Objectives in battles

[kirk101]

Hi guys, has anyone ever wondered how more realistic it would be if either someone could make a mod or perhaps the creative assembly could implement it in to all future games and that is an objective in the battle as in the campaign game to win you must capture terratories defeat countries but what about the actual battles them selves. we play countless battles lose thousand of men but there is no objective in the game. let me explain, what if during a battle you were to capture a hill or maybe two hills perhaps you have to get at least 6 units accross the river to win the battle, maybe if you are attacking a town you have to capture most or all of the buildings in the town. imagin you have an army you pour thousands of men in to capture a hill but once captured then you win the battle. an idea like this would bring more realism in to the game after all anyone can just go out and shoot the enemys troops but when you have to defend a position it gives it more realism. id love to know peoples oppinion on this. in the battle of waterloo napoleon had to capture the farm buildings in the film gettysburg the southern army tried to capture the little round top. ca could put a small flag on the hill or objective we have to take

[IAB1789]

At the moment the objective is the destruction of the enemy's army, which makes more sense strategically; the terrain is merely a means to that end. But I agree; I would like very much to have something like the battle for Santon at Austerlitz. It should not be one single objective, however, but (to draw again on Austerlitz) if the Russians and Austrians can take Santon, Pratzen heights, and especially Sokolnitz, they will have won. Alternatively, the French must hold the first and last, and take Pratzen.

[Aklis]

Historical missions with objectives? As long as they're well-made and according to history, definately. Maybe a couple of "defend the fort against a limited amount of waves", capture and hold and stuff, arcade style, too, but don't overdo it.

[[BsA]Dave]

Nonsense. If your opponent is defending a hill or town in battle and you capture it then chances are you've won the battle anyway. This isnt a first person shooter.

[daniu]

Nonsense. If your opponent is defending a hill or town in battle and you capture it then chances are you've won the battle anyway. This isnt a first person shooter.

Are you on some kind of mission to reply to the oldest threads you can find?

[[BsA]Dave]

Im new to TW centre and have just been trawling though any old threads that I feel i can express an opinion on, as im sure you have probably noticed.

[Prince of Darkness]

I would have to say that as an overall army commander your main objective is to crush the enemy army, capturing hills/buildings etc is just a way to accomplish it.
So making such objectives is arcadish and unrealistic in my mind. In some of my AOE games where I need to capture a fort in 10 minutes or so. Just when the my soldiers flood through my gates and nearly reach it, the timewatch stops and I lost, which is annoying and unrealistic.
I prefer the present system. Defeat and crush the enemy army, not some arcade battles where you can win simply by parking.

[RangerGxi]

I would love this, Giant armies don't always win.

[crackaces]

First, why fight a battle? The Campaign Game offers some reasons with strategic cities and economic reasons but on an operational level two huge masses of men and machines can not co-exist for long -- logitics dictates conflict. Once the enemy concentrates you must follow suit and because of supplies and the need to forage off the land -- one side has to prevail.

The game offers enough strategic reasons for conflict. But an introduction of supply trains and logistics would add to the complexity of operational management and direct the outcomes of battles.