Battle speed

[Ludens]

While I agree with Orda's recommendations, I also think that large map would be an annoyance when fighting small skirmishes. Perhaps map size should be dependent on army size? Or for small battles the opposing armies start closer together?

[GFX707]

This would be a really great time for a dev to step in and reassure me that the combat will indeed take longer than 30 seconds after impact.

30 seconds in RTW? If only! I think once I measured it at about 10....

[Reenk Roink]

So what do you want?any faster and two units would meet, Decide emediately who was the best and the lesser would route. This is one of the most fundamental floors with RTW the fact that things happen so fast that your not given time to implement any tactics.Thats the main reason I went back to MTW. Rome just feels like a very pretty arcade game.

Hey, with all fairness, read my second post:

I give in, you should all enjoy the longer battles, I'll admit, I like them as well, but in Rome there were just so many friggin' battles that it really got boring quick. I just hope the AI is improved so that battles actually matter, and you are not bombarded with 1/4 full stacks every turn...

And anyways, there's still the speed up.

[King Yngvar]

I think BI was a step in the right direction with less provinces, a shorter campaign

Nooo... there were too few provinces in BI, I had my victory by 410 AD the first game I played, it's just too quick.

[x-dANGEr]

I take it for granted that most of you who say battles in R: TW are short have never played MP.. How long would it take 40 men to kill 40 men with swords in these days.. 2 minutes? It's just the same in game. I don't know why you have the idea that men need 10 seconds to move their swords. I myself don't remember a more-than-hour battle in M: TW in SP. And maybe one of the factors that you think M: TW had 'epic' battles, is because you could reinforce your army with more than just 2-3 packs.. But with semi-unlimited number of stacks. Everyone has his opinon and I appericiate that. But I still blame the A.I., not that engine for being fast.

[Doug-Thompson]

On a related note, I wish CA would make it so that if you put decent garrison troops in a city, it would suppress rebels in that province. It seems like 90 percent of the battles I fight are rat-killing anti-bandit battles. That's what's time consuming, even if you auto-resolve. You have to move troops out and move troops back, etc.

I'd like to see putting a castle in a province help suppress bandits, too.

[GFX707]

I agree with the above idea....the brigands in RTW were too annoying to deal with, especially if you played one of the Steppe factions.

[Ignoramus]

Exactly, I mean there were robbers and brigands, but seriously, there was actually a period called the "Pax Romana".

[Orda Khan]

Yes bandits appeared far too frequently IMO

......Orda

[Puzz3D]

Speed does matter. You have to balance movement speed and fighting speed to allow enough time for flanking. This also allows units within a certain distance to come to the aid of another unit or allied army. The effectiveness of ranged units then has to be balanced for the movement speed selected. Fatigue rates also have to be adjusted for movement speed so they are not too high or too low.

If the speed chosen is too high, it becomes impossible to effectively control all of your units, and supporting units have to be very close to units they are intended to support because the mechanics of issuing movement orders has a fixed time associated with it. The only way you can make up the time is by using anticipation which benefits the player who moves first thereby unbalancing the offensive/defensive aspect of the battle.

RTW is the worst of all the total war games in this respect (fixing the charge bonus has slowed down the combat resolution for cavalry and spears are more effect vs cav which does help the gameplay). It's not possible to effectively control all 20 units during the fighting. You can control a few units while the rest fight on their own or you can put your army into a few groups and control it that way. Massing armies and attacking with everything before the opponent can mass is the best strategy especialy since there is no penalty for overlapping units. Fatigue rate is low as well which helps. It's called rushing. Of course, if both sides only utilize a few units at a time, that will provide a different kind of battle, but it's not the best strategy.

I'll simply say that by not providing a better tactical game in multiplayer, CA has alienated a large portion of the online community that used to play this game.

[GFX707]

I would honestly just be happy if they included a "realistic" setting which would give us more of a MTW feel besides the default "moronic child with ADHD" setting.

[x-dANGEr]

I agree on the 'low fatigue effect' in R: TW. I never saw a differnece between a fresh unit charge and a tired one.. Though, it 'does' matter with cav, but the deal with rush battles is that they are too close to get any tired.

@The ability to control all units is dependance on speed idea: Isn't the ability of moving all units around at the same time is 'skill' and 'adjusting' ? I think the thing we all should try to do, is adjusting to the next addition, rather than moddelling it to become what it once was.

[AquaLurker]

I can say for sure that the BI settings for movement speed and kill speed is the best, its the same as MTW only difference is that BI archers are more deadly and effective.

Problem lies in AI and has alway been that, charging archers into combat, attacking one at a time, suicidal generals and cav is the real issues. You can modd kill speed/movement speed as low as you like, increase morale as high as you wish but that will only offer slow battles, not tough battles.

[Voigtkampf]

Speed does matter. You have to balance movement speed and fighting speed to allow enough time for flanking. This also allows units within a certain distance to come to the aid of another unit or allied army. The effectiveness of ranged units then has to be balanced for the movement speed selected. Fatigue rates also have to be adjusted for movement speed so they are not too high or too low.

If the speed chosen is too high, it becomes impossible to effectively control all of your units, and supporting units have to be very close to units they are intended to support because the mechanics of issuing movement orders has a fixed time associated with it. The only way you can make up the time is by using anticipation which benefits the player who moves first thereby unbalancing the offensive/defensive aspect of the battle.

RTW is the worst of all the total war games in this respect (fixing the charge bonus has slowed down the combat resolution for cavalry and spears are more effect vs cav which does help the gameplay). It's not possible to effectively control all 20 units during the fighting. You can control a few units while the rest fight on their own or you can put your army into a few groups and control it that way. Massing armies and attacking with everything before the opponent can mass is the best strategy especialy since there is no penalty for overlapping units. Fatigue rate is low as well which helps. It's called rushing. Of course, if both sides only utilize a few units at a time, that will provide a different kind of battle, but it's not the best strategy.

I'll simply say that by not providing a better tactical game in multiplayer, CA has alienated a large portion of the online community that used to play this game.

Carve this into a stone. My feelings exactly.

All Rome battles were far too fast; it is not the complaint of a man who is unable to cope with speed, but of a man who wants to enjoy the game, revel in it, observe the conflicts and close quarters, wage long battles instead of ten minutes long skirmishes. It is like playing chess or making love to a woman; you can play blitz chess or you can have a "quickie" with a girl, but though I can handle the stresses of both, I prefer both - like my TW battles - to last for hours.

[Puzz3D]

I can say for sure that the BI settings for movement speed and kill speed is the best, its the same as MTW only difference is that BI archers are more deadly and effective.

The running speeds in RTW were measured as 50% faster than MTW, you have a delay before a unit starts to move and you have 25% more units to control.

Problem lies in AI and has alway been that, charging archers into combat, attacking one at a time, suicidal generals and cav is the real issues. You can modd kill speed/movement speed as low as you like, increase morale as high as you wish but that will only offer slow battles, not tough battles.

The AI isn't as aggressive as a human player. That's why the speed is less of an issue in SP, but it's a big issue in MP. All of those AI issues were addressed to some degree in the patches, but speed was unchanged. There is a bias in the battle AI which causes the AI to overestimate it's winning chances. I've tested it and the AI makes frontal charges with units that have no chance of winning. The AI doesn't do this in STW. I believe that contributes to suicide generals, archers charging into melee and units attacking one at a time. Many players have asked CA to get rid of the AI bias in the battles and also in the auto-resolve, but they have steadfastly refused to do so.

[Puzz3D]

All Rome battles were far too fast; it is not the complaint of a man who is unable to cope with speed, but of a man who wants to enjoy the game, revel in it, observe the conflicts and close quarters, wage long battles instead of ten minutes long skirmishes.

Actually, I don't want 1 hour battles in MP. A better pacing for MP is an average of 15 to 20 minute battles. In the STWmod for MTW/VI, we have that kind of pacing with the movement speeds low enough that you can control all 16 units and make many tactical moves during the height of the battle. Part of the reason for this pacing is that ranged units use their ammo fast enough. Guns will use all their ammo in 7 minutes of continuous shooting, and archers will use all of theirs in about 4 minutes. Contrast that with MTW where it takes 15 minutes for an xbow to use all of it's ammo.

[Duke John]

To get an idea who greatly speed was increased from M:TW to R:TW (100% being the walking speed of infantry in either game):

                        R:TW                 M:TW
Infantry walking        100%   3.7 mph       100%   3.7 mph
Infantry running        280%   10.4 mph      166%   6.2 mph
Infantry charging       348%   12.9 mph      183%   6.8 mph
Fast infantry running   337%   12.5 mph      200%   7.4 mph

Cavalry walking         127%   4.72 mph      150%   5.6 mph
Cavalry running         470%   17.5 mph      333%   12.4 mph
Cavalry charging        716%   26.6 mph      367%   13.7 mph
Fast cavalry running    630%   23.4 mph      400%   14.9 mph

I really hope that it is reduced somewhat in M2:TW, it would save me alot of animating. By the way, NTW2 will have the M:TW movement speeds

[AquaLurker]

The AI isn't as aggressive as a human player. That's why the speed is less of an issue in SP, but it's a big issue in MP. All of those AI issues were addressed to some degree in the patches, but speed was unchanged. There is a bias in the battle AI which causes the AI to overestimate it's winning chances. I've tested it and the AI makes frontal charges with units that have no chance of winning. The AI doesn't do this in STW. I believe that contributes to suicide generals, archers charging into melee and units attacking one at a time. Many players have asked CA to get rid of the AI bias in the battles and also in the auto-resolve, but they have steadfastly refused to do so.

Errhhh...so the problem is still the AI

The running speed have to match the archers effectiviness in BI, MTW archers were not as effective compared to BI.

[Duke John]

The running speed have to match the archers effectiviness in BI, MTW archers were not as effective compared to BI.

It takes more time to animate than to change a few stats. Besides the animations were motion captured, so it was probably that the archers were given increased stats to match the higher running speeds and not the other way around.

[AquaLurker]

Actually, I don't want 1 hour battles in MP. A better pacing for MP is an average of 15 to 20 minute battles. In the STWmod for MTW/VI, we have that kind of pacing with the movement speeds low enough that you can control all 16 units and make many tactical moves during the height of the battle. Part of the reason for this pacing is that ranged units use their ammo fast enough. Guns will use all their ammo in 7 minutes of continuous shooting, and archers will use all of theirs in about 4 minutes. Contrast that with MTW where it takes 15 minutes for an xbow to use all of it's ammo.

So if you have units thats shoot slower and move slower you have a slower game, will not want 1 hours battle but will enjoy slower pace games. I have did some test, AI isn't aggressive enough, samiliar tactical desicion can be made on a slower pace.

[AquaLurker]

It takes more time to animate than to change a few stats. Besides the animations were motion captured, so it was probably that the archers were given increased stats to match the higher running speeds and not the other way around.

Probably, but it sure does makes BI a very dynamic multiplayer game.

[Orda Khan]

The speed is less of an issue than the other things like no overlap penalty. I was fed up of seeing a writhing mass of units, which in essence should be ineffective but on the contrary,in reality they are anything but. If I had to state a preference it would be neither MTW nor RTW/BI. I would like to see MTW inf speed and somewhere in between both games for cav. I would however like to see a considerable difference between heavy and light cav running/charge speeds

.....Orda

[x-dANGEr]

But their is a difference between light/heavy cav speeds. In R: TW, that's the exact reason why in many cases a Scythia Horse Archers unit is better than a noble archers units (In MP). Because a Scythian Horse Archers unit can get away of it's enemies and surely heavy cav, unlike the Noble Archers Unit which is slow.

I muself can't understand how you expect the A.I to be as good as even a basic new player tactic-wise..

[DukeofSerbia]

We want Sonic speed in battles...

[AquaLurker]

Well that reminds me of one thing about RTW and BI light cav and heavy cav difference.

In BI the fast cav is really difficult to catch if you use heavy cav to chase them, thats why alot of seasoned players hate horse archers, you can catch up with them. But in RTW ha is pretty easy to catch even if you use heavy cav like the preatorian cav.

[x-dANGEr]

It's pretty easy if the HA is 'Tired' or less.. And that's a great thing that shows the effect of fatigue. And not all HA in Rome are fast.. Only the light ones (Militia Cav, Numidian Mercenaries/cav, Scythia Horse Archers, etc..). And those can be matched by Equites, Roman cav (With Romans) and the other light cav in other factions. Though, they can't be matched by Praetorian cav for sure, at least, not when their fatigue level is fresh.

[Voigtkampf]

Actually, I don't want 1 hour battles in MP. A better pacing for MP is an average of 15 to 20 minute battles. In the STWmod for MTW/VI, we have that kind of pacing with the movement speeds low enough that you can control all 16 units and make many tactical moves during the height of the battle. Part of the reason for this pacing is that ranged units use their ammo fast enough. Guns will use all their ammo in 7 minutes of continuous shooting, and archers will use all of theirs in about 4 minutes. Contrast that with MTW where it takes 15 minutes for an xbow to use all of it's ammo.

Well, most of the battles that last 15-20 have been unsatisfactory, border-line to rush fights. The most enjoyable game of Rome for me was one 2 on 2 fight that lasted for one and a half hour. That was before the time everybody just started rushing you at the very start, that is.

[Doug-Thompson]

Re: Catching HA

Many HA are "very hardy" or "hardy," giving them great endurance compared to most cavalry. Heat doesn't effect them as much, either.

So HA are faster to begin with, and don't get as tired as quickly — given the same amount of movement.

The trick with catching HA is to keep them moving all the time with missile troops of some sort, then charge them while the charging unit is fresh.

Getting them to go into Cantabrian circle doesn't seem to tire them out as quickly as it did in earlier versions of R:TW, but I haven't tested that.

=============

The skirmish "zone" for HA is almost too generous. I often have to turn skirmish off to get them where they need to go. Otherwise, they'll turn away from enemies that are still a safe distance away.

On the other hand, they won't hold the distance far enough between themselves and troops armed with javelins or pilum. If left to themselves on skirmish, pilum or javelin troops can get close enough for throwing. You can't charge HA with infantry, but you can throw missiles until you're out of ammo.

[Servius]

Bring back the speed bar, definitely.

That, and I want the damn Alt+click option back, which would turn the selected unit at where ever you just clicked. That was so cool and easy. I never understood why both features were removed in RTW. They were so handy.

It should take a while for 200 men to kill each other. 100-man spear units should not be decimated in under a minute, that's just silly. I really think the base speed should be slow, and if a player wants faster action, just use the speed bar. It's simple to do, and it allows each person to choose the pace they're comfortable with.

And no more hard-coded crap.

And...a shrubbery! One that's nice. And not too expensive.

[Orda Khan]

But their is a difference between light/heavy cav speeds. In R: TW, that's the exact reason why in many cases a Scythia Horse Archers unit is better than a noble archers units (In MP). Because a Scythian Horse Archers unit can get away of it's enemies and surely heavy cav, unlike the Noble Archers Unit which is slow.

I muself can't understand how you expect the A.I to be as good as even a basic new player tactic-wise..

I realise that there is a difference, however this difference was not so pronounced in MTW. Medieval heavy cav was heavier than that of the Rome period but light cav and HA was not heavier than their earlier counterparts. We should also expect to see less kills using HA against heavy cav due to better armour

......Orda