Originally Posted by jwj442
Yes, but notice that "kill rates" were mentioned as one of the "loose ends" he was working on.
Re: Interview at CVG!
Yes, but notice that "kill rates" were mentioned as one of the "loose ends" he was working on.
"In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns."
Re: Interview at CVG!
Yeah sure, but on the bright side: Kill rates are worked upon!
The lions sing and the hills take flight.
The moon by day, and the sun by night.
Blind woman, deaf man, jackdaw fool.
Let the Lord of Chaos rule.
—chant from a children's game heard in Great Aravalon, the Fourth Age
Re: Interview at CVG!
Wait so they'll do eras for MP but not SP? Great, seeing as nobody plays MP much I cant really see this as important.
Re: Interview at CVG!
They might make them faster...
Re: Interview at CVG!
Historically, kill rates in battle and in individual duels were quite fast, not like hollywood sparring where one of the combatants fights, looses his sword then both start punching each other, then regain their swords, then .....
It usually ended within 20 seconds with someone dead.
Re: Interview at CVG!
And we can be pretty certain that battles didnt have each rank of soldiers killed off every 20 seconds. A soldier with armour and big shield is not that easy to kill.
The MP eras is nice but it still looks like its gonna be a clickfest...
CBR
Re: Interview at CVG!
yes and such a person armed with a warhammer or an axe can kill quick, see.
Re: Interview at CVG!
So according to you any battle between armies would be over in just a few minutes?
CBR
Re: Interview at CVG!
If that where so then Medieval Lords would have just armed entire armies with said war hammers, and axes.
Re: Interview at CVG!
For duels it was based all on skills of the 2 individiuals and thier style wether aggresive or defensive.
As far as battles the kill rates were slow until a route occurred and only then if they had sufficient cavalry that was within range to carry on the pursuit. The winners typically did'nt want to ditch there valuable armour to kill the losers, so in most cases infantry were safe from infantry.
As in the high kill rates when a route occurs I'd have to say RTW is more accurate for that matter than MTW is. Many armies were annilated from a route. But for gameplays sake I'd prefer MTW style as the A.I. usually could get away with a decent amount of men and quite often after 1 or 2 of these battles the A.I. cities are left wide open.
When a fox kills your chickens, do you kill the pigs for seeing what happened? No you go out and hunt the fox.
Cry havoc and let slip the HOGS of war
Re: Interview at CVG!
I'm not sure you can talk about whether TW kill rates are "historical" in any literal sense[1]. The TW battle engine, while one of the best available, is too stylised to be taken as a direct representation. What actually went on in a battle - the orders, the pauses, the confusions, the fog of war etc - is light years away from the simple clash of units in the game. There's also an element of scaling - most real battles lasted much longer than we want to be spending playing them out and often involved a lot more men than our computers can handle. (RTW probably works best if you see it as 1 computer man = 10 real men.)
To me, the issue of kill rates, like movement speeds, is primarily a gameplay one - if they are too high, the action is too frenetic and hard to control. Slowing things down allows you to use tactics more and also to savour the action.
[1]If we were to take it literally, RTW kill rates are not necessarily absurd. I remember seeing a medieval warfare expert on TV with some of his students. He got one, a fit looking young man in armour to engage in sequential combat with half a dozen of the others. He was exhausted after 20 seconds.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks