Am I the only one finding the battles boooooooring?

[Kadagar_AV]

I used to be the type of player who could play custom battles forever... I did so in shogun, medieval and rome.

Now though, in medieval 2, I find it sooo uninteresting.

The archers refuse to fire where ordered to (and unless AI bugs as it usually does they only get one salvoe off).

Knights you order to charge usually stops some yards away from the target, and wander around aimlesly...


When units face of, only 10 out of hundred or so actualy fight, the rest stare threatingly at the enemy...

THE AI SUCKS AND THE NEW CODE MAKES COMBAT RANDON AND UNINTERESTING.

sorry for saying. I am a BIG fan of total war, but the combats in this edition is just 100% boring.

[Akka]

No, you're not alone.

I'm actually in the exact same situation, and it ruins the game for me (a game as dependant on battle as MTW2 is quite destroyed when the battle make you fell asleep...).

I actually tried to point this in this thread, and pointed the suspect (spacing between fighting units) in this thread, but there is (for now) a surprisingly low number of people who seems to have noticed it.

[Dutch_guy]

Hmm I can't say I've been experiencing those problems you seem to have.

My archers always fire at the enemy on which I tell them to, but obviously the amount of salvo's depends on the speed (IE: running or walking) the AI orders it's troops. Also, I've been hearing numerous things about that passive AI, but I have yet to experience that myself. That said, CA announced they'd fix this in the next patch, so have a bit of patience on that one.

My knights don't always engage the target I ask them to, could be because those arrogant knights have a will of their own . but other than that they use their lances when I ask them to, and use their swords when I order them to. So no obvious problems with those either.

Your third point,
Well, maybe you put your units on guard mode (first two ranks fight only, depending of course on the unit depth) or lined your units up in too deep a rank. And it wasn't the case in the previous games that all the soldiers would fight at once, you should know that considering you played all the games. In Rome you had soldiers facing the other side, while their comrades where fighting mere inches to their other side. And in Medieval only the first rank would actually engage, the others would just await their turn. Now, obviously there is room for improvement in this game, concerning the fighting of individual soldiers. But I daresay that will be so in all the games to come.

You conclude the AI sucks on what basis ? The above mentioned ? Or have I missed something.

It's common knowledge this isn't chess quality AI, and I don't think a lot of players who frequent these boards actually fear or lose (to) the AI. But saying it sucks because of reasons which may even be ones own fault is a bit harsh. Even if it is one's own opinion.

[Lycan]

those arrogant knights have a will of their own . but other than that they use their lances when I ask them to, and use their swords when I order them to. So no obvious problems with those either.

How is this done? And to what purpose?

[Dutch_guy]

How is this done? And to what purpose?

Just follow the links I gave, and see the screenshots yourself. They are quite telling.
Perhaps that in RTW too not all the men in a unit were fighting, but at least all the ones in the front were, and they were in a much tighter formation, making a mélée looking like a mélée.
Here, they seem to simply wait for their turn, and occupy a HUGE space for nothing, with a front-line made of one man every 5 metres. Ridiculous and killing any excitement the battles could create...

Lycan:

If you meant how you make them couch their lances, it's done by simply clicking once on an enemy. When close enough the knights will use their lances, and charge the enemy. If you double click on a foe, the knights will charge in using their swords.

Akka:

Well, I have seen such 'gaps' occur sporadically during combat. But thus far, only in sieges. And I don't quite see how this detracts from the gameplay. Or from the overall perception of the game. And as mentioned in your other thread, maybe this is the realistic approach ? I wouldn't know, and I don't know if it's for the best. But it doesn't ruin the battle for me, or for that matter the game, when I see this happen.

The initial charge is a bit less..hectic...than in Rome. But I think that's because you see less legionaries perform a jumping attack on an enemy. In M2 the units charge, and try to perform their killing moves. Which seems a lot less frantic then it happened in Rome.

[Kadagar_AV]

PS: I dont get my facts from hollywood movies, TBH I'm a history etacher here in sweden

[Akka]

Well, I have seen such 'gaps' occur sporadically during combat. But thus far, only in sieges. And I don't quite see how this detracts from the gameplay. Or from the overall perception of the game.

I can confirm that such huge spacing happens everywhere. It's simply that it seems that, to fight the "blob" of RTW, they made it so that fighting men need a large space aroung them.
Sure, no more "blob" due to this spacing, but no more mélée, which is quite ridiculous.

How does it detract from the gameplay or the game ?

Hu, well...

No mélée ?
In a medieval setting ?
Seeing basically 5-10 duels while it's supposed to be two formations of hundred of men crashing one into another ?
How can I immerse myself into an epic battle if there is such ridiculous spacing between my men (spearmen with a 5 m spaced formation ? Please !)

And as mentioned in your other thread, maybe this is the realistic approach ? I wouldn't know, and I don't know if it's for the best. But it doesn't ruin the battle for me, or for that matter the game, when I see this happen.

No, it's not realist. Formation of units have staying power partly because of the press and mass of men. Sure, you don't necessarily need the macedonian phalanx, with being men being shoulder-to-shoulder to maximize the "hedgehog effect" of the pike. But even the sword-wielding roman legion, with an admitedly "spaced" formation to allow men to fall back between the lines, weren't having such huge gap between them.
A formation so loose means that any tighter unit can simply trample them and push them off their way. It's not even a "loose" formation, damnit, it's a LACK of formation, they simply advance one by one in the direction of the duel and take their place each in turn. How this can be realist in any way when it comes to UNIT formations, movement and fighting ?

The initial charge is a bit less..hectic...than in Rome. But I think that's because you see less legionaries perform a jumping attack on an enemy. In M2 the units charge, and try to perform their killing moves. Which seems a lot less frantic then it happened in Rome.

Not only that, but the charges are much less powerful too, barely pushing men one step or two. I don't think that a cavalry charge should be absorbed so easily, and I don't think it's realistic for a horseman to have so little kinetic energy...

[adembroski]

Not only that, but the charges are much less powerful too, barely pushing men one step or two. I don't think that a cavalry charge should be absorbed so easily, and I don't think it's realistic for a horseman to have so little kinetic energy...

This has been driving me nuts. It drove me nuts in Rome as well. We've gone from an era when Infantry was dominant and Heavy Cav was an after thought to an era where Heavy Cav is everything and Infantry is a supporting unit, and it seems the developers got each backwards. Apparently stirrups don't count for much to this game.

[Akka]

Your third point,
Well, maybe you put your units on guard mode (first two ranks fight only, depending of course on the unit depth) or lined your units up in too deep a rank. And it wasn't the case in the previous games that all the soldiers would fight at once, you should know that considering you played all the games. In Rome you had soldiers facing the other side, while their comrades where fighting mere inches to their other side. And in Medieval only the first rank would actually engage, the others would just await their turn. Now, obviously there is room for improvement in this game, concerning the fighting of individual soldiers. But I daresay that will be so in all the games to come.

Just follow the links I gave, and see the screenshots yourself. They are quite telling.
Perhaps that in RTW too not all the men in a unit were fighting, but at least all the ones in the front were, and they were in a much tighter formation, making a mélée looking like a mélée.
Here, they seem to simply wait for their turn, and occupy a HUGE space for nothing, with a front-line made of one man every 5 metres. Ridiculous and killing any excitement the battles could create...

[Kadagar_AV]

With AI I meant own unit reaction when you order them.

It just doesnt feel like they do what I tell them to. When I play custom games, I find myself quiting the battle before it ends out of boredom, something that has never EVER happened before...

I dont feel "in control" of my troops, I dont think it's fun to watch the fights.

I mean, I ran a testgame when I first got the gaem just to see the graphics. I took one unit of knights (me) and oen unit of peasents (computer).

I just wanted to watch the mayhem... You know, like in RTW.

Result when I pressed charge was: Knights strolled forward... stoped some yards away from target. The peasents strolled in and some 10 of them started fighting my knights. Some 3 min later the peasents had lost too many men and ran, my knights chased them to map edge but didnt really manage to kill the last ones off.

I had expected something like the scene from LOTR where the riders of Rohan charge the orc flank...

Instead I got a *yawn*

[BeeSting]

Don’t let Hollywood educate you.

[grinningman]

With AI I meant own unit reaction when you order them.

It just doesnt feel like they do what I tell them to. When I play custom games, I find myself quiting the battle before it ends out of boredom, something that has never EVER happened before...

I dont feel "in control" of my troops, I dont think it's fun to watch the fights.

I mean, I ran a testgame when I first got the gaem just to see the graphics. I took one unit of knights (me) and oen unit of peasents (computer).

I just wanted to watch the mayhem... You know, like in RTW.

Result when I pressed charge was: Knights strolled forward... stoped some yards away from target. The peasents strolled in and some 10 of them started fighting my knights. Some 3 min later the peasents had lost too many men and ran, my knights chased them to map edge but didnt really manage to kill the last ones off.

I had expected something like the scene from LOTR where the riders of Rohan charge the orc flank...

Instead I got a *yawn*

I think that you are just not used to the new way you have to control troops in M2TW. Charging is very different to RTW. When you give the order to charge with cavalry, the unit starts walking towards the enemy, then they lower their lances and speed up, then finally charge at full speed. This needs a considerable amount of room to get up to charge speed - if you just click to attack close to the enemy the cavalry will leisurely walk into combat.

For foot troops charging, they again start to walk towards the enemy, and then pause when they are close to them. At this point the front rank changes to a charge animation, and then charges forward. The rear ranks then follow. It seems quite difficult to pull off a successful charge with foot troops, especially against an enemy that is trying to charge you. I've found the easiest way is to charge an already-engaged enemy.

I much prefer the way charging works in M2TW to RTW, I can't just band box my cavalry and attack, I have to carefully set things up. When you do set up a perfect cavalry charge, it feels a lot more satisfying.

A correctly executed cavalry charge is very much like LOTR scenes :)

[Husar]

I think the only thing that is somewhat bugged are charges, I like the general combat and the way it plays only charges sometimes mess up completely. At times I noticed this is because AI troops turn their backs for a short second and that makes my trrops switch to chase mode so they stop charging, but sometimes they just do something else for no good reason and do not charge correctly, apart from that I like the combat.

[Biggus Diccus]

I totally agree with Akka on this one. Charging with infantry makes only for the first two lines to actually engage the enemy, the rest just lug around in the background watching the spectacle and making some defensive stance. This might be what Akka refers to as units spacing out. I have found that I have to make a infanty-unit run behind the enemy target and order the attack when all the men on top of the enemy to actually have my infantry engage in melee properly. This happens both in sieges and regular field battles.

Regarding charging cavalry I almost don't bother anymore. Lately I have started to use cavalry to chase routers or melee other cavalry only, because of the issues with charges.

Another thing about the combat-system in this game: why even bother displaying the stats of units? For the most part the stats don't tell you anything how they will perform against each other. You only know this through trial and error. I engaged a unit of Armored Swordsmen head on with a unit of Pilgrims (this was on Med, no generals) and it managed to pin the swordsmen and perform extremely well, considering the stats.