FAQ and historical inaccuracies: some odd comments

[conon394]

Orda

Well the thread has been discussing both (BI and RTW). My comments were directed at the performance of cavalry in RTW.

RTW's move rate are unrealistic but most people would get bored to death. I have to agree that a speed compromise is needed for TW games for normal people or it just takes too long.

Routing heavy infantry is an interesting case though. As much as I'd love to see droppable equipment, it is a gameplay compromise so rallied troops can still fight. A droppable equipment system would be an interesting feature. Shields getting bashed, swords getting lost, soldiers without weapons trying to find one or going Rocky IV on their target.

Charging cavalry as was pointed out in a few places have a few problems that are engine related. Two things: They almost never lose their charge bonus AND armor adds to impact damage.

But it seems like CA could have make a better comprise decision. Say allowing battles to start with armies very nearly on top of one another, or a large battle filed with room to maneuver armies and eventually close for tactical gamers. The apparently impatient broad market gamer could choose to start on top of the enemy. No need for Olympic Sprinter hoplites. On fleeing infantry, I did not mean to suggest I was disappointed CA did not implement armor flinging (cool if they could); but just that in general if I saved a fresh unit of cavalry I would like a battlefield big enough combined with tired infantry running at realistic speeds such that I could actually run down routers.