A more realistic battle system

DISCLAIMER: OK, first, don't crucify me for suggesting change to the TW battle formula. Just because it has remained unchanged since Shogun, doesn't mean it can never change.


Now, As some people may know, I am a great fan of the upcoming game Histwar: Les Grognards. Now BEFORE PEOPLE START TO , I know that they are different games, and that TW will never be as simmy as HLG, etc. I also know that things like Aides de camp relaying orders, and them then being captured by enemies, is stupid to expect for NTW. I get it.

However, reading the HLG manual really brought something home to me. If NTW is based on the Empire combat model (face it, it will be), it bears no resemblance to the tactics of the day in the slightest. We are not talking "The Dragoon has bronze buttons instead of gold WHAT IS THIS HERESY?!?!?", we are talking Mario Kart Wii by comparison to race car driving. It's that bad.

Now, I was thinking, to borrow the phrase of Top Gear, how hard can it be? If a couple of Frenchmen locked in a barn for a few years can come up with a totally realistic system, how hard can it be for a multi-million pound company to at least come up with a system that occassionally nods to reality? The cornerstone of Napoleonic combat is the system of corps, regiments, battalions and detachments. If this is absent from the game (which it will be)...then...the essence of warfare of the period is lost!

Also, troops are supposed to deploy over a huge area in this time period. That is why real life Napoleonic battles were not two parallel lines of infantry, duking it out tediously. Really, they have utterly butchered the combat of the era. I repeat, this is not "somewhat unrealistic, but good for gameplay", it is like making a game about Rocket Science for Xbox and having the central premise of the game being "tap A to make next discovery". And that is it.

I may sound like an aggrieved history professor. That is because I am an aggrieved history professor, and am therefore not representative. But, while I do not expect a sim or anything like it, how can you have a historical game that has nothing whatsoever to do with the era it is set in?

Thank you.

Yes, many know that I am widly into the LG community (ecspecailly the Les Grognards Challenge Club as in my signuture), but the stupid system the TW's have currently got is bad Histwars is excellent, but I'm sure with only 2.5 months remaining until release, its too late for NTW, which is a shame. i would love to play battles divided into corps, divisions, etc....
I think that this should be considered for a Napoleon 2 TW maybe.

Originally Posted by Marshal Beale

Yes, many know that I am widly into the LG community (ecspecailly the Les Grognards Challenge Club as in my signuture), but the stupid system the TW's have currently got is bad Histwars is excellent, but I'm sure with only 2.5 months remaining until release, its too late for NTW, which is a shame. i would love to play battles divided into corps, divisions, etc....
I think that this should be considered for a Napoleon 2 TW maybe.

Is Les Grognards a RTS? If it is like Sid Meyers "Waterloo" then to a large degree(IMHO)the improved graphics that NTW has are a waste, as I found all those corps/divisions take so much time and care, that having time to enjoy the eye candy is very difficult. It would be good if each area/sector of a battle was contained within it's own time element perphaps, in the same way a film will move through several scenes that are all happening at the same time.

As I see it, the Battles in the TW series are alot about 'in your face battle' or that's at least what I like about them, excellent detailed close ups of battle that keep improving, or in other words pure spectical, which is what CA's goal seems to be.

I don't readily understand players who fight their battles zoomed right out(unless their PC's are poor) when there are generally often only 40 units in a battle. If I played like that I would want to stick to the pure wargamming type sims. The question is, why do CA continually limit the armies to 20 controllable units, because that's about the controllable limit, for the average player, who may well be zoomed in close enough to enjoy the battle detail that CA aim to plough into the games they develop?

Originally Posted by Frost, colonel

which is what CA's goal seems to be.

The question is, why do CA continually limit the armies to 20 controllable units, because that's about the controllable limit, for the average player, who may well be zoomed in close enough to enjoy the battle detail that CA aim to plough into the games they develop?

But many Players , unlike myself, Pause, so that shouldn`t be the reason.

I always thought the limit was due to PC specs abilities to avoid slowdown in battles.

Originally Posted by Humble Warrior

But many Players , unlike myself, Pause, so that shouldn`t be the reason.

I always thought the limit was due to PC specs abilities to avoid slowdown in battles.

Yes I often use pause to give commands, but the battle still develops whilst watching the action play out.
You might well be right about the 20 unit limit, and yet in the Kingdoms add on for MTWII the AI could and did bring on another army for me, and another for it'self, I had several battles with 80 on screen units, max size, maxed detail, no problems.

I read a post recently, where someone suggested CA have chosen to restrict us to 20 units for the good of the average player. I certainly know gamers who don't play the TW series, because it's to complex and fiddly for them. How well would they cope if they could have 40 units, to make it fair in matching an AI that could put 40 units into the battle all at once? Although one could indeed argue that 20 units from a player can still whoop 40 of the AI's

Originally Posted by Rt. Hon. Gentleman

DISCLAIMER: OK, first, don't crucify me for suggesting change to the TW battle formula. Just because it has remained unchanged since Shogun, doesn't mean it can never change.


Now, As some people may know, I am a great fan of the upcoming game Histwar: Les Grognards. Now BEFORE PEOPLE START TO , I know that they are different games, and that TW will never be as simmy as HLG, etc. I also know that things like Aides de camp relaying orders, and them then being captured by enemies, is stupid to expect for NTW. I get it.

However, reading the HLG manual really brought something home to me. If NTW is based on the Empire combat model (face it, it will be), it bears no resemblance to the tactics of the day in the slightest. We are not talking "The Dragoon has bronze buttons instead of gold WHAT IS THIS HERESY?!?!?", we are talking Mario Kart Wii by comparison to race car driving. It's that bad.

Now, I was thinking, to borrow the phrase of Top Gear, how hard can it be? If a couple of Frenchmen locked in a barn for a few years can come up with a totally realistic system, how hard can it be for a multi-million pound company to at least come up with a system that occassionally nods to reality? The cornerstone of Napoleonic combat is the system of corps, regiments, battalions and detachments. If this is absent from the game (which it will be)...then...the essence of warfare of the period is lost!

Also, troops are supposed to deploy over a huge area in this time period. That is why real life Napoleonic battles were not two parallel lines of infantry, duking it out tediously. Really, they have utterly butchered the combat of the era. I repeat, this is not "somewhat unrealistic, but good for gameplay", it is like making a game about Rocket Science for Xbox and having the central premise of the game being "tap A to make next discovery". And that is it.

I may sound like an aggrieved history professor. That is because I am an aggrieved history professor, and am therefore not representative. But, while I do not expect a sim or anything like it, how can you have a historical game that has nothing whatsoever to do with the era it is set in?

Thank you.

Alas, I do not think we are the market that CA are aiming for. We are either a, too old, b, too serious about the reality of tactical warfare, c, too interested in experiencing how it might`ve been at the time or d, a combination of the above.

I`ve always known TW games not to be really realistic since Shogun, but it was good enough for me since there wasn`t much else. One thing I`ve discovered (which has culminated in Empires) that realism is the LAST thing on CA`s mind except in graphics. Sure Mike Simpson and the proganda speaks of it, but they have absolutely no intention of giving it.

I`m no professer, but I dearly want strategy wargames to teach me about the reality of the time. CA isn`t it.

I think the few games that ever taught me something about war and its reality were Combat mission 1,2 and 3 (excellent realistic tactical sim), IL2 Sturmovik ( I actually learned something about how different aircraft actually have different abilities, etc) and to some extent the Civ series with its snippets of historical information.

Although Shogun did get me reading Sun Tzu`s Art of War.

Originally Posted by Humble Warrior

Alas, I do not think we are the market that CA are aiming for. We are either a, too old, b, too serious about the reality of tactical warfare, c, too interested in experiencing how it might`ve been at the time or d, a combination of the above.

I`ve always known TW games not to be really realistic since Shogun, but it was good enough for me since there wasn`t much else. One thing I`ve discovered (which has culminated in Empires) that realism is the LAST thing on CA`s mind except in graphics. Sure Mike Simpson and the proganda speaks of it, but they have absolutely no intention of giving it.

I`m no professer, but I dearly want strategy wargames to teach me about the reality of the time. CA isn`t it.

I think the few games that ever taught me something about war and its reality were Combat mission 1,2 and 3 (excellent realistic tactical sim), IL2 Sturmovik ( I actually learned something about how different aircraft actually have different abilities, etc) and to some extent the Civ series with its snippets of historical information.

Although Shogun did get me reading Sun Tzu`s Art of War.

As a history teacher i can tell you that star wars is more based in reality than the tactical combat of ETW or MTW...

1) there arent enough men in the units... thats the first problem for instance..

Napoleon's famous battle of waterloo... the strength of his army alone was 70000 men and the enemy had over 110000 ...

2) the AI would have to have some concept of formulating an actual tactical battle plan which it clearly cannot..

for those of you saying historical warfare is boring.. I hear starcraft is still alive and kicking :-p


and BTW.. I didnt know you played IL2... I love that game.. you gonna make me bust out my joystick?

Well said as always, Rt. Hon. Gentleman. But I fear the battle system for NTW is at this stage too late to change and beyond hope. It will be the same as ETW.

Originally Posted by Lord Faucon

Well said as always, Rt. Hon. Gentleman. But I fear the battle system for NTW is at this stage too late to change and beyond hope. It will be the same as ETW.

Alas, it is true. Thing is, it does not have to be a sim like HLG, that would not appeal to a lot of people. No, it just needs to at least get the general feel of early modern combat right, which it probably won't.

At least the generals have special abilities like a "warcry".

Originally Posted by Darsh

At least the generals have special abilities like a "warcry".

...Not to mention machine guns and rocket launch batteries.

Imagine, for the moment, that ETW and NTW did not have any historical context. Let's say in another world the games are about lines of men with yer arty and yer cav and there's reload times and fields of fire and morale and so and so forth. But there's no Napoleon, there's no Marlborough, there's no Prussian Grenadiers.

Is this game still fun at its very core? Lets ignore AI or bugs for the moment. Is it fun?

Now... I'm going to hazard a guess that people here do like the basic gameplay of the TW games and while it has its problems commanding 20 units and ordering volley fire are all enjoyable in their own ways.

And this is why you can forget about any great revolutions in the framework of the battles. it already 'works', it's already enjoyable and it's already fun. CA feel this way, the majority of their customers feel the same way; even most of you Grognards feel the same way. And that's why it won't change. It doesn't matter if it's entirely inaccurate at portraying the complexities of Napoleonic warfare because you take that context away and the system is fun.

Will the system ever greatly change? I dunno, we'd have to be looking at a new engine and a new time period and there is a lot of demand for more than 20 units to command. BUT we have those old demons of performance and technical issues appearing again and considering the current system already has its problems adding yet more complexity to it sounds like things could go tits up.

I would certainly appreciate a reasonably accurate depiction of 19th century tactics in NTW but I certainly don't want LG type battles in NTW because in LG a single battle will take hours to resolve. CA just needs to condense the LG battles into a shorter rendition.

Totally agree with the OP, Its time the formula changed and CA started to allow for todays better comps, multi-core cpu,s and 2gig graphic cards which are coming on stream, given it takes a couple of years to develop a game engine, Its time these factors were taken into account.
The old 20 unit limit is getting very worn, and as the series seems to be turning to the more modern shorter historical type of campaign, Based more on the great battles, Then the excuse for the 20 unit limit and short battles is really gone.
Not all of us have the attention span of a midge, so give the public war in all its glory!
mags of the duffers

So how is CA supposed to incorporate the things you want without destroying the core mechanic of TW's battle system?

You want battles over a large expanse of territory--does that mean they only need to make the maps bigger?

You talk about a divisional system, but how is that even supposed to be represented with the tactical engine TW uses? More unit cards?...but I fail to see how having 40 units cards rather than 20 equals a division system.

Let's say CA does use maps that are, oh, four times larger than the ETW battle maps, and you can control up to 40 units at a time. Does that do it for you??

I don't see how you can expect CA to create a more "realistic" battle system when it's hard to define how to make the engine CA uses more realistic in the first place. And if CA does do that, it'll require a complete rethinking of how TW works--in other words, it'll be a completely different game and series.

Originally Posted by hitokiri2486

So how is CA supposed to incorporate the things you want without destroying the core mechanic of TW's battle system?

You want battles over a large expanse of territory--does that mean they only need to make the maps bigger?

You talk about a divisional system, but how is that even supposed to be represented with the tactical engine TW uses? More unit cards?...but I fail to see how having 40 units cards rather than 20 equals a division system.

Let's say CA does use maps that are, oh, four times larger than the ETW battle maps, and you can control up to 40 units at a time. Does that do it for you??

I don't see how you can expect CA to create a more "realistic" battle system when it's hard to define how to make the engine CA uses more realistic in the first place. And if CA does do that, it'll require a complete rethinking of how TW works--in other words, it'll be a completely different game and series.

Thats it exactly, Stop thinking in terms of the old game-engines, CA usually start work on a new one? after they release a game, and maybe before that.
A new game engine will need to be developed to handle the larger more complex battles, older parts that control diplomacy could be added by the previous engine.

If CA puts so much emphasis on a highly detailed tactical engine there is no way they would be able to spend any time on also including a realistic and detailed strategic engine; at least in an economical way. I would love to see the strategic gameplay of EU mated with something approaching what LG is attempting to do but there is probably a good economic reason why no developer has released such a game. It would appeal to us historical wargame nuts but not alot of the mainstream market and would not be viable from a marketing perspective. At least that is what the moneymen at the big developers are thinking I bet.

Originally Posted by hitokiri2486

So how is CA supposed to incorporate the things you want without destroying the core mechanic of TW's battle system?

You want battles over a large expanse of territory--does that mean they only need to make the maps bigger?

You talk about a divisional system, but how is that even supposed to be represented with the tactical engine TW uses? More unit cards?...but I fail to see how having 40 units cards rather than 20 equals a division system.

Let's say CA does use maps that are, oh, four times larger than the ETW battle maps, and you can control up to 40 units at a time. Does that do it for you??

I don't see how you can expect CA to create a more "realistic" battle system when it's hard to define how to make the engine CA uses more realistic in the first place. And if CA does do that, it'll require a complete rethinking of how TW works--in other words, it'll be a completely different game and series.

OH NOES! A NEW ENGINE! DO NOT SPEAK SUCH HERESIES!

Why should they not reform a fundamentally flawed and archaic system, with it's nigh unchanged 10 year old roots? I can see by the way you wrote your post that you have no clue about what makes a realistic battle, and think it just means more men and bigger maps. NEITHER are necessary.

I cannot, offhand, be arsed to explain about corps, divisions, regiments, battalions, etc, nor about why the battles of the era were nothing like what is in TW. Instead, I will give a link to this manual for LG, so you can have some grasp of the depth of this era. You don't need to read in any detail, skimming should suffice. http://www.histwar.com/dl/manuels/book-01-v1.00-en.pdf

As to your point about "it won't be TW any more if we make improvements", that point is so stupid that I do not even intend to dignify it with an answer.

There's always a new engine around the corner.

I mean back then in Shogun it was just risk style maps and pixels fighting before it became more detailed and moved into the detailed maps we have now. Then move on to making soldiers more individualistic and fighting and such.

Enter ETW where the environment becomes more dynamic, soldiers jumping over the fence, dragoons dismounting, house fighting, individualistic fighting. Then come NTW where we'll have attrition and smoke and the environment showing the scars of the battle.

I mean I'm on board with Aeoleon with the SupCom because I think that should be where Total War will end up. And in this case allows the multiple battles to occur on a major large front. The question of course is how to "do it" properly and if the specs are possible because unlike SupCom we are talking about actually bringing in 20,000 units into a battle on a large scale. The question is also on the campaign map and how do you fight a major campaign and still manage your empire at the same time? The turn based stuff at least allows that flexibility.

Every idea is always good and such but when it comes to practice it sometimes never works out. At least not yet anyways. They cannot do it for NTW obviously because its based on the ETW engine. Maybe when RTW III comes around the corner they could.

EDIT: There's also that Call of Duty 5/6 they did. They show the map and scan the location before bringing you right into that area. Maybe they could do that with Total war and still keep the Turn based and real time.

With the Zone of control available, any army/regiment/corps within that area will be able to participate in a massive battle with a more realistic environment.

Of course, realistically speaking these "battles" went on for days and I'm quite positive that the majority of gamers do "not" have days to spare for this battles.

I cannot, offhand, be arsed to explain about corps, divisions, regiments, battalions, etc, nor about why the battles of the era were nothing like what is in TW. Instead, I will give a link to this manual for LG, so you can have some grasp of the depth of this era. You don't need to read in any detail, skimming should suffice. http://www.histwar.com/dl/manuels/book-01-v1.00-en.pdf

I find it hilarious that some of these people hold that game out like its the holy grail of what total war should be.

Originally Posted by nameless

There's always a new engine around the corner.

I mean back then in Shogun it was just risk style maps and pixels fighting before it became more detailed and moved into the detailed maps we have now. Then move on to making soldiers more individualistic and fighting and such.

Enter ETW where the environment becomes more dynamic, soldiers jumping over the fence, dragoons dismounting, house fighting, individualistic fighting. Then come NTW where we'll have attrition and smoke and the environment showing the scars of the battle.

I mean I'm on board with Aeoleon with the SupCom because I think that should be where Total War will end up. And in this case allows the multiple battles to occur on a major large front. The question of course is how to "do it" properly and if the specs are possible because unlike SupCom we are talking about actually bringing in 20,000 units into a battle on a large scale. The question is also on the campaign map and how do you fight a major campaign and still manage your empire at the same time? The turn based stuff at least allows that flexibility.

Every idea is always good and such but when it comes to practice it sometimes never works out. At least not yet anyways. They cannot do it for NTW obviously because its based on the ETW engine. Maybe when RTW III comes around the corner they could.

EDIT: There's also that Call of Duty 5/6 they did. They show the map and scan the location before bringing you right into that area. Maybe they could do that with Total war and still keep the Turn based and real time.

With the Zone of control available, any army/regiment/corps within that area will be able to participate in a massive battle with a more realistic environment.

Of course, realistically speaking these "battles" went on for days and I'm quite positive that the majority of gamers do "not" have days to spare for this battles.



I find it hilarious that some of these people hold that game out like its the holy grail of what total war should be.

No, it's the holy grail of what Napoleonic combat was. Would you not think that a degree of verisimilitude might help the franchise?

HINT: Look at the vote. 30 vs 9.