Stances Suck - Remove them from next game please

[Sun Jetzu]

The stances in rome 2 are one of the worst "new" implemented features in the game in my opinion.
They take away from immersion and make you feel like your playing a cross between total war and civ.
The stances also take away from the depth of the game and the strategy that comes with it.
Heres my take on each stance and the way they ruin gameplay.

Force March


At first I thought this wasnt that bad. Gave you a way to cross the map faster by making your army vulnerable to attack.
But when I saw how the AI abused this stance, I saw its down side. They would use this stance to cross armies through oceans (most of the time getting stuck there).
They would use this stance to bring in reinforcements to a siege they were conducting. Once I defeated the armys in battle, they would simply force march those reinforcements back to their city for healing.
There is no penalty for having a forced marched army used as reinforcements. Letting the AI always have a much larger force in battle than its suppose to.
I cant even chase down armys that I've defeated in battle! Next turn they force march their way back to their city.
Besides this, the spirals around the stack also break immersion for me. The only time I've found force march helpful is when I'm using it on my ships. Never been attacked
while force marching my fleet, not sure if the AI sets a sea ambush or something.


Fortify



I wont say this one isnt something we havent seen before. We've been able to use forts in past total wars.
But the randomness that a fort actually appears on the battle map is annoying. It seems like its gotten worse with patch 9 but if your army gets attacked while in this stance. Sometimes the fort doesnt appear. And your left with an army out in the open with some anti personal weapons. Rocks, stakes, walls, pits. (Out of these I've only found the steaks useful against cavalry, the others are easily walked over with no casualties.)
Now this might be a gltich, but its annoying that I have to think I might not even get a fort on the battle map if I use this stance. The fort it creates when it works is okay. Just wish it was permanent and a bit bigger.
The way the stance looks also breaks immersion. the steaks on the campaign map dont look like a fort. It be better if a fort popped up around the stack. Kinda like buildings pop up in citys when you build them.

Ambush Stance


Now this is my second most hated stance. Its ment to show an ambush can be used anywhere (Tying into the line of sight system on the battle map).
where ever you scroll over shows you how successful an ambush will be. But the ambush normally work almost all the time, it doesnt matter where you are.
This one takes away completely from strategic depth. No longer do I have to choose a wooded area specifically to try an ambush. Location doesnt matter. I can do it anywhere!
Why even have trees on the map if ambush sites dont matter? This stance is another way CA has taken away strategy from the campaign map.


Raiding Stance

Could not find a picture lol

This is the worst stance of them all. It 100% removes the strategic depth of the game. It makes all invasion plans as simple as sending a stack or two into enemy territory and attacking the cities in each province.
You cant dismantle the enemy's economy by occupying points of production or resources. Everything is located inside cities, and only agents can get to them. This is made even worse by the fact that raiding stance can be used anywhere. You can go to the edge of the enemy's territory and pop raiding stance and just sit there. Theres no tactics on where to go to be able to raid. You can be safley near your homeland and just raid the enemys borderlands.
Again attacking a country has never been so simple. And its sad.



For me these stances are one implemented feature that needs to never see the light of day again.
As most of total war, we must go back to the total war models before rome 2. Shogun 2, empire, medieval 2, and rome should be the inspiration for the next game in the total war franchise.
What do you guys think about stances? Are they good bad, or straight up ugly?

[equinoxsolar]

Im afraid I have to disagree - Stances add a new level of strategy on the campaign map which is sorely lacking. I for one welcome it. I do think however that forced march needs to be balanced. I would like to see attrition taken to any army that force marches for two consecutive turns. This would be a nice penalty.

[DarrenTotalWar]

Yeah I strongly disagree, I think it adds depth not take it away.

Raiding stance is a great way to coerce enemy armies into a position. If you are raiding on borders, you might be luring the enemy into an ambush trap for example.

Forced march is a very cool idea aswell I feel, and very real, I do feel that it should have a few more negative effects than it does especially at sea but I love the stances, I would prefer if you could build forts like before but defensive stances are fine. A defensive stance to me in an idea world should let you choose several types of terrain maybe or give you more of a terrain benefit than just a tight fort.

I hope they expand further on the stances in future, like a stance like "invading" whereby as you march through territory you are looting and raiding on the go, and possibly even expanding your own borders as you march. (I've wanted dynamic borders since Rome 1!)

[gakhongten]

yeah. Just because the Ai is too smart (for you) to use forced march to get back to the town and recover doesn't mean that the feature is broken. And I think that's a brilliant idea as well that the AI is now using forced march to re-enforce their attacking army (it decrease ur unit defense skill as I remember correctly). So what's wrong with it?. I think the army in forced march should begin the fight with tired condition to make it more realistic

Fortifying give ur unit more defense as well as some defensive toys to play with, kind of fun to me.

Raiding reduce upkeep by 20% and I use that to provoke the AI to attack me when I don't want to mess with their main army + garrison force (and it also reduces their public order which combine with the spy or dignitary will make perfect trick)

[equinoxsolar]

(I've wanted dynamic borders since Rome 1!)

That's the kind of step forward in the series we should have seen in Rome 2. I think that feature if properly implemented would take the franchise onto a whole new level.

Perhaps a hidden tile system like civilisation 5 should be considered. Where each segment can be taken over and has an associated yield assigned to it.

[Dago Red]

..

..

..

Sorry but you area all 100% objectively wrong (though you can like them all you want, if you wish). Stances are weak abstractions of ACTUAL actions/tactics/ things you could do before in TW games. I can only assume you have not had that much experience with games prior to Shogun. There was once a lot going on behind the scenes that weren't all spelled out for you (if you didn't investigate effects or read the whole manual).

I say again, abstractions.

Forced march -- was previously a trait or ability that granted this hugely advantageous (overpowered in R2) ability that not all generals would be able to undertake. Not all generals could move their men to such feats. There is a reason history recounts the men who could. This lame stance also results in EVERY army doing this EVERY time it moves. The only time the AI drops it is to attack or muster. This dumbs down a level of strategy that was there before since everyone has it, as opposed to adding to it, and furthermore breaks the gameplay.

Muster -- It's just another way to cut corners and remove things to do in the campaign for the console crowd. You could "muster" troops to your generals for ages now, but they would be actual troops moving from actual cities and you had to protect your logistics -- a key component of any era of warfare to get new men and supplies to you. Now you can magically "muster" them straight to your army, even in the middle of the desert or the middle of the ocean. It's entirely dumbed down. It removes several layers of strategy and planning that were there before, it does NOT add to it.

Raiding -- another game design joke complete with arcade effects. You could ALWAYS raid in TW, causing the same effects (decreasing public order, gaining money, and goading the Ai to attack you). In Rome I you would cause desolation in enemy territory just by being there for more than 1 turn (or 2?). Since at least M2TW this would even add small bits of income (factored into the much more robust economic information window that R2 totally lacks). Since Empire there were small towns and villages you could physically raid/attack, and even occupy. Roads were real things you could blockade, complete with character animation, to disrupt enemy trade and commerce.

Now all of these things are removed and taken place by a single button that a monkey could push and accomplish, sapping the campaign of even more precious things to do. Worse, with this magic button, you can now do all of these things on a remote mountain in your enemy territory instead of actually having to do it in their towns or on their roads. Why even bother playing the campaign at this point, when the game mechanics do everything for you!? Why not push a button and win the game? It vastly removes dozens of actions and strategies that were once the backbone of campaign warfare in TW games and all it adds is a monkey button.

Fortified -- Please. This is one of the worst abstractions of all. Before you could build your own camps/forts and over time build them up into stone keeps/castles which you could then garrison with whatever army or different units that you saw fit. That's right, you could actually add new strategic buildings to the campaign world map! This removes a layer of strategic complexity and many more actions for the player to take, far from adding anything.


Welcome to the dumbed down new TW game, where everything is now done for you. Next up, the "hitting end turn stance." We don't want you to have to fret over such a thing.

edit: forgot Ambush but the OP covered it. it's idiotic because it works anywhere -- although in its defense the chances are less in open fields. Before you had to more carefully choose your ground, and your units to do it with. the idea that a huge army with a couple giant catapults can have a high chance of ambushing an opposing army of light skirmish troops just because they chose the stance where they have a 75% ambush chance is condescending at best. All in all, it's stupid, but still the least offensive stance.

[osros]

My friend Sun, nice post but I would not go as far as removing the feature, it can use some fixing or adjustment however.

The stances is not a big part of my game play except maybe forced march which I use with good results and the AI uses all the time I have not seen much of the problems you have but I guess due to my limited use I'm sure those problems are there and can be adjusted.

Along similar lines a big problem is the AI armies just moving passed my army on the map with no conflict, granted I may have not been in ambush mode but its like we have no zone of control, if two armies meet with no stances with a certain amount of zone of control there should be a "meeting engagement" battle where no one has an advantage and a normal field battle takes place.

[Dynamo11]

I actually think stances are one of the very few "new" features I liked. Sure, like most of Rome 2, it hasn't been implemented well but I think with some tweaking it can add a lot more depth to the campaign map

[Sun Jetzu]

yeah. Just because the Ai is too smart (for you) to use forced march to get back to the town and recover doesn't mean that the feature is broken. And I think that's a brilliant idea as well that the AI is now using forced march to re-enforce their attacking army (it decrease ur unit defense skill as I remember correctly). So what's wrong with it?. I think the army in forced march should begin the fight with tired condition to make it more realistic

Fortifying give ur unit more defense as well as some defensive toys to play with, kind of fun to me.

Raiding reduce upkeep by 20% and I use that to provoke the AI to attack me when I don't want to mess with their main army + garrison force (and it also reduces their public order which combine with the spy or dignitary will make perfect trick)

I admit it was tough being able to find something wrong with force march. But there should be some type of penalty for an army that was force marched as reinforcements. Such as half Morale, or maybe they arrive at the battlefield completely wiped out and in red. Its also annoying trying to lure an army that attacks your force. You retreat wanting to lure the enemy deeper into your territory. This would have worked in older total war since the AI would be out of movement points and you could keep them occupied where you want them. But now after the failed attack they simply force march their way back to their lands. Once you finish up your regular movement points then you shouldn't be able to use force march at all. Thats just my take on it.
They gave raiding its own benefits but I enjoyed being able to send armies to core resources and actually raiding. Watching the enemies territory in flames as I raid their lands. But since they had to make 1 general per army, then they had to remove this feature as well. And yes raiding does provoke the enemy army to come after you sure. But just as I stated earlier, once you retreat the army force marches their way back to their capital. So unless your getting lucky and this isnt happening to you, then I can see the benefit.

[Sun Jetzu]

The stances is not a big part of my game play except maybe forced march which I use with good results and the AI uses all the time I have not seen much of the problems you have but I guess due to my limited use I'm sure those problems are there and can be adjusted.

Old friend, I understand what you mean. But this statement shows whats wrong with stances. They should be a BIG part of the game!! They were before, ambushes were important, raiding was important, forts were important. They allow ere tools you could use for a campaign in enemy territory. In rome 2 I find myself using mainly force march. And thats it. After that I use Fortify. Then maybe raiding to try and feel like its important. And I seldom use ambush. unless it happens randomly. Or I attack an army in force march.

[D E C]

Forced march -- was previously a trait or ability that granted this hugely advantageous (overpowered in R2) ability that not all generals would be able to undertake. Not all generals could move their men to such feats. There is a reason history recounts the men who could. This lame stance also results in EVERY army doing this EVERY time it moves. The only time the AI drops it is to attack or muster. This dumbs down a level of strategy that was there before since everyone has it, as opposed to adding to it, and furthermore breaks the gameplay.

I don't get it. What's the actual problem with forced march stance? That everyone can move the same the same distance? That's obviously not true. Or that the AI's misusing it? But that would be an AI problem.

Raiding -- another game design joke complete with arcade effects. You could ALWAYS raid in TW, causing the same effects (decreasing public order, gaining money, and goading the Ai to attack you). In Rome I you would cause desolation in enemy territory just by being there for more than 1 turn (or 2?). Since at least M2TW this would even add small bits of income (factored into the much more robust economic information window that R2 totally lacks). Since Empire there were small towns and villages you could physically raid/attack, and even occupy. Roads were real things you could blockade, complete with character animation, to disrupt enemy trade and commerce.

Now all of these things are removed and taken place by a single button that a monkey could push and accomplish, sapping the campaign of even more precious things to do. Worse, with this magic button, you can now do all of these things on a remote mountain in your enemy territory instead of actually having to do it in their towns or on their roads. Why even bother playing the campaign at this point, when the game mechanics do everything for you!? Why not push a button and win the game? It vastly removes dozens of actions and strategies that were once the backbone of campaign warfare in TW games and all it adds is a monkey button.

Now I don't think that raiding could be that backbone of anything since it only became noticeable in Empire and I wouldn't mind the raid button itself but it was pretty damn disappointing that they did remove all of that.


I think that your constant remarks about pushing this button and pushing that button and something is abstraction and who does and who doesn't know stuff about games are not very objective. I could even just say that you want: 1. a TW game to be exactly the way you want it to be, the way you're imagining it; 2. a TW game to be realistic. That will never happen. It's just not going to happen.

On the other hand, yeah, of course Rome 2 design is seriously dumbed down on a lot of levels. It's pretty obvious. But couldn't they add new features without cutting so much of the good stuff? I can't be sure.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Man I wish we got steaks everytime we fortified in real life.

[Templar Knight]

There needs to be a poll option, "I like the feature, but it needs further refinement"....

[DeliCiousTZM]

Forced march is great, all though annoying when the AI use it, Fortify has its uses good for shuting down choke points, raiding is useless and in many situations makes the AI behavior worse.

Ambush would be great if it wasn't so easy to detect.

[antred]

Rocks, steaks, walls, pits. (Out of these I've only found the steaks useful against cavalry, the others are easily walked over with no casualties.)

Stakes!

[Eriseo]

cut

[Leftcoaster]

Forced March applies a 25% Morale penalty if you fight in that stance, whether ambushed, or reinforcing.

A couple things I do agree with though, in tweaking it a bit.

1. An army that is attacked while in forced march should stay the same, ambush battle with 25% morale penalty

2. An army that reinforces another battle while in forced march should keep the 25% morale penalty AND start the battle tired (as suggested above)

3. An army that moves at all should be prevented from later hitting forced march. It should be done at the start of the movement only (also as suggested)

[craziii]

um I love the stances. force march allows me to move my army half way across the map in just a few turns.

and I can do proper raids on hostile provinces.

please. if you are gonna complain, complain about something that is actually bad.

[pajomife]

I love when one of those magic navy/armies disembark and attacked one of my armies ,who are in forced march. CA rules.

[T-Duke]

Stances are maybe the best feature CA implemented on Rome II . There are so many other issues to complain about instead...