such an amount of forces)

[webwing]

As a game the Total War series is great fun. They are the war games i always dreamed about. Also there must always be some compromise, thats life. So we cant have everything in a game.
Having said that... I´d like to see an option to give some autonomy to my units, if i wanted to. If a unit is being flanked is more than obvious that they should turn and defend themselves without me having to order them to do it. If on the other hand I want then to do something that is not that obvious then I take over and tell then what I want. That would be nice to see implemented. And who said it is not already implemented?

[]´s

[Copperhead]

Quote[/b] (SirGonkSevenT3 @ June 24 2004,19:28)]I read about the battle of Agincourt recently and it mentioned the English King Henry V observed the battle from a hill with a windmill. I was quite excited to see the windmill is actually on the battle map in M:TW. So I tried to direct the battle from that spot zoomed down to eye-level.

I lost.

I think you may be thinking of Crecy, however I'm not sure, maybe it happened in both, maybe only in one. I read that Henry V was very brave and got into the thick of the fighting taking the same risks as his men. That's my reason for assuming he didn't watch anyway.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

There was a game based on the American Civil War called Sid Meyers: Gettysburg. It was probably my favorite game before MTW. Anyway, in Gettysburg, you controlled either the Union or Confederate soldiers, in the form of regiments, and groups of regiments called brigades. While Gettysburg simulated battle in which there were many more troops than in MTW, there was the same challenge: managing so many units at the same time. Which is why I was amazing at small battles, decent and middle-sized battles, and terrible at large-scale battles. In MTW it was not so bad. But occasionally I will get caught up in fighting on one side of the battle while elsewhere I am losing (or sometimes, but usually not, winning).

This challenge makes the game more interesting, and gives the player a sense of what it was like to command a real army. It would be interesting if RTW had an option where you had to use messengers to order units about. Just an option, of course. The downside would be that the computer could STILL send messages faster and cause me to either lose or develop an unhealthy crutch in the form of a pause button.

[SirGonkSevenT3]

Quote[/b] (Copperhead @ June 24 2004,18:58)]I think you may be thinking of Crecy, however I'm not sure, maybe it happened in both, maybe only in one. I read that Henry V was very brave and got into the thick of the fighting taking the same risks as his men. That's my reason for assuming he didn't watch anyway.

Ahhhhhh you are correct. I know I read about both battles that day and had them confused. I remember it was an account from the time of the battle and it mentioned how Edward the Black Prince was fighting quite hard and one of his company was sent to Henry, who was observing from the hill with a windmill, to ask for reinforcements. Henry said no because Edward wasn't quite in danger of losing his position yet.

Here's the account I read Crecy I thought it was quite interesting.

[Gregoshi]

webwing, I seem to recall reading that the units will have some manner of autonomy, i.e., they will act on their own accord if a situation or opportunity presents itself. I'm all for that. A unit shouldn't need me to tell them to turn around and face that unit coming up behind them - assuming it is not a surprise of course.

I also recall there being an option to play the game with a general's view. This would mean you can only see the part of the battle that the general can see. If you want to see what is happening to your units on the other side of the hill, you will need to move your general to a better vantage point. I can see this option making hilltops vital to maintaining good control of the army. If the general's view option is still in the final product, I can see using it when I play.

[SirGonkSevenT3]

I would love to try it all in the general's view. That would certainly take quite a bit of practice in custom battles first. If that option remains in the game they will most certainly need to have an option where units can be semi autonomous.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I wonder how that semi autonomy is going to play out in MP, when we don't have pause.

If it is half as good as the autonomous skirmishing from the AI today in MTW, we're in trouble.

Louis,

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I like the elephant idea of not being to recognise friend from foe. That will be great, do you think say an armoured elephant and a normal one will smash into each as they different units? That would cause carnage

[Blodrast]

well i'm no expert historian, but from what i remember reading, the elephants _were_ hard to control, especially in the middle of a battle what with all the blood and gunpowder and other smells around, lots of noise (yelling and screaming and artillery), and thousands of crazy little people and horses slaughtering each other all around them.
heck, people couldn't tell friend from foe, much less an elephant, and it would probably only be realistic if they occasionally run amok crushing everything in their way...

[Inuyasha12]

I read a review and yes you will be able to add ai commanders to the units, so you can(in theory) sit back and watch the computer fight. But what would be the fun in that?

[webwing]

That's good news

And as for what the fun would be I think that it would be somehow like some squad based games, Rainbow Six, etc. You cant control two teams so the AI takes one team but it is never as efficient as if you would be giving the orders.
Anyway in RTW, with this control one could manage bigger armies and not be so worried, clicking like crazy, going from flank to flank, etc. You would plane the placement of your troops, formation and the grand strategy and then once the action begins you concentrate on the most critical spots.
Creative Assembly is amazing, when we think of something they have already done it

As for the game Sid Meyers: Gettysburg and others of that series I didn't really like the kind of metaphor thing where you see the images of 10 horses but actually they represent a whole company or regiment. You are reenacting a battle where thousands of troops where involved but you only see a handful of soldier and horses
The Total War series still do this reduction to some point but you have the epic feeling of a massive battles taking place.

[]'s

[Maedhros]

I'd like to hear more about the divisional commanders.

If they can supplement your own comand and control that would be great.

Using large numbers of horse archers for example can be demanding. If an able AI with orders to harrass could take over...

I'd just have to supervise from my tent, and wait to wear down the enemy a bit.