Poll: Do you like Capture points in non siege battles?

[Tartknocker]

Pretty straightforward. Lots of argument about this here and there, general consensus seems to say it makes the game more arcade-like and forces the player to dogpile on the capture point ignoring strategy. Here is a poll, I'd like to see what the majority of players feel about it.

[Eien]

It makes sense when I'm force marching, to simulate protecting a baggage train, others, no, as it hampers strategic deployment for terrain.

[BlackamusJones]

Earlier today I was playing my campaign and parked an army on top of a hill in the path of an oncoming enemy that wanted my settlement. I set up my fortifications, get the flaming balls ready, then start the battle only to find that there is a capture point at the bottom of the hill between me and the enemy. I got pissed enough to just alt-tab and kill the game in the task manager.

[Hopit]

This is a double edged sword for me, as above said, in force march it goes. (kinda also in fortifying mode (you got to hold the fort)) , but mostly, it is horrible.

[vonblunder]

mm why can't I vote?

[Hopit]

mm why can't I vote?

You need to have posts.

[1cmanny1]

Earlier today I was playing my campaign and parked an army on top of a hill in the path of an oncoming enemy that wanted my settlement. I set up my fortifications, get the flaming balls ready, then start the battle only to find that there is a capture point at the bottom of the hill between me and the enemy. I got pissed enough to just alt-tab and kill the game in the task manager.

I did the exact same thing. These were just a stupid idea, they should only be used for battles involving ships.

[big_feef]

Great idea, horrible implementation.

[Fastfreddie]

I've taken quite a few cities after capturing only the front gate when the city had several more places of importance left. It seems that if you route them at the gate they don't regroup and they auto end the battle when I know they had at least half of their forces left where as in the old Rome everyone regrouped at the city center which made much better sense. I mean if your going to be put to the sword away why not go down in style.

[jtfjtfjtf]

I don't like that they result in victory. In the combined land/sea battles instead of a capture point there should be a timer if one side only has boats left. If the boats don't land before the timer runs out they lose. For baggage train battles there should actually be a baggage train and if it gets destroyed the army with that baggage should suffer penalties for the next turn like it can't move, there's desertion, and morale is low. But they shouldn't lose the battle outright.

[Arrow2daknee]

Hate them, not game breaking but when there is a nice hill for me to deploy on but I can't deploy there because I have to babysit this stupid flag it becomes annoying.

[Fetzen]

I hate them. The goal should be to defeat the enemy army, in whatever way possible. A flagm, randomly positioned somewhere in the green, doesnt have anything to do with that and robs the battles of tactical variance instead of adding it. Who the thought this would be a great idea and who the didnt have the balls to tell that moron it was not?

[hzh]

Seriously, if we can't take advantage of the terrain, there's no point for battle anymore, I just auto resolve everything.

[Black-]

They combined Starcraft and Battlefield to attract the casual-action gamer more.
I think that's a sign for the dying TW Series. New consoles doomed this game.
Now they are experimenting with new hardware which "could" run such games but only if simplified.

We better convince Paradox to combine Crusader Kings 2 and Mount & Blade.

[lordhedgwich]

I voted have no opinion on them since i never get to use them once i get into a city the ai just rushes me and i kill them all within a few minutes

[TeaAndCheese]

As it stands now being forced to defend a flag placed in the middle of a field or somewhere else equally absurd is just stupid and arbitrary. I'd rather not bother with flags at all in field battles but they could have at least let the defending player place the flag manually before the battle starts.

[Humble Warrior]

Well, if this is true, it makes a mockery of any kind of military or strategic depth in battles and would be a sign of the death of Total war . It don`t take a genius to realise how this will make all the land features useless and might as well just be an iron board map. this has never happened in any Total War game before and whoever thought this was a good idea should be ashamed.

However, sieges don`t seem to have men climbing the wallss...

To the OP: You really don`t need capitals for the first option... Some would call it `influencing` a person`s decision and I don`t think it needs any influencing.

[Gaius Livius]

I don't mind them in cities as usual. On the battlefield ? Nope. It makes the whole battle tactics useless.

[bluestrategist]

My fear is that this is to nanny the BAI into doing something, as I have said on another thread. Perhaps it is CA just saying to the BAI, 'Don't worry about the enemy or the terrain - just head for the big flag...HERE!' The result? Tactical nonsense.

[Gaizokubanou]

My fear is that this is to nanny the BAI into doing something, as I have said on another thread. Perhaps it is CA just saying to the BAI, 'Don't worry about the enemy or the terrain - just head for the big flag...HERE!' The result? Tactical nonsense.

You are probably right. It used to be your lead general that acted as a "beacon" for the AI.This "feature" could use more context to work.@Black-, you wish they combined Starcraft level of depth into this game