The one thing I really don't get about CA design focus

[Ecthelion]

If any of you have watched the most recent designer interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBq_04CF0qc

You see that they keep bringing up this concept of a focus on "the unit level" combat and being able to "zoom in" etc etc...

Not the first time we've heard CA emphasizing this point... and I still have no idea why they do.

Maybe to take a screenshot or to just watch casually during a replay or where the outcome is completely certain. But in 99.9% of the time I am zoomed out at near maximum so I can get the bird's eye view, I am sure any serious Total War player would echo the same.

Now, you might say, "OK, so what, they spend some resources developing it, it's fun, why not?" Well, there is a BIG why not.

In case some of you missed it, STW2, in order to accommodate the new "duel system" where two individual units can "lock" themselves in a 1 to 1 duel (for no other reason to look cool for the 0.1% of the time when we are zoomed in) they made it so that you cannot have multiple units engaging the same unit in melee.

What this mechanic means is that if you have a Macedonian phalanx where, in reality, up to 5 pikemen can engage the same target, in game, this would be reduced to a lone pikemen. And since they are "locked" as you may have noticed when Ashigaru spearwalls engage sword units in melee, the spearmen/pikemen will break formation and engage with their own swords, a secondary weapon. This is why the spearwall made almost no difference in STW2. And if they apply it for RTW2, it will make all spearmen/pikemen units effectively useless.

In summary, you have here a clear case where the drive for "cool 1 to 1 close up fighting animations" effectively broke an entire tactical side of the game.

They're numerous other examples where STW2 horsemen tend to get "locked" into a foot unit in some random duel animation rather then charging right through as they should.

Since CA seems bent on implementing this "close up " focus, I suppose there's no way to stop them. I just hope they stop themselves when they realize that they've just made phalanxes useless in a game about phalanxes.

[ComnenusTheOne]

Well, from an artistic point of view, CA confuses heroic fantasy with reality. Reality is that nobody would care about two dueling people in a fight, so the fight wouldnt stop at all.... and the whole duel thing wouldnt last for more than a minute at the most, as one of the duelists (or both) would get a blade on their backs and thats it. So the "feature" is useless anyhow.

[Ecthelion]

Well, from an artistic point of view, CA confuses heroic fantasy with reality. Reality is that nobody would care about two dueling people in a fight, so the fight wouldnt stop at all.... and the whole duel thing wouldnt last for more than a minute at the most, as one of the duelists (or both) would get a blade on their backs and thats it. So the "feature" is useless anyhow.

Actually, most modern day experts seem to agree through reenactment practice that any form of melee combat end within seconds, usually with a fatality.

Melee combat is VERY decisive, even when large shields and poorly trained men are involved.

[Adreno]

i zoom in quite a lot to be honest.. i dont care if i lose a few men extra here and there

[Sir Winston Churchill]

i zoom in quite a lot to be honest.. i dont care if i lose a few men extra here and there

You will when those few extra men are the reason you lost a battle.

The 1 on 1 combat system has been a scourge to Total War since Empire allowing for such unrealistic scenarios as a single man holding off an entire regiment and taking down a good number of them, rather than being stabbed in the back when his focus is on another man. Despite what Sun Tzu might have said, numbers do matter. It's much, much easier to fight a man one on one than compared to when his buddies try to get on your flank, and it should be represented in games.

This is why I prefer Med II combat, because that's how it was in Med II. If you surrounded a man, he never even had time to fight back because he was constantly being hit, even if he was an elite soldier up against militia. Eventually he died, why? Because that's how it would have happened.

[Humble Warrior]

If any of you have watched the most recent designer interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBq_04CF0qc

You see that they keep bringing up this concept of a focus on "the unit level" combat and being able to "zoom in" etc etc...

Not the first time we've heard CA emphasizing this point... and I still have no idea why they do.

Maybe to take a screenshot or to just watch casually during a replay or where the outcome is completely certain. But in 99.9% of the time I am zoomed out at near maximum so I can get the bird's eye view, I am sure any serious Total War player would echo the same.

Ah, now this is where we differ. That`s the `Debug camera` RTS Starcraft attitude , yes, the close up stuff is useless to you. I am a vet of Total war games and one of the main reasons, even over all the strategy, I like TW games is because I love zooming right into the battle and watching everything close up. I love seeing the men battle desperately against eachother in a dreadful choreography of death. It`s not easy to do when moving troops tactically, but as soon as there is a moment when there is no more I can do, I`m zoomed into the most critical battle area of the front! then I zoom out to witness the whole array of the fighting! Wonderful.

I see it as a time machine, viewing it as it might`ve really been. This is why i want as real as can be and authentic to history. I love the `Insert` view too and I only wish CA would go 1st person not 3rd person. If they could stay realistic and immersive with the close up battles, yet give us authentic smart tactics this would almost be perfect.

And I hope they don`t do away with the close up view.

[Waiting for Rome 2 -_-]

Why are you complaining?I know a lot of people,who like to zoom in and watch the fight from a close distance.If you want to zoom-you zoom,if you don't-you don't.This is as easy as that.It is confirmed that there will be no more 1 on 1 fights.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Why are you complaining?I know a lot of people,who like to zoom in and watch the fight from a close distance.If you want to zoom-you zoom,if you don't-you don't.This is as easy as that.It is confirmed that there will be no more 1 on 1 fights.

I agree with my hairy ewok friend.I often zoom into see the uniforms.Its emersive.
And sometimes i pause and zoom in to see where my units are.

After getting owned,stomped, and crushed you'll be laughed at and cussed, and you will understand all this graphic nonsense is crap because your pretty graphics will not help you win. Its much more fun to win then to lose and nobody cares about a loser. Just like in real life, athletes, students, companies, losers don't get anything

How old are you sir>???Are you the type of player that is abusive to opponents??
People that play with this attitude usually get over themselves when puberty is over.
Too many kids unable to control the surge of hormones going through their body is the reason i gave up on multiplayer.

[Adreno]

You will when those few extra men are the reason you lost a battle.

Well so what?

[Jack Lusted]

Animations may have been 1v1 in Empire, Napoleon and Shogun 2 but the combat system was not. Multiple attackers were accounted for. Given the greater focus on formations in the Rome II period you can be assured that is something we are taking into account for the Rome II combat system.

[magpie]

Animations may have been 1v1 in Empire, Napoleon and Shogun 2 but the combat system was not. Multiple attackers were accounted for. Given the greater focus on formations in the Rome II period you can be assured that is something we are taking into account for the Rome II combat system.

Hi Jack, Thanks for adding a little clarity to your thinking on combat plans for ROME2.
It would make sense in a melee situation to have constant fighting action taking place all around even zoomed in to the last Goodluck with your efforts in developing the combat.

regards,

mags

[HappyGoodVibes]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Animations may have been 1v1 in Empire, Napoleon and Shogun 2 but the combat system was not. Multiple attackers were accounted for. Given the greater focus on formations in the Rome II period you can be assured that is something we are taking into account for the Rome II combat system.

This is very good news! I hope it turns out great, because this issue bugged me in Shogun and Empire beyond belief. I always thought some sort of "two on one" animations would be an interesting way of solving things. There is a great scene from HBO's Rome where this guy gets stabbed by all the legionaries around him and I always think to myself "that's how it should be in Total War."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wQ_6cVXTQk#t=8m54s

In fact, that whole video basically defines what I would want to see with combat in Total War.

[Spajjder]

They already said that they will try to make the game much more like big units moving in formations then heroic one on one encounters.
Although, the problem with pikemen not doing what they are supposed to happened to me ALOT in mtw2 as well, so much that i didnt even use pikemen at all, the enemy always broke through the spearwall, and the men starting using their secondary weapons instead.
at least in shogun 2 the spearwall works very well against cavalry attacks.

I do agree the game mechanics are way more important than the close up fighting. But I love the close up fighting as well.
one way would be to have animations that involves more than 2 units, like a gangup animation, or backstab animation.
mtw2 also had 2 on 2 animations i think, but they looked terrible. in mtw2 units could backstab units in animations though i think. but i think the other 1 on 1 animation would continue for the dying part on its own. making it look really weird

[Dynamo11]

So you're saying you don't like to zoom in close and just admire the carnage for a minute or so. I've been doing that since RTW all the way to Shogun 2

[Sharpe]

Heroic one-on-one combat would do no favours in Rome 2. The strength of the armies in this period is based on the cohesion of the formations, (Hoplite Phalanx, Sarissa Phalanx, Manipular etc)

The only argument for one on one situations would be during sieges, on the walls and in the streets where the terrain would force a unit out of formation. Maybe that would give an advantage to Celtic/Germanic nations then, whose regulars were probably better individual fighters than other nations (Elite units aside)

[Shane the Llama]

Has anyone here read "The Heroes" by Joe Abercrombie? It does a great deconstruction of the exact idea you're talking about, that two men can have a drawn-out duel in the midst of a large battle. I won't spoil the book for anyone, but it doesn't work out that way for the combatants.

And to make this more on topic, I can't imagine that CA would completely negate the effectiveness of the phalanx in a Rome game at this point. I know these games have had many issues with pikemen in the past, but by now I think that they will get it right, as it's such an important part of classical warfare (at least for some factions).

[Rasic]

I'd consider myself a "serious" tw gamer, and I zoom in as much as possible. Once units are locked in besides managing your general and the moral/flanking movements sometimes you have a good deal of time where things don't require your attention.

They've also talked about mass of the units, heavy troops being able to push back lighter troops and such. That, at least to me, sounds like he's talking about a unit like legionaries or phalanx "pushing" those lighter units as in running over them if they can't hold their ground, not 1 on 1 dueling them.

EDIT: also I very much want some units to be 1 vs 1 duelers if its appropriate to the combat style they used.

[Patrizio]

Yeah I'm not sure where you got the information that 1v1 animations mean restricted 1v1 unit damage. If this were true then charging a unit from the rear with cavalry while it's engaged in melee would have no effect on either unit, which isn't the case.

Edit: Actually I misunderstood, you are referring to the individual soldiers within the unit. But Lusted seems to have countered this as well.

Anyway everyone is of course entitled to view the battles however they see fit, but the major feature that made the first Rome so revolutionary was the switch from sprites to models and the ability to zoom in on individual soldiers. I'm puzzled as to why this bothers you now. When I first played Shogun and took a moment to zoom in and saw a samurai's facial expression change as he dueled I was blown away. Every one of the literally thousands of characters on screen can be viewed up close and personal. This is nothing short of amazing.

[bartozer]

I'd say I only zoom at the beginning of a battle so I can see how awesome my units look. However during most of the battle I am zoomed out max and doing crazy things with my mouse hand so that I can see where I am needed and exploit any weakness of the opponent. Then I zoom in when the battle gets really small so I don't have to make any decisions and I can just watch the little people fight it out.

[Rasic]

I just had a great thought as well, why not just have animations for units back stabbing someone who is dueling someone else, when it's appropriate like the line is broken and things are more chaotic.