Shouldn't they increase the range of reinforcements?

[x-dANGEr]

We all know that in M: TW you could enforce your army with other armies as much as you want. Though, in R: TW it got limited. Don't you think that they should increase the range of reinforcements in M2: TW one more grid than R: TW? It would allow for bigger battles and surely, more reality.

[King Yngvar]

I really don't know what to say about that, but I would like the ability to reinforce allies from a longer distance for example...

[Zatoichi]

I voted yes (but only because there was no 'GAH!' option ).

Bigger area to pull in more of your own stacks/allies would be good.

[The_Doctor]

Yes. Great idea.

[Gustav II Adolf]

I think much can be improved considering reinforcements, not just the range.

-It would be nice to be able to organize a massive battle better by having someting similar to MTW:VIs prebattle screen.

-Interacting and coordinating more easily with allies when confronted with the enemy, ie increased range and diplomacy options

-It should be fair. The AI should´nt be allowed to have infinite numbers when we are constrained.

[econ21]

Yes, I think it would be a good idea. Reading about campaigns in that era, it seems that battles were often very considered affairs where basically both sides would have to consent to them. They often would maneouvre for days to try to force the other side to give battle on unfavourable ground[1]. I think this would mean there was more time to gather your forces together before battle.

CA promised "fewer and more decisive battles" in RTW, but arguably the new map encouraged the opposite. Increasing the range of reinforcement mechanism might go someway towards delivering on the promise. As would giving allowing outnumbered armies to more effectively retreat from battle on the campaign map.

[1]EDIT: Actually, I was thinking of RTW and ancient battles when I wrote this. On reflection, I am not sure how much it applies to Medieval ones.

[Midnight]

Yes, good idea.

I'm hoping for a few battles where allies (for either side!) show up, which has never once happened to me in Rome.

[Antiochius]

it would be a good idea

[Orda Khan]

Yes and also add the option to appeal to your ally/allies for assistance

......Orda

[mfberg]

Perhaps a delay battle option gives a few days or weeks so both the attacker and defender can get the nearby reinfocements in. Maybe a reinforcement choice that shows your map, the possible reinfocements and lets you and your enemy/allies choose to move them to the battle site.

mfberg

[Silver Rusher]

Perhaps a delay battle option gives a few days or weeks so both the attacker and defender can get the nearby reinfocements in. Maybe a reinforcement choice that shows your map, the possible reinfocements and lets you and your enemy/allies choose to move them to the battle site.

mfberg

Only the attacker would have this option though.

Yes and also add the option to appeal to your ally/allies for assistance

Brilliant idea.

[Rodion Romanovich]

26 - 2, we're winning :2thumsup:

I think armies withing 1 square from the attacked army should as default be available to reinforce immediately upon the start of the battle. Armies further away should be delayed. That way you could put up to 9*20 units in a bunch to act as a single army - would fix the problem with armies being limited to 20 units. Alternatively, they could make it so that you could create armies with up to 80 units or some ridiculously high number you'll never reach, but that would be problematic in the battle as it's difficult to handle too many units. Maybe if units of the same type would be automatically merged during battle, or you could choose which 20 to command personally while the others are AI controlled. Ai controlled armies should btw be possible to give basic orders to IMO, like "advance", "flank left", "flank right", "attack" or "stay back" etc.

For battles with allies I'd like it if you could choose whether to join the battle on your allies' side or just skip it, rather than having to fight it without any choice. Should cause interesting things to the strength of the alliance if you just stayed back though

[Orda Khan]

For battles with allies I'd like it if you could choose whether to join the battle on your allies' side or just skip it, rather than having to fight it without any choice. Should cause interesting things to the strength of the alliance if you just stayed back though

Hmmm, remember MTW when your ally just turned up and watched you do all the fighting only for you to see a window after battle saying....'blah, blah, largest force....blah, decided that ally would gain province'

.........Orda

[econ21]

Hmmm, remember MTW when your ally just turned up and watched you do all the fighting only for you to see a window after battle saying....'blah, blah, largest force....blah, decided that ally would gain province'

.........Orda

Nah, my ally remembers me doing that to him! Actually, the funny thing is, I get the feeling that the AI got really angry if I did that - it seemed to definitely sour relations within a few turns. If I am not being delusional, it was nice programming by CA.

[x-dANGEr]

26 - 2, we're winning :2thumsup:

I think armies withing 1 square from the attacked army should as default be available to reinforce immediately upon the start of the battle. Armies further away should be delayed. That way you could put up to 9*20 units in a bunch to act as a single army - would fix the problem with armies being limited to 20 units. Alternatively, they could make it so that you could create armies with up to 80 units or some ridiculously high number you'll never reach, but that would be problematic in the battle as it's difficult to handle too many units. Maybe if units of the same type would be automatically merged during battle, or you could choose which 20 to command personally while the others are AI controlled. Ai controlled armies should btw be possible to give basic orders to IMO, like "advance", "flank left", "flank right", "attack" or "stay back" etc.

For battles with allies I'd like it if you could choose whether to join the battle on your allies' side or just skip it, rather than having to fight it without any choice. Should cause interesting things to the strength of the alliance if you just stayed back though

I think it should be done so, as you said armies are merged. Like on the campaign map, it is 20 units max, but when you enter the battel and have like 2 stacks reinforcing, all simliar units combined (As needed, not combine them all in 3 units :) ) so you can handle them better. Their should be a combine battle in the battle map after all I think. Likewise, you combine all your archers in 1 unit just to make the controlling/formatting easier, while on other aspects, it has other negativities, like being not able to move around swiftly.

[Oaty]

Well having an army of 10'000 men is quite a few units. The game has gotten much more close to historical sized armies. And I voted no on the greater area of reenforcements, mainly because I see it taking the camp map in the reverse direction. Aslo would possibly make it too easy to chees the A.I. by attacking a small stack and an army bigger than yours just trickles in piecmeal jsut for you.

Although If I attack an army at great odds, the better chances they should have of making a long withdrawal. Realistically an army of 6000 had trouble chasing down an army of 500 men unless if it was cavalry ivolved in the pursuit.

Now you chase them back to a city and they join another 500 men totalling 1000 men. You still have movement points to siege that city, but due to the great odds those 1000 men vacate to the next province. As you take the city the A.I. groups in it's own province and now has 8000 men to bring at you in return. Really what is needed is control on the camp map and small armies unless in a fort or a cit, shoould have the ability to outmaneuver much larger armies unless you are pursueing them with an all cavalry army/detatchment.

[x-dANGEr]

I can live with that. Though it must be a restriction that it can only withrday into another province that it's faction hold. I don't want to keep chasing a king throughout the whole map..

[Craterus]

I don't really have a preference concerning this, so I voted yes. Why not?

[sapi]

My 2c - the reinforcement range should be the entire province, with varying reinforcement times depending on distance. But definitely there should be the possibility of lots and lots of reinforcements!

[King Henry V]

Voted yes, but only on the proposal that if you completely beat an army and drive it from the field before more reinforcements arrive, you win the battle. None of this destroying the enemy, then when the last of their broken units leave the field, hundreds of more men appear on the battlefield and you think "OH no, not more of the bu*****"

[Silver Rusher]

Voted yes, but only on the proposal that if you completely beat an army and drive it from the field before more reinforcements arrive, you win the battle. None of this destroying the enemy, then when the last of their broken units leave the field, hundreds of more men appear on the battlefield and you think "OH no, not more of the bu*****"

That's a bit unrealistic, don't you think? If the reinforcements still haven't arrived when you beat the enemy army, you can't just say "Sorry, there's nothing you can do now mates, your other army has been beaten even though your army is much bigger than theirs" when they arrive 5 minutes later.

[ZombieFriedNuts]

yes, yes they should

[x-dANGEr]

But the realistic thing was that when those reinforcements got their found no one to fight. So how can we fix that?

[Orda Khan]

I would rather see reinforcements arrive either late or in time and fight AT THE SAME TIME. Custom and MP games can run a 4v4 so why SP is limited to 1v1 and 20 units I have no idea. It would be far less easy to win a heroic victory against greater odds when those odds are all in one hit rather than the drip feed we have seen up until now

......Orda