Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

  1. #1
    Evan MF's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,575

    Icon5 Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    Hi all,

    Does anyone find the battles a bit too "Arcadey". By this I mean:
    • They are over very quickly after melee has begun, units routing or dying fast.
    • You lose control (or feeling of control) when you enter melee.
    • The battle is a frantic struggle the moment melee begins, there is rarely a build up to it.
    • The maps are very artificial in their construction.
    • The scale of units is too small a lot of the time - loss of epic scale.
    • No time or worth in attempting complex tactical manouvers (Ie proper micro-management).
    • No time to zoom in and admire graphics and aesthetics
    When are we going to see battles like in Rome and Medieval, where you were able to hold back reserves and build up melee through micro-management and skirmish. At the moment battles, when they enter melee stages seem very messy and rushed.

    Anyone share similar thoughts?

    Evan

  2. #2
    Elta's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    North Vegas
    Posts
    247

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    Perhaps, though I will keep playing.

    However I would also gladly play a mod that "fixes" multiplayer issues in multiplayer.

    I would likely play both vanilla and mods, variety

    Though I am not sure you are able to play a mod in multiplayer mode.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    More arcadey with the small unit size for sure that matchmaker forces you into.
    Support Totalwar Youtubers:
    Jackiefish commentary my Quarter final match tosa cup*
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcr52zUAoTo
    Showing Pointman a 2v3 Tactic: He does well and carries it out to perfection first time*..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBrfDUr8f6M&feature=plcp
    Aggony Clan 1v1 Tournament match: Multiple casters check description for their youtube channels*:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHoz8nS7ulY


  4. #4

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    As I cannot stand posts complaining about something which is not wrong, I will hereby tell you directly the answer to each of your arguments, including examples to each point.



    • Battles are over quickly once melee begins if one player does not know the ropes. E.g. his units will rout pretty quickly if outmatched (distributed falsely to their opponents).


    • You keep control when entering melee - just do not commit all your infantry at once. E.g. I frequently use Samurai or specialists on higher funds to charge through gaps in columns and attack the general or troops from the side.


    • The builtup to the battle is always there, it can be a deciding factor to whoever wins the battle. E.g. skirmishing with cavalry and missile infantry, ninjas taking out artillery, and so on.


    • The maps are artificial in their construction because they've been made by human designers, and also been made with balance in mind. However they are not mirrored in details, just in layout. E.g. in the previous TW titles everybody complained about unbalanced maps, see ETW / NTW. CA had to build and release "grassy flatlands" in a patch.


    • The scale of units is fine, as we are talking about multiplayer in the multiplayer forums. This is because more units on screen will dramatically take down framerates on lower end systems who then cannot process information (packets) quickly enough which will result in a laggy and stuttering experience for everyone. E.g. players with slow systems usually keep their graphics details higher than recommended. The devs / game cannot force them to keep it low.


    • Complex tactical manouvers turn the battle, win the battle. Proper micro-management needs quick reactions, the essence of micro is that you manage your units quicker and better than your opponent. E.g. You don't need time for better micro, you need quicker reactions.


    • Yes, there's no time for aesthetics in multiplayer. There is no time to admire Sakura in battle, there is time after the battle, in training, or in Singleplayer to admire aesthetics.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    The scale of units is fine to you maybe.. small size units have never been the standard in totalwar mp id expect any mp guy to know that.
    Support Totalwar Youtubers:
    Jackiefish commentary my Quarter final match tosa cup*
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcr52zUAoTo
    Showing Pointman a 2v3 Tactic: He does well and carries it out to perfection first time*..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBrfDUr8f6M&feature=plcp
    Aggony Clan 1v1 Tournament match: Multiple casters check description for their youtube channels*:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHoz8nS7ulY


  6. #6
    KushHaze's Avatar Foederatus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    27

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    Ugh I hate it when i get put into a match with small unit sizes as it always throws me off since Im used to playing with ultra and large unit size.
    Dawn of War and Total War need to have a baby and call it....ready.....DAWN OF TOTAL WAR......I know awesome!

  7. #7

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    Not even reading any of the posts in this thread.

    The answer is NO
    NO
    NO
    and again
    NO.

    Thread closed.

  8. #8
    Wodeson's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Merry England
    Posts
    286

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    Depends on the unit size. On large and ultra planning becomes more important than reacting, but yeah it's still pretty fast sometimes.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    Battles are certainly a lot faster than previous TW games, yes, and it's a change for the negative IMO.

    Melee is over so quickly that the opportunity for tactical manoeuvre with infantry is much reduced.

    Cavalry is still very useful tactically, but there's little point in keeping a decent tactical reserve of infantry because they rarely have chance to reach where they're needed. Better to just get them flanking any nearby melee unless you're standing off an opposing unit.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    Quote Originally Posted by swoosh so View Post
    The scale of units is fine to you maybe.. small size units have never been the standard in totalwar mp id expect any mp guy to know that.
    We actually play on normal unit scale (almost the same as small on Shogun 2) on Rome: Total War. One of the reasons is because units move a lot better when there's less to a unit. Imagine having to turn a 250 man unit around to make a flanking move. Also, imagine how hard it can be to skirmish with unit sizes that large. You couldn't pull back fast enough because you'd have to wait for the gigantic block to turn around. The smaller the unit, the faster things maneuver, and the more tactics are involved. It limits everything to even more messy infantry clashes when you make sizes to large. Making huge unit sizes in this sense actually kills micromanagement, which is why I actually enjoy small and medium battles more. ^^ I'm here to play a game, not marvel at the aesthetics.

    I'm not sure what you guys do in other games, though. I do admit that lowering the unit size increases the amount of units the general's aura affects, so it kind of increases the power of a leadership general.
    Last edited by Magic_8_Ball; April 21, 2011 at 03:26 PM.

  11. #11
    KushHaze's Avatar Foederatus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    27

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    Quote Originally Posted by |Sith|Magic_8_Ball View Post
    We actually play on normal unit scale (almost the same as small on Shogun 2) on Rome: Total War. One of the reasons is because units move a lot better when there's less to a unit. Imagine having to turn a 250 man unit around to make a flanking move. Also, imagine how hard it can be to skirmish with unit sizes that large. You couldn't pull back fast enough because you'd have to wait for the gigantic block to turn around. The smaller the unit, the faster things maneuver, and the more tactics are involved. It limits everything to even more messy infantry clashes when you make sizes to large. Making huge unit sizes in this sense actually kills micromanagement, which is why I actually enjoy small and medium battles more. ^^ I'm here to play a game, not marvel at the aesthetics.

    I'm not sure what you guys do in other games, though. I do admit that lowering the unit size increases the amount of units the general's aura affects, so it kind of increases the power of a leadership general.
    I never really thought about it like that, I usually like to have the large sprawling army just for the fun of it but yeah I can see where lowering the unit size could give you an advantage, although it would feel odd instead of large armys it would be small platoons of units. Would be kinda funny if everyone started lowering the army count to gain an edge.
    Dawn of War and Total War need to have a baby and call it....ready.....DAWN OF TOTAL WAR......I know awesome!

  12. #12

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    Quote Originally Posted by |Sith|Magic_8_Ball View Post
    We actually play on normal unit scale (almost the same as small on Shogun 2) on Rome: Total War. One of the reasons is because units move a lot better when there's less to a unit. Imagine having to turn a 250 man unit around to make a flanking move. Also, imagine how hard it can be to skirmish with unit sizes that large. You couldn't pull back fast enough because you'd have to wait for the gigantic block to turn around. The smaller the unit, the faster things maneuver, and the more tactics are involved. It limits everything to even more messy infantry clashes when you make sizes to large. Making huge unit sizes in this sense actually kills micromanagement, which is why I actually enjoy small and medium battles more. ^^ I'm here to play a game, not marvel at the aesthetics.

    I'm not sure what you guys do in other games, though. I do admit that lowering the unit size increases the amount of units the general's aura affects, so it kind of increases the power of a leadership general.
    Agreed.

    I find larger unit sizes to be quite unweildy, making them extremely hard to micro. Just getting your troops to form up into formation takes forever, and that just involves 1 click. Imagine trying to flank a unit whose rank spans larger than a forest...

    Speaking of which, ultra units make it next to impossible to hide ur units except in the densest of trees, and high ground bonuses are negated except for the steepest of hills; unless you are constantly changing the formation on each individual unit. It almost makes it feel that the terrain is too small to accomodate such large units.

    Quote Originally Posted by KushHaze View Post
    I never really thought about it like that, I usually like to have the large sprawling army just for the fun of it but yeah I can see where lowering the unit size could give you an advantage, although it would feel odd instead of large armys it would be small platoons of units. Would be kinda funny if everyone started lowering the army count to gain an edge.
    I only ever play on larger unit sizes for casual fun, ie. if I'm not bothered about winning, losing, or doing much micro-ing or tactics - Sometimes me and my friends do this just for the theatrics lol

    And I like it that it's a platoon of units, because the alternative seems to just be many armies within an army which just seems quite megalomanic.

  13. #13
    Evan MF's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,575

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    Ultra units only seem unwieldly because they've scaled the maps and the camera view to "Normal" Unit levels. In future games all they'd have to do is make maps larger, cameras able to zoom out more and also make easy pathfinding around buildings and objects (perhaps units could just mould themselves around a rock instead of the unit having to either be infront of or behind it).

    Maps can be balanced and not look artificial, its very possible.

    If battles are to feel real there needs to be more time for melee stages, not these rushed scrambles that we see in Shogun2. Perhaps more like this:



    - if battles were like this you'd have still have the short fast micro skills needed to win, but also the long term build up of intensity in a battle.
    Last edited by Evan MF; April 21, 2011 at 09:14 PM.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    We're not playing their future games, though. Also, that doesn't fix the maneuverability problem. The only fix I could see to that is making units (especially the infantry) move a lot faster to compensate for their obese unit size. However, if they did that, then everybody would be going, "0MG not realiztic enuff i thot TW wuz 100 purcent currect whar simz!!!" Not to disrespect your 31k battles, but I've yet to see skirmishing as a viable tactic on a 31k large battle on RTW. It's even hard to skirmish on a 10k large battle. The units just don't move fast enough. While you get epic looking infantry clashes, play style is a lot less dynamic without the archers. The other thing that would be hard to make larger unit sizes is that RTW units seem to move more crisply and fast. You can't have a fast paced battle with slower moving units on Shogun II on a large scale, and without the maneuverability, you're looking at even less tactics used than they are right now.

    I'd also like to add that there isn't any pila on this game, so that side of tactics in large money and huge scales is gone as well.

    While your other points may be right (although I think getting more used to the gameplay would help with lots of those problems), making the unit scale too large would make units too unwieldy. You also shouldn't be complaining about not being able to zoom up to look at the pretty fire, because in a fast paced game, you aren't really supposed to be able to take time to watch things go boom up close.

    And Grassy Flatlands on RTW wasn't very realistic, but the only people that ever complained about that were noobs and hill campers.

    Sorry if it seems like I'm driving this conversation into a 15k Normal vs 31k Large on RTW debate. :3
    Last edited by Magic_8_Ball; April 21, 2011 at 09:39 PM.

  15. #15
    Evan MF's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,575

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    Quote Originally Posted by |Sith|Magic_8_Ball View Post
    We're not playing their future games, though. Also, that doesn't fix the maneuverability problem. The only fix I could see to that is making units (especially the infantry) move a lot faster to compensate for their obese unit size. However, if they did that, then everybody would be going, "0MG not realiztic enuff i thot TW wuz 100 purcent currect whar simz!!!" Not to disrespect your 31k battles, but I've yet to see skirmishing as a viable tactic on a 31k large battle on RTW. It's even hard to skirmish on a 10k large battle. They just don't move fast enough. While you get epic looking infantry clashes, play style is a lot less dynamic without the archers. The other thing that would be hard to make larger unit sizes is that RTW units seem to move more crisply and fast. You can't have a fast paced battle with slower moving units on Shogun II on a large scale, and without the maneuverability, you're looking at even less tactics used than they are right now.

    While your other points may be right (although I think getting more used to the gameplay would help with lots of those problems), making the unit scale too large would make units too unwieldy.

    And Grassy Flatlands on RTW wasn't very realistic, but the only people that ever complained about that were noobs and hill campers.
    Skirmishing doesn't have to involve missile units: a skirmish is just a small exchange of battle within a larger, and usually preceding a larger battle - in Shogun 2 most of the time all the infantry engages at the same time. In 31K this does not happen, usually a few units exchange pilum at the beginning of a battle and have a small scrap before major manouvers occur.

    The reason why 31k is so plain in terms of units is because the units in Rome are horribly balanced and require our own rules sets to even slightly rectify it. Grassy flatlands is so frequently played on because the maps aren't well constructed to be balanced - this can be achieved unartificially.

    But I'm not trying to justify 31K as a perfect model for battles - simply nearer to it than what we currently have.

    I personally want to feel like a General when playing a Total War game. Currently its very much a reactions game - why not make it more about placement, positioning and timing (with the odd split second decision thrown in there).

    Its a question of taste really, but it is undeniable that a more realistic battle would be larger and more like the one I am arguing for than what you are refering to. I think if one wants to control small units of men they should be playing more games such as Starcraft II and Company of Heroes, Total War should be reserved for the grand scale battles.

    I'm not saying the game isn't fun and in fact I am having a whirl with it online, I just don't think the game is what its trying to make itself out to be.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    Eh, I've always been of the opinion that a game should be as face paced and as mentally exercising as possible with little regards to realisticness, but there's nothing to debate as far as preferences go.

    And by skirmish, I'm referring to the lingo where you avoid all hand to hand contact unless it's a quick strike. Instead, you focus on shooting the enemy down as the main way to victory.

  17. #17
    Wodeson's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Merry England
    Posts
    286

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    I guess it's the difference between tactics and strategy.

    When you play with the big units, you have to anticipate what's going to happen simply because you can't redeploy units quickly. Unit match-ups become less important than having an solid plan. Where you position your general becomes more important becuase you can't cover everything. Reserves, feints, tempting your opponent to over commit, refusing flanks, envelopments, all the historical concerns of real life ancient and medieval generals come to the fore.

    Besides which, ultra size units just look awesome and totally sweet.

  18. #18
    Uncle_Uzi's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    191

    Default Re: Are Battles Too Arcadey?

    You think a melee should be an ordered affair?



    No.

    Dude, melee combat is chaos. It SHOULD be hard to control. That's what makes a great general; it's all about being able to keep a cool head when the blood starts spillin'.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •