To Have a Battle Time Limit or Not: Both Options Suck

[rtizzy]

I find myself pulling my hair out both with the battle timer and without it. Without it, the battles can literally last FOREVER. Like, in an assault setting, if you beat back the first wave of enemy troops, they'll frequently fall back outside of wall-arrow range and just chill. I won't go fight them if they have a vastly superior force, and they absolutely refuse to come attack. With the timer, I feel like it's an easy cop out. Get into a poor situation, you can just let the timer run out to avoid losing many troops. For instance, if you're being assaulted in a fortress/citadel, it's virtually impossible to lose, because all you have to do is fall back every time you lose a layer. What should happen is that the AI continues to camp in the layers they have taken on the next turn, rather than retreating all the way out of your settlement. Or at least maintain the siege. Is there any way to make this possible?

[Duck of Death]

The battle timer would simulate real world conditions.

During a seige, the attackers may try to starve them out, or if the city is well stocked force the attackers to withdraw after awhile because of dwindling supplies.

[Sanderlicious]

I use the battle timer mainly because of the reason you pointed out: the AI can get stuck in a siege battle. I don't want to lose because my opponent can't assault correctly. Either attack me, or wait me out on the campaign map. Don't make me sally forth because you are too lazy to move and I'm pressed for time 'cause 30 Rock is about to start

[The Mouth]

I never use the battle time limit it makes battles more brutal/deadly (Since the loser usually gets annihilated) and it gives you more room for tactics and is just more fun IMO.

[rtizzy]

I never use the battle time limit it makes battles more brutal/deadly (Since the loser usually gets annihilated) and it gives you more room for tactics and is just more fun IMO.

I would do this too IF the AI would know that they need to either attack or retreat some of the time. There are times where I'm just not going to advance on them...

[CTD_or_Bust]

I always try to switch on battle timer for siege defenses. Not because I want to make it too easy. That's an unfortunate byproduct.

Because I'm too familiar with the chance the attacking force will bug out and just sit there. And sit there. And sit there.

And all I can do is attack it and lose. edit: same goes for bridge defense battles. oh god lol when the AI won't cross the bridge to fight you mfw -_-

[Ichon]

I think battle timer off is better- the AI seems to act a bit better aside from those rare refusing to attack situations and really in those cases, the AI is not making a bad move. For a siege the AI has withdrawn but just doesn't know to exit the battle. If you exit battle yourself usually the battle will count as a draw in a siege and AI usually breaks off the siege the next turn.

In battles across rivers- those shouldn't really happen anyway. Very few battles in history were fought on a bridge and almost none intentionally. Only when one side was ambushed so if you have battle timer off, don't sit on bridges and expect the AI to be stupid enough to try and attack you.

With siege assaults battle timer off helps the AI defend much better. No more breaching defenses and AI does a massive retreat to the center. Instead you have to fight the AI for every spot it chooses to defend in- often on the walls in a bloody battle so even if you avoided attacking into the walls in the first breach you will likely have to before the battle is over. It also allows you to rest your men and conduct an assault in stages just as it usually happened historically if the garrison did not surrender or was starved out.

Also with no battle timer the AI will hold position on the high ground rather than some rash assault. Makes you have to really study the terrain and how to approach an enemy holding the high ground or sometimes just exit the battle without a fight if the enemy is just positioned too well.

[Manuel II]

Excellent post Ichon, +rep from me.

[Strengelicher]

I have always (for a looong time) played with battle timer on for the exact reason that I do not want to be forced to sally out in a siege defence. But reading what Ichon has posted, I feel like I should give the battle timer some vacation for a change...

[Sursion]

One time I actually ran out of time trying to assault a citadel. It took me so damn long to break through the three walls I ran out of the 60 minute timer. I think that's the only time it's ever worked against me

[CTD_or_Bust]

"That didn't happen historically" is weak imo. Faction XYZ didn't conquer all of mainland Europe either but there are few of us that do not set out to do exactly that every time. Bridge battles happen in game and they are excellent points of defense.

I do like leaving the timer on for assaulting sieges as well. Otherwise.. I'll just sit there and expend every arrow, every ballista shot and so on THEN charge. Without a timer, no urgency, no need to act like a human being. Just whittle each sprite down with superhuman patience.

[Ichon]

"That didn't happen historically" is weak imo. Faction XYZ didn't conquer all of mainland Europe either but there are few of us that do not set out to do exactly that every time. Bridge battles happen in game and they are excellent points of defense.

I do like leaving the timer on for assaulting sieges as well. Otherwise.. I'll just sit there and expend every arrow, every ballista shot and so on THEN charge. Without a timer, no urgency, no need to act like a human being. Just whittle each sprite down with superhuman patience.

Empire expanding is difficult to say given the complex factors and obviously in a game it won't be historical.

Trying to attack across a narrow bridge into a prepared enemy is not that complex and tactically its stupid. Why should AI be forced to do it at the players whim when the player already has a ton of advantages? Just the complaints about no timer prove the point- if you set up on a bridge and the AI does not attack across- what player would in turn then go and attack across? I've been forced to in that very situation playing without timer and I was frustrated at first then I tried different tactics and found a way to force a crossing without crazy losses. The AI will never be able to do that.

As far as acting like a human... sieges were usually affairs of patience- where does it say attacking rashly is human? I don't really get what you are saying here at all.

Don't you lose if you exit the battle when you are defending a settlement and the ai is attacking?

I disagree about there being no place for bridge battles in a game such as this, but it would certainly be nice if the ai could be made to avoid bridges more.

If the AI is not anywhere inside the walls I don't believe you automatically lose if you exit though I can't remember exactly. I am pretty sure in CoW in some of the scripted siege battles there ended a draw when I exited when some cavalry and siege engines where waiting outside the walls but I only had some infantry that would be killed by the cavalry left. Hopefully I'm not remembering a sally cause otherwise you are correct. I'll have to double check that point as I don't tend to wait for AI to attack very often and its been awhile since I was forced into that situation.

The only battles involving bridges I know about historically were ambushes. Not one side attacking across a bridge into a prepared enemy. I'd be happy to learn of some battles that contradict that though. I think as the game proves its rather foolhardy idea. Also with better tactics and using terrain other than a bridge most of the time a battle at a bridge could be won elsewhere unless the only tactic is massed siege artillery fire which is also complete nonsense in this era.

[Maltacus]

If you exit battle yourself usually the battle will count as a draw in a siege and AI usually breaks off the siege the next turn.

Don't you lose if you exit the battle when you are defending a settlement and the ai is attacking?

I disagree about there being no place for bridge battles in a game such as this, but it would certainly be nice if the ai could be made to avoid bridges more.

[Ferdiad]

Maybe you should use the new Germanicus BAI?

[Maltacus]

The scripted battles in CoW (Call of Warhammer if anyone wonders) may be special case I think. Sometimes the enemy attack settlements without siege equipment capable of breaking in, and in 1.4.4 at least there are occassions when you can choose to retreat when the enemy script-storm your city, resulting in them just keeping sieging you. Maybe an exit from such a battle would count specially?

I'm sure that I at least have never been able to exit from a normal siege battle without the enemy winning. On some very annoying occassions I have routed almost the whole enemy force and then exited too fast without noticing the "lose battle" warning.

Inactive large sieging stacks are the reason I leave the timer on. It does make things more challenging for me too since I don't have the time to move from wall to wall and elegantly slowly trap and outclass the defenders by careful use of their own walls.

I can't think of any historical battle involving something like the bridge battles seen in the game. If the goal was to recreate what happened I would agree with you totally.

The ideal bridge in a M2TW mod would in my opinion be some sort of custom battlefield if that is possible, where the attacker has just landed on a beach using some rafts or boats and the defender has the option to position himself very close to the attackers army, having been unable to stop the crossing of the boats but reacted in time to meet the foe quickly still. Or if there could be a bridge and one or two other crossings somewhere else on the battlefield.

[Irishpsycho]

I used to use the timer, but I won one too many fortress defences because of it so I don't use it anymore. Plus I think it makes sence for the attacking force to expend all it's firepower before risking their lives in a direct assault, since lives are (usually) much more valuable to a commander than munitions, since trained soldiers are harder to make than arrows or rocks.

As for bridge battles, usually there was a bridge and some other fordable points, such that the attacking force had at least a few places to come from. I believe that this was what happened in Constantine's Battle of the Milvian Bridge. I think that battles at fordable river crossings were more common, as the fordable crossing doesn't funnel people in the same way, making it more like assaulting through thick underbrush and up a hill than compacting over 1,000 men onto a small wooden platform. Crossing a shallow river was still undesireable, but certainly not suicidal, even when both forces were similar in size and quality (as again shown in the Battle of the Milvian bridge).

[TheDarkKnight]

I don't think it would be possible to make them able to camp out in one level of the city...That would make the game interesting but I don't see it happening.

As for me, I sometimes have the battletimer because the enemy will just sit there...

[Ichon]

I am all for more battle terrains. I would love to use a marsh, river, stream, etc to anchor a flank or push the enemy back into the sea- that would be an epic battle. Battle of the Milvian bridge was not an attack over a bridge though but a battle fought where the bridge was the main escape route. One of the biggest disappointments of Shogun 2 for me was the lack of variety in the terrain.

[k/t]

We need more narrow defiles in which we can ambush from above.

[Ferdiad]

The AI would fail epicly.