Fewer but more important battles?

[Istari6]

Having just finished the Americas and Teutonic Order campaigns in Kingdoms, I was thinking about changes for the next revision of the Total War series.

The #1 thing that emerges is the desire to have fewer battles, but to have those battles at a slower pace and with greater strategic importance.

Looking back on RTW, M2TW and Kingdoms, I realized how much time I spent "smacking down" stack after stack of enemy troops. Defending a territory meant enduring a constant stream of stacks, while invading meant wading through a similar # just to get to decisive cities.

This leads to literally hundreds of battles over the course of a campaign. I believe I was at 173 battles when I finished the Teutonic Order last night! The problem is that very few of the individual battles were "make-or-break". If you beat one stack, there'd be another right behind it. Very rarely in either game was there the kind of battles I remember so fondly from the original Medieval Total War - the single battle where all the chips are on the table.

In MTW, you had one major battle to break into a territory, and another major battle to take the fortified settlement/castle at the core of that territory. This led to far fewer battles, but each battle was at a slower tactical pace that allowed development of a wide range of tactics, and was infused with a sense of drama because this battle would often be decisive for that region.

Knowing that CA is reworking the campaign map for the next engine, I hope they can return to "fewer but decisive" in the number of tactical battles. Does anyone else share this hope? Has there been any word about this yet in any of the previews?

Thanks,

Chris

[Frost, colonel]

I agree partly, it depends on how difficult the battle's are, and also it's called Total War for a reason. If I spend time getting an army together I want quite a few decent scraps.

[Agent Provocateur]

I agree in that manyof the battles are senseless. I don't want to have to wade through stacks and stacks of peasants or other useless armies. I don't mind lots of battles as col Frost says it is called Total War, just make them against an enemy that makes it interesting.

[Sol Invictus]

I agree, after destroying the fiftieth random AI army, I can barely summon up the strength to finish a TW game. My games degenerates into a dreamy state where I become lost in endless carnage; not the enjoyable kind. Hopefully, since conquest in Europe proper is not the main goal, we will see fewer but more meaningful wars and battles.

[Empress Meg]

I agree as well. Good to see someone wanting a slightly more advanced game.

Devoirs The Empress

[AdmiringtheEnemyeh?]

Yea i think this is the right direction to be moving in. Fewer more decisive battles over colonies, trade routes (sea and land) , forts and critical land.

[Cadmium77]

I wish that this time CA would just stop and sit down and seriously ponder what they have created, what has made its initial success, what is wrong with it now and what will make it a greater success in the future. More of the same in a new costume simply won't do.

The graphics are good enough guys.

What is needed is a more realistic sense of what warfare is all about and that is not lining up two armies for a quick US football scrimmage. That is the road to deadly boredom. There are better things to do with one's time and money if that is all TW is going to be.

Remember; TW was initially successful because it overestimated the intelligence and tastes of the public:STW was way ahead of it's time and still is aesthetically superior to anything CA has done since. If they think that underestimating it is the road for the future then ultimately they'll be in for a sad surprise.

[Maréchal_Martin]

I support this idea, fewer, more decisive battles.

[Darsh]

Agreed, I have already posted a topic about fewer, bigger and more decisive battles for ETW.

Perhaps we could make a petition?

[Jack Lusted]

Perhaps we could make a petition?

Please don't make petitions, we react much better to people just poisting suggestions on forums than to petitions.

[Darsh]

and don't forget that we must have also bigger maps for bigger battles.

[Ludicus]

Yea i think this is the right direction to be moving in. Fewer more decisive battles over colonies, trade routes (sea and land) , forts and critical land.

That´s my point of view.

[Hohenstaufen]

Fewer, Bigger(okej that depends on many factors), and important battles.....
This requiers a very smart AI though.....Because when you have fewer battles it means your army is PRECIOUS and you'll not waste it away(classic AI)......So a better AI comes along with the Fewer,Bigger,more Impotant

[Darsh]

A battle with only 3 units of infantery and 2 units artillery should not existed, remember the A.I armies in RTW and MTW2.
I hope we will forget these battles in ETW.

[Empress Meg]

I disagree, they should exist. In fact, many smaller clashes did occur. A great tactic is to raid supply conveys, dispatch convoys and so forth. Smaller battles should still be pissible, but there should be a reason for them. This is my point in making my above comment.

In RTW and MTW2, there were random armies marching about with no purpose, sometimes they were remnants of largers armies, simetimes they were made to form into larger armies and sometimes there were just there to hang out in your land and cause you to wonder what was going on with the AI. The point is, they did nothing but slow you down or randomly attack a smaller force that you were going to combine into a larger host. Such armies should cease to be. I understand this will not always be the case and I do wish there to be leyway in this. Nothing should be so cut and dry as to cause the game to become repeative quickly.

A reinforcement force of a couple of companies and their regimental guns would be very exciting to encounter with a small scouting party of your own. Little ambushes could happen because of this. It would also, historically, cause that location to redouble it's outposts and pickets in addition to increasing the strengh of it's smaller forces. This would drain their resources elsewhere- one would hope. It would be most effective for the nations/players who enjoy hit and run tactics, who need ot save cash, or just want to add a different twist to the game. Of course, the larger invasion force will not be troubled by these minor confrontations; they will simply hit the larger troops depots and fortifications and the rest will follow. It will follow that these smaller detachments and reinforcements would either have to form elsewhere or be destroyed piece meal. Things like this would add a slight level of interest to the game without the major battles becoming tedious because it will allow for the player to either adpt similiar tactics or completely ignore the reinforcement forces and focus on the larger, more direct battles.

Devoirs The Empress

[Samuel Adams]

I am hoping for some different battle tactics as they come specific to the period. The new fortresses will be nice, but I'd also like to see "camps," similar to the forts of RTW and MIITW, but without the walls; maybe earth redoubts at most, and have random infantry units on "picket" duty.

Therefore, the option upon attacking an enemy would come up similar to "attempt night attack," where you can try to surprise an enemy camp, or the AI could attempt to surprise you. That way, instead of the defender of a "camp" having a siege against them (no walls-no siege) or being able to deploy, you start the battle with only your picket lines deployed, and you have to rally your army/detachment to the defense.

Also, something I thought of-if anyone played civilization, you'll remember your caravans would go to another town and establish a "trade route." Maybe with transport/cargo civilian ships you could do this, but still have them on the campaign map, moving at each turn/realtime (depending on the style they choose) so that you can attack and prey on other nation's trade shipping or trade caravans.

[micromegas]

I'd like to say that TW has revolutionized RTS gaming and I have followed them from the start. I really appreciate their attention to history.

There are two reasons for the many small battles of RTW and MTWII:

- Each army had a limit of 20 units in RTW, this means that a large force would have to fight separately. I imagine this was due to graphics limitations.

- The new Civs style map, which was an improvement over the Risk style map of the previous games meant that you couldn't invade an entire territory all at once with everything you had. I think this was an important improvement but had the limitation listed above.


The first and foremost thing that needs to be improved is the AI. I don't play RTW campaigns anymore because all of my battles are exactly the same and this gets boring, I even play the game on vh/vh and I hardly ever lose. So I'm big into multiplayer now.

One big decisive battle where an entire nation is at stake would replicate the history of the era really well. There were usually several smaller skirmshes that happened in a campaign but it would normally all build to a climax in one large battle. Several small skirmishes are fine, as stated above, as long as they mean something to the course of the overall campaign, ie supply lines, moral of troops, etc. This combined with superior AI would take this fantastic series to another level.

[Darsh]

I disagree, they should exist. In fact, many smaller clashes did occur. A great tactic is to raid supply conveys, dispatch convoys and so forth. Smaller battles should still be pissible, but there should be a reason for them. This is my point in making my above comment.

In RTW and MTW2, there were random armies marching about with no purpose, sometimes they were remnants of largers armies, simetimes they were made to form into larger armies and sometimes there were just there to hang out in your land and cause you to wonder what was going on with the AI. The point is, they did nothing but slow you down or randomly attack a smaller force that you were going to combine into a larger host. Such armies should cease to be. I understand this will not always be the case and I do wish there to be leyway in this. Nothing should be so cut and dry as to cause the game to become repeative quickly.

A reinforcement force of a couple of companies and their regimental guns would be very exciting to encounter with a small scouting party of your own. Little ambushes could happen because of this. It would also, historically, cause that location to redouble it's outposts and pickets in addition to increasing the strengh of it's smaller forces. This would drain their resources elsewhere- one would hope. It would be most effective for the nations/players who enjoy hit and run tactics, who need ot save cash, or just want to add a different twist to the game. Of course, the larger invasion force will not be troubled by these minor confrontations; they will simply hit the larger troops depots and fortifications and the rest will follow. It will follow that these smaller detachments and reinforcements would either have to form elsewhere or be destroyed piece meal. Things like this would add a slight level of interest to the game without the major battles becoming tedious because it will allow for the player to either adpt similiar tactics or completely ignore the reinforcement forces and focus on the larger, more direct battles.

Devoirs The Empress

Yes skirmish exist and a small army should be counter a bigger one for sometimes but my point isn't on the utility of a skirmish battles but the useless of the small A.I armies we encouter in RTW and MTW2. What is the utility of 5 units of artillery and 1 unit of Infantery???, they can't skirmish and are just good to make useless and annoying battles.
Don't forget than most of times in 18th century European battles the skirmishers weren't a poor force of men who fought alone against all the ennemy army but a part of the main army who brought a tactical advantage.

[Agent Provocateur]

I just don't want those armies the endlessly move between point a (back of nowhere) to point b (middle of nowhere) for no reason at all. All they do is waste processing time and mine as I watch them scutle backwards and forwards (in the same turn). I'm not too sure about single, massive nation changing battles, it is still a game after all. I want several massive nation changing battles.

Small AI armies should actively try to avoid my large ones. At least there should be some kind of decison making about the utility of a battle, not just a fight becasue I have moved within x distance.

[Samuel Adams]

Maybe the solution (agent) is AI objectives. I.E. each AI army moves with an objective in mind, so that they, when crossing borders, select a campaign objective, like a city, fort, or enemy army. In fact maybe objectives could be a game addition, so that you have to have a reason to go to war. Say, France took Barcelona fifty years ago, and you, as Spain, want it back, thence your reason for going to war. While armies could still move at free will (the will of the faction) and it wouldn't affect you as much, the AI would be saying "Attack Barcelona" and it would cut down on random stacks of low quality troops sitting around in your territory (sort of like when you go to attack a city in RTW or MTW, it gives you the message are you sure you want to go to war with these people, but with borders instead-borders meant alot more by 1700 then in 50).