the 20 unit limit - suggestion for fixing

[dj jones]

I read an interesting thread where Jerome from CA was answering a bunch of questions -

anyway, the 20 unit limit has been a major thorn in everyones side since the first total war game came out - and it is still with us. The reinforcement system is broken, as the AI charges his general right to his death causing his troops to be almost useless (I have also had the AI charge them right across the map so they arrive utterly exhausted and ready to rout).

So, why cant CA simply have a system where, in the top left corner of the battle screen (or anywhere on the bottom, doesnt matter) there is a small portrait of *each* commanding officer of *each* 20 unit army. Then, by clicking on one of the portraits, I 'shift' to his point of view, and command his 20 units. The unit screen would thus show the 20 units of general A, the 20 units of general B when I click on him, the 20 units of general C when I click on him, etc. Since 6 units can encircle another on the map, maybe make a limit of 6 stacks (heck, I would be happy with 2 stacks for now!!!!) Maybe allow the player to put them under AI control, as you can do with existing units now, if the player only wants to play with 20 units at once.

This would completely fix the broken reinforcement system, make up for the weak AI, and satisfy the lust of gamers who want to command truly epic battles. It should be easy to implement as well.

Thoughts?

[Parmenio]

Sounds ideal. :)

[Psyco]

This is one of the greatest ideas I've ever seen!

[WarHawk]

Here here! I lost a battle the other day due to this problem.

[Jambo]

That is a very good idea.

However, for me personally, commanding 20 units is more than enough and if they can fix the suicidal AI general then I would prefer that option.. ;) That being said, if the suicidal AI generals are hear to stay, then this is the best alternative by a long way.

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Yep, fine thought. We did actually consider doing this some time ago, but decided against it for various reasons lost in the depths of time We may come back to this one...

[dj jones]

PLEASE make it so!!!!

Playing huge battles at the end game basically is an excercise in frustration, as I can only command a 1/3, or 1/4 or my forces, and they act stupidly, not in concert at all, etc. So I end up starting a lot of new campaigns instead of playing any to their conclusion, as once the battles get to more than 20 units, they become pointless. Better to just autoresolve the combat at that point (ever try to coordinate a 5 stack siege?)

The engine can handle it, as I have had 60 units or more on the field at once without problems (p4, 3ghz) and newer, faster computers can also handle them without problem. For older computers, the user can just cut the unit size down to 40 men and he too will be able to have massive battles if they so choose. If it doesnt work in multiplayer, then make it for custom and campaign battles only - that would still please 90% of the people.

Hope this makes it, if not into a patch, at least into the next game. This 20 unit holdover is the single major flaw in what is otherwise the most amazing battle engine I have ever played.


;>

Cheers!

[dj jones]

That is a very good idea.

However, for me personally, commanding 20 units is more than enough and if they can fix the suicidal AI general then I would prefer that option.. ;) That being said, if the suicidal AI generals are hear to stay, then this is the best alternative by a long way.

Ahh, but the game allows you to put any unit under 'AI' control - so you could easily switch to one of your other generals and put his units under AI control, so if you didnt want to manage them, you wouldnt have to.

I cant see any downside to this system at all - if the player is overwhelmed, he gives AI control - if he wants to manage it himself, he can. Best of both worlds.

[Akka]

I fully support this suggestion

[barocca]

this thead and a thread in colusseum are both along similar lines,
i believe these 2 threads need to be crosslinked, (NOT merged)
so here it is...
Link: this has got to stop

[barocca]

Ahh, but the game allows you to put any unit under 'AI' control - so you could easily switch to one of your other generals and put his units under AI control, so if you didnt want to manage them, you wouldnt have to.

I cant see any downside to this system at all - if the player is overwhelmed, he gives AI control - if he wants to manage it himself, he can. Best of both worlds.

i agree,

i also like Toranaga's suggestion of possible "attack stances" in this thread this has got to stop,

Command 1: Hold Back wait for Orders, where the army will not attack unless ordered to do so. The AI can control the attack once ordered to so.

Command 2: Attack--Hold Back General, the AI can control the attack, but will NOT engage the General. More perfectly, the Player would control the General, while the AI controls the army.

Command 3: Attack, the AI engages and controls both the Army and the General.

Command 4: Stay in the Town! The AI will NOT bring troops, under any circumstances from within a Town/City unless EXPRESSLY ordered to do.

the two systems combined would give the ultimate ideal.

Not neccessarily practical to program into RTW, but we can dream
:-)
B.

[dj jones]

yep, would be great. But I bet if the player had the control, then most of the complaints would go away.

Truthfully, how often do you put any of your troops under AI control? the AI is just poor - making a good AI is very difficult, and I would rather they spend the time giving us the control rather than making the AI that we cant control better ...

'course, both would be best!

[Kraxis]

When you dig you find... And what have I found here... A statement from CA saying they might implement the 'several army command'. Very nice and I really think we should remember this.

[Myrddraal]

I'm gonna dig up this thread again because.....

I was doing some reasearch for scripting, (see my post in the guides) and I was looking for commands in the descr_shorcuts.txt file. I found this:

		next_army					TAB CTRL	hidden

Could this mean that when Jerome posted:

Yep, fine thought. We did actually consider doing this some time ago, but decided against it for various reasons lost in the depths of time We may come back to this one...

He means they actually implemented it?

What happens if you remove the 'hidden'. Does the shortcut then work. Could all our problems be solved. Probably not, but I haven't tested it yet so you never know... ;)

[Myrddraal]

Oops, I just realised how stupid I have been, it probably just moves to the next army on the campmap. Still I haven't tested it yet, I'm just not very confident about it.