Some suggestions for timer problem

[Maltz]

I just had a 1000 vs. 1000 siege with only 13 minutes allowed - crazy. While everybody, including me, thinks the time limits are too short sometimes, I prefer to see some alteration of outcomes when time expires.

1. Regular Battles

During a regular field battle, when the timer expires, the battle should be called "unresolved", or "draw" since both sides haven't really finished the fighting.

Depending on the leftover strength of armies, there should be different outcome, too. If it is too one-sided, then the weaker side should be retreating to the farest point their left-over movement allows. If not then they have to stay at the same spot, vulnerable to another strike if the other party wants to give them the death blow immediately after.

If both parties have rougly equal strengh left when the timer runs out, then it should be a draw - both armies camp next to each other. The attacker can attack again if they want.

2. Sieges

Obviously the attack has to retreat when darkness falls. Who wants to get shot by street kids in the dark? However, the attackers don't have to run away from the city. They can remain the sieging position with whatever siege equipement they have left. This way they can assault again immediately after to try their luck on the next day.

IMHO the only perfect setting for the current system is the sally. When timer runs out, it is a draw, everybody return to their previous position. Of course, I don't account for the bug that if you are the sieger, you can actually refuse the sally and starve any city out... If you refuse to face the sallying army, you should retreat to where your leftover movement allows. As you can see, except for the sally-time out, everything is kind of opposite to what should have happened.

[Ldvs]

I've only run out of time once and it saved the day , temporarily though...I was besieged and lost all my host but 3 peltasts, the assaulters ran out of time despite they were holding the plaza. So yes in that case I won in a... weird way.
I agree with your proposal though, and hope CA read these suggestions.

[Red Harvest]

I suspect the timer was added as a crutch for the crippled AI. With it on you often find you lack time to move to better terrain, rest, then fight. Since the AI often doesn't use terrain advantage when it has one, his helps it. You also can't rely on missile tactics as well. And sieges...well the timer in them is just silly when assaulting. It is also a problem when sallying, since the marches out side gates are quite long. I wish it was based more on time of day or some other random environmental effects (thunderstorm approaching), but the short battles and limited time acceleration prevent this.

[bmolsson]

Haven't seen any "not historical" comments yet......

[sapi]

I've only run out of time once and it saved the day , temporarily though...

same...the brutii were seiging one of my cities (i was the julii) and the timer ran out just in time. A full stack of preatorian and urban cohorts arrived the next turn!

[NicSO]

I dont use timer. I would like to use it but whit much larger tome limits, this way, timer off is great for me.

I find medieval better than Rome for now. Rome is to easy, there is no enemy that I cannot win even ehrn Im 1:2 outnumbered and I play on normal....maybe because of generals....I have many "8stars generals" and AI dont because AI isn agressive.

If they improve AI (greatly) and resolve those bugs related to AI and everything else this game will be (maybe) better than M:TW!!!

[Nelson]

I never use the timer and never will. The timer artificially compels you to play faster than you may want. It should be an easily disabled option.

RL permitting, I never pause a battle and only let tactical situations hurry my game.

[Lord Ovaat]

Haven't seen any "not historical" comments yet......

OK. It really is historically innacurate.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Grrrr.......i feel like having a good moan about the timer, so i'll tell y'all what happened yesterday: i was playing as the greek cities, and all i had to do to conquer all of sicily was to capture the carthaginian town, and sicily would be mine, the perfect base for ruling the mediterrannean!! But no, instead, the stupid timer runs out, just as i was about to kill the last two carthaginian soldiers. That really pissed me off!!

[KiOwA]

As a side note, what factors determine the length of time assigned to you at the start of a battle? I've had anywhere from 13 mins to 34 mins for an assault on a city, and it doesn't seem to be really consistent.

[Ldvs]

As a side note, what factors determine the length of time assigned to you at the start of a battle? I've had anywhere from 13 mins to 34 mins for an assault on a city, and it doesn't seem to be really consistent.

On the battle field I've never been granted more than 20 minutes whatever the size of the armies...whereas it varies on length when I assault a city. Each time it was according to the settlement size, not the garrison in it.

[Medieval Assassin]

I've never ran out of time, maybe once or twice now that I think about it, but I always have plenty of time...useually about 30 minutes...

[Didz]

I've turned the timer off and there's no way I could be persuaded to turn the stupid thing back on again.

The game is much more enjoyable without the silly thing.

[SpencerH]

The re-setting of the timer, when as little as 1 routing inf runs straight through an urban cohort and reaches the square, has got to go IMO.

[Zorn]

In 5 campaings, I have not lost a single battle due to the timer.
On the other hand, I won a few because of it.
So, I like it.

[Maltz]

Setting difficulty level aside, I find the timer against some specific things:

(1) Phalanx. Phalanx are too slow, so phalanx users will find time always running out.

(2) Larger unit size. Units took more time to die. A town center mob-up will take a good 5 minutes in huge unit size. In huge unit size also everything takes place slow...

So if you like to play Greeks/Romans who have a lot of slower infantry and enjoy huge unit size, the timer should be always against you.

[Didz]

For me its more basic than that.

My interest in military history began and evolved along with my interest in historical wargaming and so having to 'beat the clock' during battles is completely contrary to my interest in the game and I was only too pleased to banish it so that I could spend more time on tactics.

In fact I would prefer the duration of a battle to be determined by the time of day it started and for the end to be signalled by the gradually closing in of darkness.

IMO: The 30 minute timer is just a sop to the MP market which doesn't even begin to make up for the continued lack of a proper MP campaign option.

[Bhruic]

You know, it's not like RTW introduced the concept of the battle timer. The problem isn't that it exists, it's that it doesn't seem to be tied into the same issues as it was previously. In MTW, for example, the timer functioned pretty simply - the more troops you had, the longer you had to do the fight. In RTW, it doesn't seem to be tied into anything. I've done the same battle multiple times, and had different timers each fight. I've had battles with a few troops last over 30 minutes, and battles with thousands of troops last for less than 15.

If they simply reverted to the "more troops = more time" concept, I'd be happy with it. Although it would be nice if they included a "use timer" toggle, for those who aren't happy with it. But I have no problem with its inclusion, as long as it makes sense, and allows for enough time for a realistic fight.

Bh