Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[Gigantus]

That's how the game mechanic works when you press the 'Rout' (run away in uncontrollable panic) button. If that didn't lead to a penalty then I would consider it a major cheat - use your expensive missile units and then let them rout once they expended their ammunition, like he cited, is such an example.

In fact, even if he did himself withdraw, with all his forces, he should not get a black mark

Utter BS where I am concerned - he was too dumb not to commit in the first place (unless he couldn't prevent to enter an engagement - which again is poor tactics to start with)

[Ludens]

That's how the game mechanic works when you press the 'Rout' (run away in uncontrollable panic) button. If that didn't lead to a penalty then I would consider it a major cheat - use your expensive missile units and then let them rout once they expended their ammunition, like he cited, is such an example.

But I think he is talking about the "withdraw" option, not the "rout" one. And withdrawing troops that cannot contribute to the battle further is a sensible precaution, not a sign of cowardice. It only becomes cowardice if the general himself leaves, or lets the entire army fall back before the battle is decided (but I get that the M2:TW trait engine cannot recognize the latter situation).

Utter BS where I am concerned - he was too dumb not to commit in the first place (unless he couldn't prevent to enter an engagement - which again is poor tactics to start with)

Yes, it's a sign of poor tactics, not lack of courage.

[Gigantus]

You cannot 'withdraw' single units during battle - you can just force them to rout. What's the problem with marching them to a quiet or hidden spot? That's what I always do.

Withdrawal before battle (refusing to engage) does not cause a penalty afaik.

[Cruin]

Yes -- I am talking of a simple withdrawal of some missile troops (using the "withdraw" button) -- that in itself (or the bringing in of reinforcements, I don't know which) triggers the Coward increment, and gives the general a "Doubtful Courage".

As for withdrawing entirely, Gigantus responded to:

"In fact, even if he did himself withdraw, with all his forces, he should not get a black mark"

with:
"Utter BS where I am concerned - he was too dumb not to commit in the first place (unless he couldn't prevent to enter an engagement - which again is poor tactics to start with) "

Well... you have the right to think that, but it is pretty common military tactics for a force to sometimes engage with the intention of withdrawing before the battle is "over" (whatever “over” means here). For instance, one might want to weaken the enemy, or delay him, or draw him out, or provoke him, or simply probe his forces.

You might think engaging a strong force without clear hope of winning is dumb, or poor tactics, but sometimes it is, simply, the best option open to a General.

And, inevitably, it can happen due to things beyond a General's control – the enemy has reinforcements or some tactical advantage that was hidden by the fog of war, or expected friendly reinforcements did not arrive on time, or, as often as not, the General simply underestimated the enemy's strength. And, here finally, you can call it “dumb” – but all the best Generals in history have done this on occasion. So what would you have him do under these circumstances – bravely fight it out until all his men are killed or routed? Or recognize the situation, and withdraw his forces in the best order he can manage?

In the simple terms of TW games, I know a lot of the above situations (of truncated engagements) do not apply -- and game battles are "won" or "lost" by a count of numbers, or by which army routs -- but that only sometimes reflects how battle are fought in the real world -- where battles have a mission, or purpose, which often goes beyond these simple terms. And that was also true in the classic world -- think of Thermopholie, where the Spartans entered a losing battle to delay the enemy, or if you want negative examples, think of Pyrrus, who bravely won battles but lost the war, or even Hannibal who could gain a victory but "did not know what to do with it."

Anyway, interesting as the discussion is, in this case, that is not the EBII problem I am talking about. Trust me, I did not hit any "rout" button, I just withdrew missile troops and brought in some reinforcements, and the General was tagged Coward (this has happened a few times). As for whether doing this is a “major cheat” – don't be silly, it is part of the game, it is the only way you can bring in reinforcements (it is how the enemy brings in reinforcements too). It is also described in the TW manual as an “ordered withdrawal of troops” as opposed to a disorganized rout.

Regards,

Cruin.

[Cruin]

OOps -- I see our replies were sent in together, so we missed each other.
Gigantus you said-
You cannot 'withdraw' single units during battle - "

Sorry, yes you can. There is a withdraw button on the wheel, when the unit card is selected. And if you are fielding large armies, it is the only way to clear a slot to bring in reinforcements.

Regards,

Cruin.

[Arjos]

That "withdraw button" is a "rout button" really, game engine-wise you are forcing the selected unit to panic off the battlefield...

Historically missiles troops were infamous for skirmishing, sitting the battle out and coming back to cut down heavier and slower opponents. Already choosing to "withdraw" them away from the battlefield is ahistorical and gamey...

About the delaying tactics, harassing etc. Perfectly agreed, but silly CA made an engine not based on actual tactics and warfare. The game will always consider those as routs, for example nomadic factions cannot shoot all their arrows, withdraw and call it a victory. That's the system we have to work with...

As for such functions "being part of the game", well the actual design behind the game isn't about accuracy, so in our mod those are cheats really...
You have the freedom to use them, but the mod is not tailored for their use...

Regarding the need to get reinforcements in, M2TW allows them to be led by the AI and you can even select their behaviour between defensive and offensive. Thus fielding more than 20 units on the battle map...

Even if in the manual it is called ordered, the workaround they used with the engine is to force a rout. Thus when we script that routing causes the General to have the possibility to gain the doubtful courage trait. The scenario you've described can happen...

Had they made that button an actual ordered retreat, then we'd have no issues here as the engine would register it as something else...

[Gigantus]

That "withdraw button" is a "rout button" really, game engine-wise you are forcing the selected unit to panic off the battlefield...

That's what I meant, sorry if I wasn't clear.

Well... you have the right to think that, but it is pretty common military tactics for a force to sometimes engage with the intention of withdrawing before the battle is "over" (whatever “over” means here). For instance, one might want to weaken the enemy, or delay him, or draw him out, or provoke him, or simply probe his forces

Sorry for being blunt: trying to apply that to a game engine one knows that it doesn't (can't) support it and then complain about it is what eventually led me to the 'dumb' response. Guerrilla tactics simply are not supported by the game, never have, never will. It has got 'Total' in the name = if you engage in a battle be prepared to be decimated, routed, annihilated. Expecting to be able walk away when it doesn't go well for you is a 'common' desire but utterly unrealistic in this game. You either win a battle, get annihilated or rout. And leaving the battle field during the battle is routing where the game engine is concerned - regardless what the reason is.

You want to weaken the enemy? Then you annihilate his armies and\or take his settlements.
You want to provoke him? Then raid his settlements (raze and leave to revolt).
You want to probe his forces? Send a spy, or sacrifice a cheap unit to reconnoiter.

If you wish to use more realistic tactics then I can recommend the 'Order of Battle' game series (I totally enjoyed the 'Morning Sun' DLC) - Total War is the wrong choice for it.

Once more - sorry for being blunt. But this is not an advanced combat\strategy simulator - ignoring the limitations and expecting otherwise is simply willful ignorance.

[Cruin]

When does a withdrawal become a rout?

I guess most of this is in reply to Arjos, but some is also to Gigantos. You guys are starting to circle the wagons, so I am having hard time seeing who is firing back from behind the wheels.

No– the withdraw button is what it says: a withdraw button – I know it uses the same icons (the white flags) but it is different from a a panicked rout.

For one, the unit will not, by itself “rally” or come back (they have been ordered to go)

Neither will they run off in crazy directions. They will head strait for the border.

It is reversible – if the unit has not left the field, you can change your mind and call them back.

Lastly, it is described in the TW manuals as serving this purpose, so obviously, that was the original intention. Rewriting or re-interpreting that intention might be your choice, but that is what you are doing here.

“Historically missiles troops were infamous for skirmishing, sitting the battle out and coming back to cut down heavier and slower opponents. Already choosing to "withdraw" them away from the battlefield is ahistorical and gamey...”

I'm not so sure about this – it was sometimes true during medieval times, where archers had some armor and carried swords, and I'm sure it happened during classical times, but I don't see some poor Greek slinger going into the fray to take on a roman legionary.

Anyway, that is not its purpose. Withdraw simply tells the unit to get itself out of harms way, so I (the general here) do not have to worry about it anymore. I expect them to go away and avoid trouble – it does not always work, sometimes they can get caught by some cavalry unit or other while withdrawing, and that is quite historical.

Whether CA made a game based on more complex strategy and tactics or not, I can still attempt to use them in play (can't stop myself really). As for whether it gives a bad mark for withdrawing from a battle or not, it does not, as far as I know (although, as I said, it tends to overemphasize a simplistic view of heroism, by, for instance, rewarding heroic victories, even if the general stupidly lost practically all his men).

But that does not mean EBII has to go further and penalize a general for withdrawing some troops. Forgive me if I am wrong here, but I believe the “Coward” attribute (level 1 being “Doubtful courage”) is an EBII attribute. Is this not so? If it is, then it was your decision to penalize withdrawal, not CA's.

As for bringing in reinforcements as AI-controlled armies – I know one can do this, I just prefer not too (they are just too stupid). But obviously if the game gave me a mechanism not to have to do this, and to bring in reinforcements (slowly) as I clear slots for them, then it is not a cheat for me to do so.

The enemy, AI armies, may actually need to rout some of their units to get in their reinforcements, I think the mechanism is a wee bit different, they seem to get all their reinforcing units at once. But anyway, the enemy AI gets reinforcements too – so it's all fair, there is no cheat here.

Lastly, as for enemies withdrawing, you said:
“nomadic factions cannot shoot all their arrows, withdraw and call it a victory”

Are you talking about withdrawing some archers to get their reinforcements? Or withdrawing all their army to save from losing too many men. They do both, often, at least in Vanilla TW. They have to withdraw (or in the simplified AI options, it might actually be rout) some of their forces before they can get reinforcements. They can then easily continue to a “victory.”

As for withdrawing all their forces, they don't get a “victory,” but neither do I get one if I withdraw all my forces. But as to them not doing it – don't kid yourself! In vanilla TW they do it all the time. Actually, I was always impressed by the way the Hun and Timmerid armies in MedII TW would attack fearlessly, and then, if the battle went against them, reverse and get the hell out of there. They seemed to care as little as I did as to whether the scroll said it was a “victory” or not.

You can't have this both ways. You claim that it is the CA game engine that actually considers withdrawals as routs, but then you go on to assert that “as for such functions "being part of the game", well the actual design behind the game isn't about accuracy, so in our mod those are cheats really...” Which is it? It is that they don't have a “withdrawal” function, or is it that they do, but it was not accurate, so those are cheats.

And as for saying “You have the freedom to use them, but the mod is not tailored for their use...” This misses the point: the whole intellectual discussion about what constitute good or bad generalship is interesting in terms of game design but is not the real issue – the problem of tagging generals with “doubtful courage” is an EB II problem, it does not occur in vanilla TW. If you are desciding you want to change the game and start penalizing what you percieve as some kind of cowardice, then so be it – but you must be ready to accept criticism from people who question that decission.

Also, it's a bit like saying – “Well maybe this mod is not for you. You should just like it or leave it.” Then why invite criticism at all? Even more blatent were statements from Gigantus such as:

“Total War is the wrong choice for it (deeper strategies). Once more - sorry for being blunt. But this is not an advanced combat\strategy simulator - ignoring the limitations and expecting otherwise is simply willful ignorance.”

The phrase “willful ignorance” is interesting. Let me assure you, I can be plenty ignorant without any act of will on my part. But the way I chose to play my games (whether rugby, chess, checkers, MMO Siege Wars, or TW) are how I chose to play them. If I have a keen sense of strategy, then that's how I play, and I work around the limitations of the game or game engine (do not we all play like this?)

I don't expect otherwise of the vanilla TW game engine – I expected otherwise of you – the creators of EBII. I expected if I told you of a problem, that you would say “Yup, that's a problem, we can fix that.” Which you can, quite easily, by changing export_character_attributes or whatever the file is called and fixing it. Instead you give me all this guff about the limitations of the CA game engine.

I thought these forums were about us users giving feedback? I kind of feel like I'm having to pull teeth here – I tell you of a problem, I explain why it's a problem. First you say my idea is “”BS and (by extension – seeing it it really me who is controlling the generals) that my strategies are “dumb” and “poor tactics.” When I gently are carefully explain that y ideas are quite fitting with historical military strategy, you agree, but then say that the TW engine is not built for historical accuracy – even though the whole point here was to try and improve on the TW engine. Then finally you start sort of ganging up and saying, “move on then, this game, and this mod, is just not for you!”

I think, perhaps, I have rubbed you the wrong way, or perhaps I have just found way too many faults in your baby, but like I say, it really feels like you guys are circling the wagons.


Look guys, I was for years a programmer, and I did a fair number of those years working in quality assurance. I am now a professional writer and editor. I am used to editing, and giving and receiving criticism.

I know that EBII is your baby, and you have every right to be proud of it. It is a marvelous piece of work. But it does (obviously) still have a few... uhem.... problems (I have seen, already, how you react to the word “bugs”). You have invited feedback (the battlefield general I mentioned before invites feedback every time one enters a battle). I am giving you just and honest feedback. But if you fight me so hard on these (what I consider) small and obvious problems, I fear to get into some of the deeper, but more subtle, historical inaccuracies in EBII.

So, I beg you all, try and accept the criticism I give as an attempt to help you improve EBII, and not a direct attack on your baby.

With fond regards,

Cruin.