Time limit or not in your campiagn and why??

[Silent Assassin]

I was wondering what you guy's do when playing :

1- Do you use time battles or not and why.

I have always used no time limit and I was wondering what advantages for each of them.

Thanks

Rebel

[Drox]

I can't vote for some reason, probably due to low post count or something, however I never do timed battles. When I did try a timed battle I found that the utility of many siege units and missile units go way down because you are almost forced to rush into the battle with infantry.

[NobleNick]

I use timed battles, because if you are winning, but then a stalemate condition arises or something goes buggy, you can still end a battle by cranking the timer up to 6x and waiting it out. Also, it forces the AI to do something in order to win, if they are the aggressor.

In sieges, with human as the defender, the benefits are obvious: just keep enemy from the town square until the timer runs out.

In sieges, with human as the aggressor, the timer helps you focus: there is usually plenty of time to do all you want, if you have anything resembling a good plan.

The timer facilitates in the execution of dirty tricks, like:

1.) Using all-cav force, human defender, run around edges of the map, stopping to rest in the corners. Enemy runs /walks constantly and uses up stamina. Use cavalry to pick off straggling light infantry or archer units. No need to engage heavier units (although I usually do), since timer will give you a win (unless you lose all your forces). This is a cheap way to strip an enemy of most his forces and send him packing, with low losses on your part.

2.) Hide all of your army except general, in strategic uphill location. Run general around, letting enemy chase, until battle timer is 80% expended. Then lead tired enemy army uphill to your waiting fresh troops. The timer will ensure that the battle will not outlast your archers' ammunition; plus, if anything goes sour, the enemy will not have time to totally rout your army before the timer expires and victory is handed you on a silver platter.

[Silent Assassin]

I use timed battles, because if you are winning, but then a stalemate condition arises or something goes buggy, you can still end a battle by cranking the timer up to 6x and waiting it out. Also, it forces the AI to do something in order to win, if they are the aggressor.

In sieges, with human as the defender, the benefits are obvious. With human as the aggressor, the timer helps you focus: there is usually plenty of time to do all you want, if you have anything resembling a good plan.

I will have to try that as I never used the timed battles and I was wondering... Does this make the AI attack you faster when they have Canons or so????

[Kinshejsi]

I use no time limit, mainly because I take a lot of time for sieges.
Can you actually ever finish a full stack vs full stack citadel battle with timelimit on?

[Silent Assassin]

I use no time limit, mainly because I take a lot of time for sieges.
Can you actually ever finish a full stack vs full stack citadel battle with timelimit on?

Wow yeah didn't tought about that a Citadel must be hard to take with time limit I will try it and come back to you guy's with some feeback.

Rebel

[NobleNick]

...Can you actually ever finish a full stack vs full stack citadel battle with timelimit on?

Heh, heh, good point. I was about to answer: "Yes, plenty of them." But then I cued in on the "...full stack vs. full stack..." part. I don't think I have ever started a full vs. full on a citidel. So I guess the answer is, "No," at least not with me as the aggressor.

But that is as it should be: It should be hard; really, REALLY hard, to take a citidel. As a citidel defender I typically plan for and expect victory, unless "out-forced" by a factor of over 4:1.

Still, I would hope that, properly equipped (trebuchets/mortars/cannons, ladders, rams, siege towers, and at least 12 units of quality H.I.) a player could easily do it in the alloted time, if he could do it at all.

What I find, in practice, is that if forces are comparable, I usually siege a citidel until the enemy sallies.

If I did have to take a citidel from a full stack, and since I usually win the long campaign before gunpowder can come into play, my citidel force would likely consist of:

main stack:
(1) General
(13) Heavy Infantry, (high quality, e.g., English Armored Swords, VHI, dismounted knights)
.......... 2 rams
.......... 2 siege towers
.......... 4 ladders
(2) Trebuchet
(4) crossbow or longbow (high quality AP units)

AI-controlled stack:
(10) Heavy Infantry

I would use trebuchets to knock out towers, bust in gates, and flame anything dumb enough to stand in range, while the rest of my army, and all their equipment, rested and waited for the AI reinforcements to show up.

At about 1/4 of the timer spent, the friendly AI force enters the gates and takes the brunt of the pounding, while the siege towers and 3 of the ladder units simultaneously go to the walls.

At about timer 1/2 spent: Enter with the rest of my main force. Use rams to take out the inner gate, while the last ladder unit creates a diversion at the inner wall.

[NobleNick]

...I was wondering... Does this make the AI attack you faster when they have Canons or so????

I don't know. But certainly they can not stand at range and pound you ad infinitum. (Although, as the aggressor in sieges, I have had plenty of time to empty my culverin of all ammo, into the poor saps in the town center, and still have plenty of time to prosecute a normal attack on the few survivors.)

I have had rare occasions, in RTW and M2TW, where the AI forces just stood around in a favorable defensive position, doing nothing; when they were the aggressors, and it was clear that they would not gain a victory by doing so. It was at these times, when I also wanted to do nothing, I was glad to have the battle timer.

[Silent Assassin]

I don't know. But certainly they can not stand at range and pound you ad infinitum. (Although, as the aggressor in sieges, I have had plenty of time to empty my culverin of all ammo, into the poor saps in the town center, and still have plenty of time to prosecute a normal attack on the few survivors.)

I have had rare occasions, in RTW and M2TW, where the AI forces just stood around in a favorable defensive position, doing nothing; when they were the aggressors, and it was clear that they would not gain a victory by doing so. It was at these times, when I also wanted to do nothing, I was glad to have the battle timer.

Thanks friend+ Rep

[jakk o'slovakk]

I don't use time limit for the same reason as Drox.

[Basil the Great]

I only use no time limit I will have to try what you said Noble nick

[Drox]

I don't know about anyone else, but from everything I've seen in concerns to the AI attacking a Citadel makes me believe that the AI just isn't up to the challenge. I have never once seen the AI pull of anything even close to a successful siege on any of my Citadels even when the odds were like 1:5 in their favor. I think the structer of the citadel itself is just too confusing for the AI. Anyways, just thought I'd throw that out there while on the topic of attacking/defending citadels.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

I use the battle timer. There is usually enough time to finish a battle. But sometimes a strange bug appears during sieges and that is why I use the timer. Especially when attacked by a overwhelming force that becomes stuck outside the walls it is very nice to have the timer.

[Ältester der Motten]

I don't use it. I just like to not rush it. Of course it can hurt you a lot when you're losing (especially as defender during siege), but c'est la guerre.

[Silent Assassin]

I don't use it. I just like to not rush it. Of course it can hurt you a lot when you're losing (especially as defender during siege), but c'est la guerre.

French my friend from where

[Theseus1234]

i don't use the battle timer for precisely the reasons that noble nick described. it gives you an unfair advantage where in normal situations, would force you to make a move. don't depend on the time limit to outrun your opponent when you should be either forced to pitch a battle or run the hell out of there

[Psychonaut]

i dont use a time limit. i like my battles to be slower paced

[Drox]

Yesterday was the first time which I wish I had the time limit on. I was defending a siege from 2 stacks of Lithuanians, and after destroying the first stack and forcing them to retreat before they could get any ladders up or anything, the second stack just decided to sit there on the other side of my city and do nothing. In the end I was forced to go out and fight them. Luckly I managed to have enough troops garrisoned to pull it off.

[Lethe]

I couldn't vote for some reason, but I'm in the same boat as Noble Nick and play with timed battles.

I usually play all of my battles, from skirmishes to full out assaults, so it helps me keep focus and if the enemy won't attack (which I find happens often), then I can simply speed up the game and finish the battle rather than risk being slaughtered.

[Silent Assassin]

I couldn't vote for some reason, but I'm in the same boat as Noble Nick and play with timed battles.

I usually play all of my battles, from skirmishes to full out assaults, so it helps me keep focus and if the enemy won't attack (which I find happens often), then I can simply speed up the game and finish the battle rather than risk being slaughtered.

Welcome friend,

You will be able to vote when you will have 50 posts