The battles that it takes a long time

[onlygokhan]

First of all, I uploaded this video for showing some bad points/bugs of BC 2.2 EDU.. With BC 2.2 EDU battles period lengthened and battles takes a long time.. It's good thing for reality but in some parts/places of battle it's become unrealistic.. in this video you can see two little soldier group fighting on the wall about 40-45 min. and they lost few quantity of men after a long time..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QHZfFWOEvs

[wudang_clown]

That's not BC 2.2 EDU, but BC 3.0.

Those two units are elites. What did you expect, that they will deal with each other in Jet Li style? Gamegeek2 has mentioned already that in case of prolonging melee you can use speed up the pace of the battle.

Behaviour of allied army is not a matter of EDU settings...

[gamegeek2]

AI Allies behaving like idiots is well beyond my realm of modding.

[Zaale]

Well, it happened to me in Belgorod playing byzantines and allied with kypchak.

Quite stupidly I assaulted the walls with 4 Rus mercenaries and another rus mercenaries attacked with a battering ram but it was destroyed before reaching the gates. My rus mercenaries stalled in an eternal fight on the walls (siege battles are bugged as hell on Medieval II)

So at a certain moment I see a big army coming from my right and I said to myself thinking they were rebels "What the ???" so I see the blue banners and understood they were my allies

They took my ladders, opened the gates and wipped out the stupid rebels taken the town in 2 minutes

It's one of the reasons why I LOVE Broken Crescent, allies are plenty useful and don't stab you on the back

[Ältester der Motten]

Those two units are elites. What did you expect, that they will deal with each other in Jet Li style?

I don't know, but I know that normally fights between two people should usually be over in a matter of seconds, or at least not much over a minute, even if the combatants have comparable skills and knowledge of the opponent's weapon and its fighting style.
At least that's what martial arts organisations say, and what watching their videos suggest.

Like here. Notice how they totally take their time in the first one, and how they have quite the room to maneuvre here.



Not saying your work is or something, I just had to think about that. Either way it's still preferable to Vanilla 5 minute battles. Thinking about it a bit more, it's probably realistic if it takes much longer when neither side can maneuvre at all.

[gamegeek2]

Given that, crowded in, it can be a lot more difficult to strike at weak points, I think it's realistic that elite-on-elite contests take so long.

Also, note that neither guy in that fight has a shield.

[wudang_clown]

I don't know, but I know that normally fights between two people should usually be over in a matter of seconds, or at least not much over a minute, even if the combatants have comparable skills and knowledge of the opponent's weapon and its fighting style.
At least that's what martial arts organisations say, and what watching their videos suggest.

Yes, that's true. Actually, Jet Li's movie fights are not a good example of a duel between men, because they last too long (like in most of action movies). Yeah, real fight is quick and dirty, and doesn't look cool.

However, medieval battles sometimes lasted few days, and certainly longer than two minutes.

[Ältester der Motten]

Yeah, I guess that'd make hitting weak points even harder.

[Ältester der Motten]

Yeah, but I was talking about individual fights.

Then again fighting in formation is probably a different deal alltogether. Oh dear.

[gamegeek2]

Not only is fighting in formation a lot longer, only a fraction of the men are actually engaged in combat at any given time.

[matmohair1]

some historical battles actualy last even longer , sometimes from dawn till dusk !

[Iguanaonastick]

Yes, but they didn't spend all that time locked shield-to-shield exchanging blows. Actual mêlée fighting cannot have lasted more than a few minutes at a time for each individual warrior, people simply cannot fight for much longer stretches at a time without collapsing from exhaustion. Just look at modern boxers and how long their rounds last, and how much it takes out of them.

Those hours of fighting would involve lengthy skirmishing with missile weapons, (spears, darts, whatever they had, plus of course bows and such) manoeuvres on different parts of the field, and only from time to time a charge.

Hastings is a good example. The battle lasted all day, with the English holding their ground and the Normans attacking again and again with their cavalry, but with lengthy pauses in between and time to attack the shield-wall with their archers. Other battles aren't as clearly documented, but they either lasted a lot shorter or there must have been similar stand-offs involved to make up the time.

[gamegeek2]

Correct, and M2TW infantry combat animations are quite slow and full of random shield bashing that makes no sense (in how it's animated) - however, it's what we have to work with.

[Rudy727]

honestly guys you cannot take it too literal.. the reason for the lengthy battles is a representation of the long battles that would take place.. if it were EXACTLY like they fought.. then we would start the game.. play one battle.. there would be so many people on the field the comp would not be able to take it.. and we would be there for hours sinces battles took months due to sieges.. camps.. etc.. so dont take it literal.. its a game.. i think its wonderful that its longer.. more action.. more ACCURATE battle outcomes, since if one of your units gets hit from the back.. your guys wont go down so easy and they would turn around and fight and you would actually have a chance.. its great when you want them to act as bait..

[The Noble Lord]

Well, depends from place and region but it is historical fact that some battles lasted from morning until late at night.

[Rudy727]

ahhh you guys are talking bout single encounters.. yea sometimes they would take hours.. and you must consider the fact that usually it was thousands against thousands in larges battles..

[trollface]

I didn't think anyone actually used manual siege battles in this mod? Well unless you are on the recieving end of one ofc... usual tac is to use a tiny force of elite cavalry that will make the enemy sally and then charge them to death

[trollface]

are the elite lancers going to be nerfed? Their utter dominace of infantry seems over the top, don't get me wrong I enjoy the BC approach it's nice to have godlike general units that you can rely on but still...

Also will the factions start with ridicolous debt like in EB? I enjoy the BC system (not too little money and rarely too much)

[gamegeek2]

Try out the new system, the one in the 3.0 Battle system preview thread - there's a download link. As it is, in the new system elite lancers will put the smackdown on things like sergeant swordsmen, but don't do too much in frontal charges vs decent spearmen or high quality infantry in general.