Initial Patch Thoughts

**GFX707** · 02-04-2005, 20:38

Originally Posted by GeWee

Personally I'm glad they didn't change the kill speed. If you want the battles to last longer bring more men to the grinder...

Sorry, that comment was just stupid.

**GeWee** · 02-04-2005, 23:12

Originally Posted by GFX707

Originally Posted by GeWee

Personally I'm glad they didn't change the kill speed. If you want the battles to last longer bring more men to the grinder...

Sorry, that comment was just stupid.

Wouldn't it be better to explain why you think it's stupid instead of making a stupid comment of your own?

**Colovion** · 02-04-2005, 23:18

Originally Posted by GeWee

Wouldn't it be better to explain why you think it's stupid instead of making a stupid comment of your own?

If you don't know the reason for it being an ignorant comment then there's more problems here than your comment being overused and thoroughly disproved.

**GeWee** · 02-04-2005, 23:26

Originally Posted by Colovion

If you don't know the reason for it being an ignorant comment then there's more problems here than your comment being overused and thoroughly disproved.

There are more problems? Like what?
Besides, feel free to quote the post where my comment is "disproved". One would think you'd be hard pressed to "disprove" someone's *opinions* but maybe that's just me...

**Colovion** · 02-04-2005, 23:36

Ok let's look at the facts here - obviously bringing more men to a battle will extend the fight... kinda. The problem is that I have yet to see a battle take place that had any kind of tactics in it. Basically both sides are rushed at eachother, a bunch of death takes place in less than ten seconds and the other side is running for the hills. The chain rout thing is a double-edged sword. For one it is nice ot see that units will rout when the rest of their army has decided it's a worthless cause - but it makes for extremely short and boring battles. Once you have superior forces, the enemy can't beat you. All you need to do is pinpoint a weakness in their line - send your elite troops there and suddenly you've won the battle. If there was more time the teh enemy AI to show that they can do more than rush at your troops, then perhaps the enhancements CA says they've made to the Battlefield AI would show through.

It doesn't matter a whit if you have more troops on the field, as battles with 200 men end 3 seconds after initial melee begins, and battles with full stacks end with 10 seconds into melee. More time? Yes. But enough time? Not in the slightest. Your comment doesn't address the problem, it just tells us something we already know. The 10 seconds is not enough time to fight a satisfying battle.

Honestly, I can't see why anyone would enjoy the way battles are currently in vanilla RTW, but if you do that's great.

**GeWee** · 02-04-2005, 23:46

I do enjoy them. I'd enjoy them more if it was possible to fight 50,000 vs 50,000 battles that would last half an hour but until we have computers capable of that I'll settle for what I have. IMO it's better to have realistic kill speeds than to nerf them to simulate that each unit is 10 times larger than it is...

**Colovion** · 02-05-2005, 08:28

Originally Posted by GeWee

I do enjoy them. I'd enjoy them more if it was possible to fight 50,000 vs 50,000 battles that would last half an hour but until we have computers capable of that I'll settle for what I have. IMO it's better to have realistic kill speeds than to nerf them to simulate that each unit is 10 times larger than it is...

Ok. The current kill speeds are not realistic. Read that again. not realistic.

Remember all the battles in ancient/medieval times which took hours upon hours and sometimes even went into the night time? No? Well, maybe you need to do some research.