Do You Like...

[The Spartan (Returns)]

do you like many battles in RTW?
or few but deicisive battles in RTW?
i like deicisive battles.
if i see 5 or more full stacks in a factions' regions, then im turned off for conquering that faction.

[YAKOBU]

Hi The Spartan

If I still had RTW I would vote for big but decisive battles. One of my bugbears with the game was the constant battles against rebels and small stacks. I didn't like auto-resolving as I would lose key troops I otherwise would have kept. I also hated the AI using generals with small stacks which were easy meat.

[Ciaran]

Nice and big battles for me. Like two Hordes in BI facing each other (lags horribly but the pure sight of the setup screen is worth seeing).

You know what´s fun? You manage to bring an army to besiege an enemy city (with a full garrison, of course) and the AI actually manages to get two other army stacks close to you. Getting attacked from three sides can really ruin your day (or make it, if you, against all odds and expectations , win through)

[econ21]

I don't particularly like putting 6+ stack hordes through the salami slicer, although you could argue that at least is decisive.

I would say one full stack battle per province captured would be about right.

That said, I do tend to play RTW on very hard because then at least the AI will tend to have full stacks, even if they often have multiple ones. I don't like fighting small battles that favour me. I don't mind the VH campaign setting of RTW.

I found the late game Shogun battles could often get too large and repetitive (Hojo horde). MTW was ok, IIRC, if you did not have to conquer the world (GA game).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The big battles you win while sweating the whole way through are the best.

But I also like the little rebel stacks. The challenge is to take out all of their 3-4 units without suffering a single casualty. I do like things neat.

[Ciaran]

I found the late game Shogun battles could often get too large and repetitive (Hojo horde). MTW was ok, IIRC, if you did not have to conquer the world (GA game).

The difference between the huge battles in RTW compare to MTW is, in RTW you face all enemies at once, or at least almost, as the surplus stacks rush onto the battlefield as soon as the battle starts. In MTW you fight sixteen units, no more (unless there´s an allied army in the province, then things get exciting). For each one you chase off the field, a new one comes up, and so on. That´s what makes the MTW battles feel a bit dragging.

[Caius]

A very big battle who decides the war

[rotorgun]

I mostly like the big battles, as it is more historical in a sense. It depends on the faction I'm playing against. For instance, with factions such as the Guals or Brittons, and what are considered the "Barbarian tribes", I like the way the AI throws a lot of armies at you, that are mostly incapable of beating you on their own, while occasionally attacking you with a massive army that you are outnumbered by. This simulates the divided nature of their tribal societies, never allying with one another except occasionally for the decisive battles for key provinces.

When fighting one of the "civilized" factions, such as Greece, Parthia, or Egypt, I think that there should be more manuvering by large armies, maybe allied with another big faction, for the decisive pitched battle that will drive the enmy into his city defenses if he loses. This is much more like history because there were few nations that could afford to feild more than one or two large armies. This is why Rome was so successful, because they could come up with the resources to field multiple armies, even after defeats such as Cannae. Whereas if, say the Greeks lost a major battle, it was time to sue for terms.

As for the rebels, they are modelled pretty well for the most part. I especially like the way certain regions tend to rebel more often, such as the area around Jeruselam, or in the Barbarian territories. I do wish the rebellions would sometimes occasionally be more like attempts by the occupied areas to regain independence. This did happen during ancient times, and usually led to a major siege or battle against well equipped forces. I think the rebels in RTW/BI, etc. are mostly supposed to represent the many brigands and bandits that roamed the countryside, oftimes during periods of economic hardship such as happen when your treasury get low and discontent grows among your population.

Good poll,

[Orb]

Rotorgun, what gives you the idea that the Gauls were somehow disorganised (historically)?

I've seen a lot of people saying this and not a lot of proof to back it. The tribal society was under a monarchy, so it would have been just as organised as e.g. Seleucia or the Ptolemies.

[CountArach]

I prefer a single massive battle. It seems more epic and it is also more historical. Also in EB this is the only real possibility (Due to the cost of the unit upkeep).

[Augustus Lucifer]

Definitely a fan of big decisive battles. If the general's speeches for the Julii would say 1/4 or more of enemies armies for any given battle, those are the battles I like to fight. May as well duke it all out survival of the fittest rather than slowly peck away while the other AI take over the world.

[Celt Centurion]

I prefer the fewer battles myself.

After finally figuring out how to unlock factions, I played and won a short campaign as Macedon which wasn't too bad, but then I started one as the Scythians.

Macedon had been my ally, but they betrayed me. I have since destroyed their armies but they still have a few cities with a few troops.

Macedon has since allied with Brutii, who has attacked me at Larissa every second turn for, what, eight turns? The Brutii have sent 4 stacks, the first totally packed, and the others slightly smaller to break my gates. I have held on by letting archers pick them off from the walls, horse archers grind them into fertilizer, and heavy cavalry to finish them off. Four stacks I've destroyed, I'm under siege again, and I still see two more stacks coming down from Appollonia. Where are they coming from?

It's basically the same battle, fought over and over, the only differences being that each stack is a unit or 2 less than the one before, and every few turns I recruit another unit of Chosen Archers, meaning, I get stronger. I have a half stack on the way to take Thessalonica from Macedon, which seems to be adding a new unit each turn.

They started with armies of about 3,000, of whom all but 90 were killed. Then about 75% killed, and another with 86%. They keep coming to sacrifice themselves on my arrowheads.

I do not know where the Brutii is getting all those units to throw at me. Only 20 or so turns into the game, they only have about 3-4 regions, but somehow they can recruit 10 units for each one I recruit, if I have the money.

I've eliminated Thrace, and nearly eliminated Macedon already, but having to beat away the Brutii nearly every turn, and retrain for casualties does not leave time nor money to go after the others.

Somehow, I still have to remove Dacia from the equation.

Fewer, more decisive battles would be better.

Strength and Honor

Celt Centurion

[Ciaran]

I once had something similar, playing the Bruti, I besieged Thessalonica, then owned by Macedon. The Macedons brought up eight stacks of reinforcements, each and every tile around my single Bruti army was occupied. The first battle was epic, not all eight stacks were full, but three or four were, as was the garrison of Thessalonica. I managed to defeat them, but the problem was, each of the eight stacks started it´s own attack and every time the leftovers from the other stacks came onto the battlefield. In the end I fought eight battles, all on the same field, in one single turn and with each battle the other armies got weaker (well, so did I, but less so than the defeated Macedons). A better solution for a situation like that would have been a rule that a stack can only fight one offensive battle per turn, whether initiating it or coming as reinforcement.

But still, the first battle was truly epic, seeing a couple of full stack phalanx armies march up from all sides - that´s a sight you don´t forget in a hurry. Henry V comes to my mind:

WESTMORELAND. Of fighting men they have full three-score thousand.

EXETER. There's five to one; besides, they all are fresh.
[...]
WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING. What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
[...]
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Act IV Scene III of Shakespeare´s Henry V.

But for the details, it would have been truly a fitting general´s speech.

[naut]

Ciaran, very appropriate.

Like the battle I'm fighting now. Why do Macedon get so many different types of Phalanx units?

Decisive battles are much more exhilarating, you have the added incentive of destroying at least half of your enemies standing army!

[Ciaran]

Indeed.
Why, all Greek factions get loads of phalanx units, but very little else, except the Seleucids. But the Macedons at least get good cavalry in addition to their phalanxes.

[Severous]

I like to destory the AI armies whenever I encounter them....big or small no matter.

I would rather seek out,fight and destroy several small groups. Kill them before they can unite into a big dangerous stack. Attack the stacks led by the least able commanders.

So I voted for the bleed them dry.

That said...a huge battle won is more memorable than efficient peicemeal destruction of the enemy.

[Quillan]

That's an odd experience, Ciaran, and contrary to my recent experience. I don't know if behavior was bugging in your case or mine, or perhaps it was changed in a patch. I've been playing RTR, and rushed up to relieve a Gallic seige on Gergovia. I didn't quite have the movement to engage the beseiging army, but ended my turn adjacent to both the Gauls and the town. I was attacked by another Gallic army that moved in, with the garrison coming in to assist me and the beseigers coming in to assist the attacking Gauls. I won the fight, and both the Gallic armies were forced to retreat, which broke the seige. In your case, the garrison would have had to retreat back into the town, and if other armies moved up to attack you I could see them fighting multiple times in the season, but your first victory should have pushed all those other armies away.

[Ciaran]

If I remember correctly, that battle was with patch 1.2.

Maybe it was because I was besieging the town that my army didn´t chase the others away, as I believe that in a field battle what you stated holds true - all defeated armies get pushed back. But perhaps that´s not the case if the army that gets attacked is engaged in a siege. I don´t know, but that battle wasn´t the only one when a besieging army of me got attacked repeatedly in one turn with multiple stacks, it was just the one time I remember best.

Then again, the situation you describe is reversed - you are besieged and the besieging army comes to the field as reinforcements, so maybe that counts as a normal field battle.

[Quillan]

Yes, that might be it as well. Question though, I'm assuming you got one of those "Legendary battle" markers after that fight?

[Ciaran]

After one of those eight battles, yes, definitely, though I don´t recall which (it´s almost a year ago, after all). You need a heroic victory to get one of those, and I still don´t know how the game determines what kind of victory (heroic, clear, close) was achieved. The number of men on each side might play a role, as well as the losses caused and suffered, but maybe the units that routed off field (many routers -> many survivors -> not decisive) plays a role as well. In such huge battles you tend to win by routing the enemy, as you don´t have the men to spare to run down all the routers, at least that tends to be the case for me.

[Celt Centurion]

That does make sense, but usually, I do send out cavalry to chase down and cut down routing enemies. Rarely do more than a few get out of the battlefield.

The exception being, they can run faster than my troops can.

Strength and Honor

Celt Centurion

After one of those eight battles, yes, definitely, though I don´t recall which (it´s almost a year ago, after all). You need a heroic victory to get one of those, and I still don´t know how the game determines what kind of victory (heroic, clear, close) was achieved. The number of men on each side might play a role, as well as the losses caused and suffered, but maybe the units that routed off field (many routers -> many survivors -> not decisive) plays a role as well. In such huge battles you tend to win by routing the enemy, as you don´t have the men to spare to run down all the routers, at least that tends to be the case for me.

[MSB]

I love big battles really, despite the lag....

POST 100 YAY YAY YAY YAY

[Quillan]

You can't always do that, Celt. I haven't had one as big as Ciaran, but I have taken on 3 armies at once before. In that circumstance, you can't afford to break formation, because there are a lot more fresh troops coming. Quite often, those fresh troops are behind the ones routing, so even trying to take down a few of them might cost you the cav or general unit you're using to pursue. It's a pain, but normally you can't devote time to chasing them down until the last army starts running, by which time the earlier ones are either off the map or very close to the edge. That's not even counting how many of them turn and come back because the battle goes on long enough to allow them to recover.

[Mithras]

Big decisive battles

I recall a Bi game where my single WE elite stack fought a truly brutal battle against the Goths 5 stacks of scum with a battle hardened regular stack to back them up, the battle was so epic that it could be divided into four stages...like any good siege. (this was all at night to it looked awsome)

Battle 1 defence of the walls: the walls are under full scale attack, realising I can't hold all the walls i resolve to hold 1 which leads most directly into the city center and delay the enemy at the others with units of foederti. The defended wall is a slaughterhouse the Goth pouring their slaves onto the walls with my Comitatenses butchering the poor wretches whilsts my archer poured fire into their ranks the Goths suffer grotesque loses on the walls with a minimal price paid in Roman blood. Unfortunatly the Goths have overun two of the other walls (the third managed to destroy their siege engines) and where now pouring into the south and west gates.

Goth win

Battle 2 the fighting regroup : having lost the walls I now attempt to pull my troups into the city streets where the Goths strengths: Numbers and speed, will be undone. However Goth horsemen are already pouring into all sections of the city and harrying my troops along the way. I suffer casualties through arrow fire and am forced to sacrifice a com unit to buy time for the others to move into a superior postion...although enough of this unit remains intact to fight later.

Strong Goth win

Battle 3 the cavalry counter attack: The Goth archers now make a fatal mistake, they bypass the foot troops and make for city centre. The emperor and two battle hardened units of Sarmatian Cavalry the Goth pour straight into them. Within moments the Goths have suffered massive losses and the bulk of the horse archers have been decimated: even if the Goth win today they'll be down to a handful of horsemen. This event knocks the Emperor and a the rest of the Cavalry up a few ranks.

Heroic Rome Win

Battle 4 The defence of the temple district. The main Goth have suffered heavy casualties due to the AI's inability to secure the walls notheless the main bulk of their army is still intact including their swordsmen. the Comms have now re-deployed in the path of the horde-around the awsome temple of Mithras. At the same time the 3 units of Auxilia Palatina are deployed to block the smaller, weaker force advancing through another path to the plaza. This is where the battle reaches its climax the floor is covered in Roman and Goth dead in front of the war gods shrine. The Romans superior fighting skill against the endless mass of the Goths cannon fodder and their Choosen swordsmen. The battle Reaches it's climax as the Romans reach routing point The Emperor arrives and his might battle roar hardens the resolve of the line. until the Auxilia Palatina having destroyed the smaller force reinforce the Roman line Gradually pushing the Goths back. The Goths numbers drained they commit their generals to the fighting-3 are lost and the last two rout when the Emperor personally slays the Gothic king.

Close Roman win

Battle 5 Endgame: What's left of the goth army is either withdrawing or routing with the Cavalry ruthlessly butchering any who stop. Somehow a handful of slave units turn and delay the Cavalry-sacrificing themselves to save their comrades. The surviving Romans begin to march towards the gates. mere moments behind the Goth securing them in the name of Rome. The 1st cohort (down to 30 men) watches from the city gates as the Goths run tail turned between their legs

The Goths where effectivly destroyed as a faction following the siege. their family members hunted down shortly afterwards-the visigoths never emerged. Had the Romans lost the Goths could have taken Italy at will.



That's why big big decisive battles rule-Drama, cool moments and satisfying results. If I'd lost then I'd have enjoyed the desperate fighting around italy as a massive hoard piled in whilst I desperatly churned out units and grabbed any mercs I could.