Why cant you have historic battle style battles in campaign?

[Lionheart11]

Anyone remember the demo?played very different no?

Anyone played the historic battles yet?

The game has a different feel in these modes, its not just one clump army against another.The map has purpose and tactics making you feel each battle is very different.

Your total army is needed and tactics must be used to win, Instead of who has the bigger stacks on a boring head to head map.

My question is: Why cant these historic battles be in the campaign?eg. having to fight on three progressive maps to capture a province and having to be smart to make your army last.

Some of the historic battles are quite epic IMO, having to capture points on the map for reinforcements ect or perks.

Some say this may feel like scipted battles but personally im getting bored of stack vs stack on a flat map.

There needs to be tactics on the battlemap put back in this game, not just campaign map tactics.

[.Mitch.]

The demo's battles and the historical battles all have one thing in common.

They are scripted.

You can't script random campaign battles and so there is your disparity between both experiences.

[Hikaru Genji]

I think another thing to consider is that even historical battle type maps would start to feel old after a while. With the way things are battles can be over quickly, yet varied tactics can still be used. I think, personally, it would get quite boring to have to fight three battles for a province or to always have to capture the same point for reinforcements.

[EagleTwenty]

Capturing everytime the same point, fighting always the same three scripted battles, sounds for me much more boring after a while.

But I agree to you totally, the standard battles ARE not as good as they could. But I think thats not because of the maps or the aims you have to reach in that battle, but of the poor AI, because the vanilla AI doesn't even know what tactic and formation means, you are forced to use the same boring strategy all the time. Mass attack against mass attack.

[Humble Warrior]

The demo's battles and the historical battles all have one thing in common.

They are scripted.

You can't script random campaign battles and so there is your disparity between both experiences.

Precisely. A dynamic campaign would be impossible if all the battles were scripted. I thought everyone understood this. Obviously not.

What you have to do is see that the Campaign is better because your own personal story developes dynamically. the problem is many of you are unable to see the story as it happens, but believe it or not, this is exactly how the real life stories happened. No General in reality knows exactly what`s going to happen until it happens; he fights in real time until he wins or loses- there`s no script.

Only afterwards, when historians look at the battle do they say what happened and write it down, then other people re-enact it and then it becomes `scripted`.

Try this:

Write a diary of your Campaign. Write how your diplomacy led to interesting battles. Write how the CAI faction landed a surprise invasin on your shores, then write how your best general managed to hold a hill with half the men of the enemy and won!

then look back over these stories of your campaign and you`ll realise how scripted stuff comes from real life stuff that was never scripted!

p.s. That said, a lot more dynamism could be addded to campaign battles to make them feel much more immersive. But this needs a much better AI.

[InferiorBeing]

I'd still like to be able to do more in a battle than just have two opposing armies line up and rush at each other. Give me something more to do. Like capture "Strategic Points", or something.

[Lionheart11]

When i say scripted , i mean just battle maps that are unique for that province, not the entire campaign.

[The Juggernaut]

I'd still like to be able to do more in a battle than just have two opposing armies line up and rush at each other. Give me something more to do. Like capture "Strategic Points", or something.

Truth be told, I think the addition of labelled "Strategic Points" would be horrible for battles. The best part of battles is deciding which ground to take, where to set up ambushes, where to make your kill zones, without having the game hold your hand.

I think the best way to make battles better is to make them more realistic. If battle maps were larger and included more interactive terrain elements ( a creek here, a farmhouse there, maybe a stone wall or a fence running across it) that would greatly increase the strategy involved in battles. The ability to actively use certain terrain features like ridges or forests as cover (much like walls or trenches in Napoleon) would be pretty awesome too.

Even better would be addition of elements from the campaign on the battle map. If your army is at a crossroads, the battle should be fought over the crossroads, not on some random field with a couple random mountains. If you have a particularly sneaky general with a small force, he should be able to mount a surprise night attack on the enemy camp (like vlad tepes or date masamune).

[Humble Warrior]

Truth be told, I think the addition of labelled "Strategic Points" would be horrible for battles. The best part of battles is deciding which ground to take, where to set up ambushes, where to make your kill zones, without having the game hold your hand.

I think the best way to make battles better is to make them more realistic. If battle maps were larger and included more interactive terrain elements ( a creek here, a farmhouse there, maybe a stone wall or a fence running across it) that would greatly increase the strategy involved in battles. The ability to actively use certain terrain features like ridges or forests as cover (much like walls or trenches in Napoleon) would be pretty awesome too.

Even better would be addition of elements from the campaign on the battle map. If your army is at a crossroads, the battle should be fought over the crossroads, not on some random field with a couple random mountains. If you have a particularly sneaky general with a small force, he should be able to mount a surprise night attack on the enemy camp (like vlad tepes or date masamune).

Exactly. And I agree. what the OP appears to be asking for is more handholding which actually goes against the whole point of warfare. I`m heavily against more story-telling handholding like being read a bedtime story, `go there, do that`. The Player, YOU, as the leader, choose the ground to fight or defend, the player decides what`s the tactical or strategically important points to take. In fact, I really dislike the talking of the flag (with that Flag Timer) in sieges because I sometimes lose a battle because I forgot about the timer, not because I was beaten through warfare. Well said and Rep.