What should CA concentrate on for future releases...

[Michael the Brave]

Yeah,I really like your idea there Emren,and there already is a little time delay after you issue orders to units,but I don't really know why they implemented it(altough it's cool) because the pace of the battles is fast enough already...

[Emren]

Yeah, Michael, I know there's a small delay. But the current delay doesn't stop you from issuing a new order to that same unit immediately. I suppose it should only apply when issuing an order that involves a new destination for the unit - giving out a run order to a unit on the move should not be delayed. I think it would work well.

[Del Arroyo]

I'm not sure, Emren, that sort of a system sounds a bit arbitrary to me. It would definitely change things up, but the problem is this-- I see no clear argument for it, either in history, or in direct and specific remedies for precisely defined problems. When people get annoyed with it, that argument would be crucial.

Another problem I see is that it does nothing to expand the player's options, it simply restricts them in the name of "gameplay". If someone were going to go to all the trouble to program and balance a new C&C system, one would hope it would be more than a mere reaction.

DA

[Emren]

Del Arroyo,

It's not arbitrary, since the delay penalties are very specific to certain events and situations. The historical justification is this: If we assume that the player takes the place of the commanding officer (the general), then it is only reasonable that he cannot command all units at all times perfectly. We (the general) have way to much information compared to reality. At best, the general would use signals and runners to relay orders - hence the justification for a command delay. It simply was not possible to give orders and change them a second later, like it is in TW.

If you follow this logic, as well as accept my basic assumption, I think that what I suggested makes sense. I know I'm not addressing any specific problem as such, merely suggesting a new way of improving realism. And you're absolutely right in that it doesn't expand the players options - rather the opposite - but it requires a better tactical judgement, since mistakes are more costly. I realize that it might lead to frustration for some - fortunately, I'd imagine that if any system like this was introduced, CA would make it optional!

[Del Arroyo]

Well, I suppose a major problem I'd have with it is the "one order at a time" thing. I mean, you don't think these guys had more than one runner? Also, I don't know about the veritable host of factors you mentioned for judging the ETA-- a simple distance formula seems better to me, maybe with a certain chance of being intercepted if it must travel through a hot area.

And it would not be particularly realistic in the sense that people back then had a solution for long lines of communication-- subordinate commanders! ~:p Simply cutting off the player's control of the flanks without any mitigating options seems pretty limiting to me.

While your concept is simple to program and inspired indirectly by historical fact, I have a feeling that it would just change gameplay rather than truly improve it.

MHO, of course.

A wise man once said: For every problem there is a solution, that is simple, easy and wrong.

DA

[Phatose]

Of course, the obvious point here is that a player is not the general. TW is simply not a role playing game, and like most stategy games, the player's role is one of a primal force, not an individual being. M:TW and S:TW both clearly demonstrated this by allowing us to continue our battles after the general dies.

You're closer to being the command structure of a people then you are to being their general. The player is simultenously in control of many exchangable people - the general of any particular battle, but simultenously his lieutenants and commanders, and you're quite capable of body-jumping into the next in the chain of command whenever any of these people dies.

And that's not even getting into the generation-spanning strategic map.

[Emren]

On subordinate commanders: True. This is why I suggested that all orders which do not involve a new destination are executed without delay - like hold, fire-at-will, wedge, and so on.

Improving gameplay: Whether or not it's an improvement is of course highly subjective. I think it improves realism - which is argueably not the same as gameplay. But if it's an optional, then I don't see what the harm is.

Phatose: I know that the player is not the general in the strictest sense of the word. The player controls whoever is in charge, at any given point in space and time. I'm not advocating that TW be changed into a RPG, at all. I'm merely suggesting a way to improve upon the simulation aspect of battles.

[Michael the Brave]

Well, I suppose a major problem I'd have with it is the "one order at a time" thing. I mean, you don't think these guys had more than one runner? Also, I don't know about the veritable host of factors you mentioned for judging the ETA-- a simple distance formula seems better to me, maybe with a certain chance of being intercepted if it must travel through a hot area.

And it would not be particularly realistic in the sense that people back then had a solution for long lines of communication-- subordinate commanders! ~:p Simply cutting off the player's control of the flanks without any mitigating options seems pretty limiting to me.

While your concept is simple to program and inspired indirectly by historical fact, I have a feeling that it would just change gameplay rather than truly improve it.

MHO, of course.

A wise man once said: For every problem there is a solution, that is simple, easy and wrong.

DA

Well it seems that you took the words out of me mouth
But I'm not to sure if CA will consider such things,just think that they would have to rework a lot of details in TW to implement them.
Knowing that they have already implemented AI cotroled units on the player's side,why not improve the feature so that you can give custom orders to the AI,like "go into a flanking position then charge their left flank,attack any type of unit,prefferably infantry" - so you should be able to 'build' phrases like this so that there is no confusion for what the AI has to do,and I don't think this is going to take to much effort in AI programming,because the AI only has to do what you tell it,relying on a set of parameters you specify.
Btw,anyone played the game "Black & White" - now that game had some AI !

[Ja'chyra]

This is what I think.

It would be pratically impossible to have a totally realistic control method, and, I don't think it would be so enjoyable. Most decisions on tactics would have been made before the battle even started based on the terrain, troops available, what forces you are facing and information gathered about the commanders. You would then place your captains in command of the most suited troops for their part and explain what you wanted them to do without, I believe, regulating their moves step by step e.g. allow them options and initiative. The reason you could allow them is that you have chosen them and trained them to compliment your style of fighting and allocated them to suitable tasks e.g. you wouldn't have some good at hit and run tactics holding the centre of the line or a heavy cav specialist in command of horse archers. On the day of the battle the orders would be amended to suit if possible, but if you've sent cav to hide in woods ready for a rear attack it wouldn't be advisable to send runners to them and give away their positions. Once the battle actually begins communicating with individual units would be extremely difficult and you would have to rely heavily on your delegated commanders.

In terms of the game I see it as you are actually playing the general and, to some extent, the captain of every unit. Obviously this has advantages and disadvantages such as all of your captains understand the exlicit details of your plan, cos it's you , but it means you have to jump between all the units and the actual delegation is drastically deminished. That said I like it the way it is, in RTW the battle is a lot faster, I only played the demo, but I believe this to be a good thing where a wrong click can be construed as a wrong decision or where your captain doesn't do exactly what you want them to do.

I am happy with the demo and see no reason why I wont be happy with the game, for those who want total reality I would only say that there is a reason why there are so few really successful generals in history.

Anyhow, that's just me

[Del Arroyo]

The reason, Ja'Chyra, that history produced so few successful generals, is in my opinion a simple lack of practice. A computer game offers a zero-stakes environment in which you can mess around and learn all you want-- people will adapt to practically any interface, as long as it is FUN.

As I said before, I would envision the battle phase broken down further. There would be maybe two or three minutes for both sides to arrange troops in their deploy zones-- and watch what the other side is doing, from a distance. Then there would be maybe three to five minutes to assign leaders and give initial orders.

I think that purely from a dramatic perspective, this sequence of events is more given to anticipation and suspense. Instead of just running in there in a compact formation with a general idea of bombarding your enemy and waiting for the right moment to double-click behind his line, you actually have the opportunity to see him deploying and think and plan ahead (and then hope it doesn't fudge up).

At any rate, I'm not saying that the current system is whack or that I won't enjoy RTW. I just think that the system I've described would be nice, and I've tried to show how it would be both feasible and fun. It is, in my opinion, a logical future step.

Personally, I'm very much looking forward to RTW the way that it is.

DA

[Ja'chyra]

Exactly my point Del Arroyo, you get one crack at it and either you win or in all probability you're dead or captured.

I also believe that almost all of the people who think they could do it wouldn't hack it as an actual general, and this is not an insult, who here could make all the strategic and tactical plans as well as the logistics knowing that their decisions will mean life or death for thousands of people? Who could send thousands of people to their deaths and still sleep at night? And who could make these decisions while actually on the battlefield?

But, we're lucky, it's only a game and I am looking forward to it being released.