Lesser battles and more important armies

[Wardo]

Battles don't mean anything because like was said before your armies are cannon fodder, it doesn't matter what you loose, when and how, unless it's very early in the campaign and you are extremely vulnerable, you can usually replace lost troops without much hassle, too easy to raise an army, too easy to keep that army (upkeep, no real supply issues, etc.), too easy to replace that army - battles will hardly have a significant meaning, win or loose, next turn or next few turns it's the same ol same ol, but this is a tough one, it's what we'll get with a very simple strategic game, the other option is to make the game as complex as Victoria, and that's not really enjoyable, if CA can come up with a middle ground somewhere between cannon-fodder troops and valuable armies, they get the gold medal, maybe we just need a few steps towards Europa Universalis.

[TinCow]

Perhaps we should do away with retraining.

[City walls]

Going back to the Caesar 3 game where it was very hard to raise an army
was very fun. first you need money to build so people imigrate. Then you need quite a few buildings to actually be able to just build the most basic unit. Then you need a blacksmith to produce armour/weapons. Ofcourse the blacksmith needs iron from a mine. after a while you get to produce "1" legionarie. That was very fun when you really struggled to raise a army before the carthaginian army appeared.


But thats a whole other game. But its a good example of a fun Battle even if it was very basic. In RTW we can produce a whole unit in 2 mouseclicks and still win most battles. I remembered when i got 3 legions in caesar 3 and i was so confident in my defence and all. But i lost badly then i saw the enemy sack the whole city. I got a little sad after like 3 hours play but it was rewarding.

[Ciaran]

Hm, a Total War game mainly is about war, and battles, that´s the strong point of the series. In MTW the battles were more important because you had to win the field battle in order to capture the province while in Rome, due to the map system of free army movement, you could maneuvre troops about in one-unit stacks if you wanted (something the AI does a lot). Perhaps armies should have a general (a.k.a family member in RTW) as prerequisite to move an army about, no more no-name captains. That would certainly lead to more concentrated armies and - potentially - more decisive battles.

[Kraxis]

Nah, just move them on offensive operations... Or else you will be very open to enemy attacks since your troops can only stay in their city/castle. They should be able to throw the enemy out.

But part of the problem with RTW is also, besides the faster battles, that the battles tends to much much more decisive in terms of kills.
The speed of the battle often means the losing side hasn't got the time to inflict any losses that matters. In MTW, I have had many battles where a large percentage of the enemy force managed to retreat to the castle and my own army was now too weak to stay in such an exposed position (given the other enemy provinces around me had plenty troops). That was not teh case in RTW. It happened though, at times that the enemy managed to force me away from my sieges.

[Ciaran]

Nah, just move them on offensive operations... Or else you will be very open to enemy attacks since your troops can only stay in their city/castle. They should be able to throw the enemy out.

Good thought. Garrison armies could take care of that, armies that are stationed in cities and can move about the province they´re in.

[City walls]

I just came up with the idea that would suit both 3D people AND 2D people


Keep the 3D map as it is But use the Risk style movement of mtw

what do you think about that?. Each regions should get smaller for more movement so more strategic will be involved

[Sirex1]

You do know that teh reason there wasn't taht many big battles were becouse of the mindset of the one in charge and the proplem of organising troops.
I mean look at teh battel of agincourt or Cresy can't remeber which, but the french managed to gather several tens of thousands of feudal troops to hunt the english (40 k i think), but becouse tehy were to slow the king drooped tehm and used his cav to get to teh english.

And most of the fighting were either pillaging or sieges (often both).
Becouse it took time to get your troops in to a battle line, and if one side was weaker tehy could yust walk away. And there whould be no battle. So battles only accured when one side was forced to fight becouse he could not flee or was cought up by cav. And of course when both side thought they had a chance to win teh battle.

But the fact remains taht during (can't remember in head, but in the 100 years war, 20-0 years before the battle of cresy) the french had pushed he english out of france whit out any mayor battle, this changed after a battel which the english won and tehn took much of northen french back.

So the ability to raise troops was there, but becouse of outher factors was not used that much. I could mention that as a general you may need to think that if you gave battle you might lose it. And that in practise means losing that sector you are in and a lot of lives. And that feusal troops need to return to the fields.

So more sieges and an option to plunder enemies fields.