Quick Battles

The last few weeks I have been playing Quick Battles only. From what I gather, I'm pretty much alone in this; I'd like to know why.
The advantages I see with them are:
1. random maps (not having to decide where to host or join);
2. random armies (no exploitative setups);
3. matchmaking (similar skill level).
Well, matchmaking would work if more people played it.

So, Quick Matches should really be the way to go for 1v1s... still, apparently few people use that feature.
Is it because they used to be small unit size only and you just didn't try it again after?
Do you insist on using your own army setups so much that you can't live with a preset one?
Or are you just so fixated on Grassy Flatlands?

Well while quick battles are quite a good idea, in theory, I can see why much of the community does not join them:

1) They are played in small unit scale: this takes away some of the 'Total War' feel to the game, if you get what I mean.
2) While people think you can play a battle 'on the go' (Which was probably one of the reasons quick battles were created), the truth in the matter is that a multiplayer battle,
especially on a terrain map is a timely affair. Battles can sometimes last for up to an hour, and if your not playing on a map, or with a faction you like, it may not seem all too
appealing.
3) One of the joys many (Or at least I) find in a Total War game is the construction of an army. The vast selection of builds, units etc. is an important aspect of a 'Total War'
game. Random armies takes this factor away. Moreover many people have a particular faction they enjoy using, be it an overpowered faction such as France to an
undernourished country such as the Netherlands.
4) Not all players enjoy a battle of adaption, or of initiative, thus the idea of random maps might not appeal to them; it forces them in an unfamiliar environment and they most
certainly feel like they will lose. Terrain maps also have important features (i.e hills, forests, bottlenecks) players who are not used to these maps will be overwhelmed by the
features and will not have enough time to analyze the map, therefore losing terrain to a faster, more experienced player. That's why many people prefer to slug it out in a battle
of attrition (Flatlands). Just two armies blasting it out, with each player in total control.

Now that is just a perspective I concocted by contemplating why people didn't join quick battles, myself, I think it is a fun addition. The random selection of every aspect, as well as the environment provides a new layer of challenge to an experienced Total War veteran. Such random environments really bring out the best of virtual generals, since many clannies I've noticed who are insecure about their ability, play every game on grasslands. (;P)

Thank you, that's very insightful, +rep.

Originally Posted by Eazyrider

1) They are played in small unit scale

Actually, that's not the case anymore, they now use the smallest default setting of both players involved (which is usually large/large or med/large in my experience).

One of the joys many (Or at least I) find in a Total War game is the construction of an army. The vast selection of builds, units etc. is an important aspect of a 'Total War' game. Random armies takes this factor away. Moreover many people have a particular faction they enjoy using, be it an overpowered faction such as France to an undernourished country such as the Netherlands.

I understand, and agree with that - partially
Firstly, experimenting with army setups would be more fun if there weren't so many rules in most games that your only choice is how many line and cav you take.
Secondly, and I can only judge other peoples' games from the Youtube vids I see, this seems to not apply to most people. Find me a video without Prussia or France in it (mine don't count ).
Do you think people would be less drawn to a certain faction if they were more similar to each other and/or more balanced overall?

And what about if the Quick Battle worked in a way that you could design your army, choose a set of maps that are acceptable to you and then let the system find a match?

i dont really play quick battles due to connectivity issues like the 'no response from host'.so playing randoms gets difficult.but it does make sense,is far less predictable, and probably more challenging too.

I play most of my 1v1's randomly as well. Mainly to avoid abusing the conditions of a game (regardless wether my opponent or myself host)

The connectivity issues has dropped a month or two ago for some reason. I only wish there was sometimes less waiting time, and a bit more skilled or talkative opponents. Some still even choose to drop during the game.

Could be because the flatlands kids are afraid of terrain maps and armies that don't include a large amount of lancers.

flatlands kids

lolol Fight me

I've been doing epic battles like Ria, same results only takes forever to get a win. I basiclly play flats to help my speed and micro, and gain rank points quickly.

terrain map battles are usually the most epic, though naval battles can also be epic

Originally Posted by Y@$!N

terrain map battles are usually the most epic, though naval battles can also be epic

I say. My favourites are 2v2 unlimited ship naval battles and 3v3 terrain map battles (always the same set of 3 maps though, and the terrain actually keeps moving if the only flat choice is picked)

Hm quick battles, random armies, random maps, possibility to open the mind to change, I might have to check this out thank you daniu.

Originally Posted by daniu

The last few weeks I have been playing Quick Battles only. From what I gather, I'm pretty much alone in this; I'd like to know why.

One factor must be that its 1v1. Team play ads alot of fun and makes matches somewhat more dynamic. But you are not alone liking them, we just got a new member in the clan that has played 900 (nine hundred!) hours worth of quick battles

Just played some multiplayer Napoleon for the first time in months, thought I would be brave enough to encounter connection problems. This time I did quick battles only and I got a couple of games out of It. (first time ever)
I prefer this way because you never know who you are going to be and what units your going to get and what map is going to be played on which in my opinion is awesome because all I see on youtube is pretty much the same thing over and over again. Using what your given and quickly implementing strategies on the spot makes battles much more exciting.

I personally don't mind games that go on for a long time, I'm happy I get a game going at all.