Command&Control - How do we make the player less omnipotent?

[Destraex]

In the real world an army may be in the next valley while you are being attacked but never get word to come and help. Messengers and scouts need to find them and give them orders.

How does this translate in total war games? Well in total war your units are assumed to get instant orders on all sides of the globe, just like they had modern radio equipment.

Now a lot of people I know will think that it will be frustrating. But I really would like to see proper supply and order delays implemented at least on the campaign map if not on the battlefield?

So many of us take for granted the frederick the great or alexander manoevers we can pull off with such ease in game where it took real skill to get a battle line to follow a plan and orders and execute them well.

I for one would like more of a challenge in this manner and just be keen to see how it would all play out.

Trumpets, flags, scouts, messengers and staff officers using all manner of form to communicate.

I should also point out that even the spartans had an orders system that was coded so if a messenger was captured the message could not be read.
I imagine the romans had something just as complex and know very well that their trumpet commands were fairly complex.

[Rorarii]

It would be good but point-n-click doesn't require unit AI ..

R

[Lord Baal]

I would go with a simple mechanic. Each time you give your unit a order there will be a delay, this delay depending on the distance from your general. It's simple and realistic. Now, you could have the animation of a dude running around from a to other units and the general or simply have the time delay, it works anyway.

[Akrotatos]

I would like it if the AI wasn't so god damn stupid...meaning that by the time they got the command they would be standing there, while enemy units paraded in front of them or were hitting them with arrows in the back etc etc.
To do this you would need what real armies needed: competent "platoon" commanders, centurions etc that could sieze the moment and press on an advantage without orders. So no changes for now.

[Andreius Pretorianus]

in reality,the generals,gave the orders to the units,waaaay before the battle started.The rest was left to the unit commanders.The gameplay given to us by CA,is completley unrealistic.

There was a game about the trojan war,Troy I think it was called.It managed to use the realistic commands of the general.Before a battle started,you had to give orders to your army,formations etc.After that the fight started and you stood and watched.

[Lord Baal]

in reality,the generals,gave the orders to the units,waaaay before the battle started.The rest was left to the unit commanders.The gameplay given to us by CA,is completley unrealistic.

There was a game about the trojan war,Troy I think it was called.It managed to use the realistic commands of the general.Before a battle started,you had to give orders to your army,formations etc.After that the fight started and you stood and watched.

Yes, and giving orders before the battle starts beyond the deployment should be even better. But as everything, warfare was also ever changing, and it was not uncommon for a commander/general to change tactics in the heat of the battle to adapt or counter the enemy tactics.

[Darkragnar]

Absolutely terrible gameplay mechanic for what kind of a games The total war series are.

[Condottiere 40K]

You would need super programming to pull it off, though a side benefit would be that you could select commanders for task forces based on their stats and personality.

[Durnaug]

Less control of armies is not a good idea for a TW game. You are a faction leader, a general and a squad leader in the TW universe - you zoom in and out of these roles. You would just find it frustrating not being able to control a vital unit in the heart of battle. So I am not for realism when it comes to control - totally frustrating and ultimately boring, waiting for the AI to mess with your orders.

[Andreius Pretorianus]

for the sake of gameplay,you should still be let to give different commands during the game,but with a big "lag" because ,let s face it,communication was extremley hard back then

[Ichon]

I think some order delay could work well with TW system. It would be less a click fest and actually require thinking ahead a bit further and probably being slightly more cautious as you can't repair a mistake so easily but overall better for gameplay. Either a command points system where a general can only give so many orders in a certain period based on his skill or a unit depending on its type and quality could only execute so many orders in a certain time. It would allow finally ambushes that are actually somewhat a different battle since the ambushed units would respond more slowly than normal due to the surprise and other tactics.

[Cinnamon the Hun]

Players want to feel omnipotent. Expect a terrible backlash if they go against that, griping about realm divide would be nothing.

[Zimmy]

Why does everyone want this game to be so goddamn realistic and no fun at all? The total War series isn't a history book, lets face it. As much as I want historical facts in it I don't want it at the cost of !!FUN!!

[Ichon]

Why does everyone want this game to be so goddamn realistic and no fun at all? The total War series isn't a history book, lets face it. As much as I want historical facts in it I don't want it at the cost of !!FUN!!

This game is never going to be realistic its a computer game. Its more about believability and suspension of doubt. People who assume a slight delay would result in less fun seem to just be reactionaries, TW already introduced lots of other changes over time and while there have been doubters(all those people who did not want skill tree for general or naval combat spring to mind) overall the changes have improved the game despite a few missteps also along the way.

Would it be so hard to add order delay especially as an option like general's camera? I bet there would be an entire class of MP devoted to that since a lot of people who play Paradox games and other games would prefer more thinking and less clicking. I feel like its a difference of opinion between the wargammers/historical enthusiasts vs the RTS gamers. I have always played both styles of games and TW with a bit more thought and less clicking in the battles would be a perfect mix of both styles to me.

[Rasic]

I've already went into great detail on this, but I'd just say that you have to realize what your asking for is a fundamental change to the way this game is played. Things like an order delay might sound simple enough but it has a ripple effect on everything from how you activate abilities to rewriting the BAI almost completely. It could be fun, or it could be a disaster.

I just don't see that as a risk CA is going to make for the flagship that is Rome 2. Besides, myself and most players have never really seen themselves as "The General", rather you are sort of everyone in your army. You are making the decisions to fix bayonets for a charge or whatever small thing at a local level, but also managing flanking maneuvers on the larger scale. It's what keeps the battles fast paced and interesting. Especially after you've fought the same or similar battle 15 times in a row.

[Ichon]

I've already went into great detail on this, but I'd just say that you have to realize what your asking for is a fundamental change to the way this game is played. Things like an order delay might sound simple enough but it has a ripple effect on everything from how you activate abilities to rewriting the BAI almost completely. It could be fun, or it could be a disaster.

I just don't see that as a risk CA is going to make for the flagship that is Rome 2. Besides, myself and most players have never really seen themselves as "The General", rather you are sort of everyone in your army. You are making the decisions to fix bayonets for a charge or whatever small thing at a local level, but also managing flanking maneuvers on the larger scale. It's what keeps the battles fast paced and interesting. Especially after you've fought the same or similar battle 15 times in a row.

I don't see how it would require a complete change of the BAI for order delay. How often do you issue new orders to every unit right now? I bet the average is around 1.5 minutes. There are a very few units that are micro extensively but the majority of units aren't. Same idea with abilities- relatively few units have abilities and in RTW2 probably even fewer than in past games, pilums, what else?

The main difference in order delay is that it requires some thinking ahead but with RTW2 building armies as a group then standard formations for the AI become a possibility and thus the player which already can't issue orders as quickly as the AI is forced to be a bit more cautious and a bit less exploiting micro over the AI which spends 90% of its time reacting to what players do, not the other way around which order delay would make more even.

I don't know what most players consider themselves but hearing people talk on here it seems a large part do see themselves as the general. Not the general, tribune, centurion, etc all ranks. Conjecture either way though and I'm not sure if it is relevant. We already don't order every individual soldier, this would just be a very small continuation of that.

Fast paced battles are one thing and interesting is something different. I personally found Shogun 2 battles the most boring of the franchise while the campaign was actually more interesting. For the first time in a TW game I found myself contemplating doing auto calc and really only playing the campaign and not the battles.

CA spends all this money on animations and being able to zoom in to watch but then makes the battles click fests where you don't have time to zoom in if you are having to click something every 3 seconds. It seems a waste. Epic feel happens at slower speeds. I guess it is about the direction of the franchise- multiplayer and clickfest with dozens of other titles already owning that space or a continuation of TW historical epicness which would be greatly aided by a bit more thought and slower paced battles- doesn't mean each battle will take 45 minutes with command delay as the decisive moment could turn early with units in the wrong position but a slower pace allows players to actually appreciate the units, animations, tactical decisions, etc.

[Rasic]

I'd say its a bit more frequent that 1.5 minutes. Sure, once your infantry (melee) are locked in then there isn't much left to do but watch them fight it out typically, but for ranged and cavalry units you're constantly moving them here or there. Even for your main line there is a lot of on the fly positioning happening before the actual engagement of lines.


The problem comes in on what causes a delay and what doesn't. If I move a unit up 10 paces to fill in a gap in the line, would that be something the general of an army would have to tell that unit or something that the subordinate commander would just eye and be able to take care of? likewise, if a unit is being hit with arrows and it has a formation it can use for better defense, like a testudo, that is decision that given the overall situation a subordinate commander could make without having to be told based on his training and tactics, unless he had a specific task which forbid him making that decision. These aren't decisions the AI can make for itself because it isn't capable of assessing the situation as accurately as a player would even on a small scale in a game like this.

Now it turns into a debate on how autonomous do we make the army? Are you only giving orders on a grand scale. Such as telling a section of your army to advance and they pick and choose targets at will and use any special abilities they have without you having direct interference. Or are you still in control of facing movements and micro actions of an individual unit?

Either way it presents a problem...

In the first scenario limiting all control to just grand maneuvers would require a complete change to how the game is played. And given the scale of the game (3000-5000 guys in an army) it would be as shallow of an experience as it is now for some because it's too abstract on the scale to represent the reasoning why these large maneuvers were important. The second scenario just sounds more frustrating than it does fun for the reasons I mentioned above.


I 100% agree that the game needs more depth in the battles. I just feel that it's lies more in the mechanics to add to that realism and better integration with the campaign side of things and choices you make pre-battle rather than an artificial command and control aspect. At least not at this scale. In a few years from now (if its total war or another game) when technology has matured to the point where we start seeing games that have this beautiful of graphics and also maintain somewhat closer historical numbers then it's an almost must have feature.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

This seems to be something that I'd agree on because it's realistic, but I would get very annoyed by when I actually play it. Having units do stupid things because I have to wait for an artificial delay is something that will piss off many players.

[Ichon]

This seems to be something that I'd agree on because it's realistic, but I would get very annoyed by when I actually play it. Having units do stupid things because I have to wait for an artificial delay is something that will piss off many players.

Is it the unit doing something stupid or the player putting unit in a bad position? Units automatically fight back when engaged so I am not sure what you mean that would be only the problem with a unit other than pathfinding issues which exist in any system used.

I'd say its a bit more frequent that 1.5 minutes. Sure, once your infantry (melee) are locked in then there isn't much left to do but watch them fight it out typically, but for ranged and cavalry units you're constantly moving them here or there. Even for your main line there is a lot of on the fly positioning happening before the actual engagement of lines.

The problem comes in on what causes a delay and what doesn't. If I move a unit up 10 paces to fill in a gap in the line, would that be something the general of an army would have to tell that unit or something that the subordinate commander would just eye and be able to take care of? likewise, if a unit is being hit with arrows and it has a formation it can use for better defense, like a testudo, that is decision that given the overall situation a subordinate commander could make without having to be told based on his training and tactics, unless he had a specific task which forbid him making that decision. These aren't decisions the AI can make for itself because it isn't capable of assessing the situation as accurately as a player would even on a small scale in a game like this.

I 100% agree that the game needs more depth in the battles. I just feel that it's lies more in the mechanics to add to that realism and better integration with the campaign side of things and choices you make pre-battle rather than an artificial command and control aspect. At least not at this scale. In a few years from now (if its total war or another game) when technology has matured to the point where we start seeing games that have this beautiful of graphics and also maintain somewhat closer historical numbers then it's an almost must have feature.

You are moving 20 units typically- 12 probably don't require very frequent moves, advance, stop, charge... then you have the flanking, reserve, and cavalry units which require more orders but even if you give them a new command every 30 seconds (try timing a battle and seeing for yourself) the other units on average are getting maybe 5 orders in a 10 minute battle... that is 2 min per order. The main addition for skirmishers/archers would be when skirmish is on you could designate a position they should retreat towards or let AI handle them as AI is actually capable of using skirmish mode only a tiny bit worse than human players. In battles now skirmish modes require extreme micro because they flee towards the enemy or map corner majority of the time, simply designating at the battle start a position for each skirmish to retreat towards automatically until they can be given new orders solves that.

If we are talking about formations before the battle then whatever formation the player designates the AI attempts to maintain. So if a unit falls behind the line the AI automatically moves up just as it does already with groups. Nothing new there.

Forming testudo or similar is well within the delay system if there are 3 general commands, advance, halt, retreat that don't matter on delay as every army has some universal signals for those actions, trumpet blast, drums, flags, etc. So a Legion would be formed into a formation during deployment, order is issued "Advance" so far nothing used against a command delay. Legion comes in range of enemy archers, order "Halt" is given again not using command delay. Now just the units the commander wants can be issued "Form Testudo" command and it does count against delay limit as it is a change of formation that must be relayed to each particular unit not the entire army and each rank of that unit has to get into position on the orders of the centurion or rank leaders. Now these units that reformed are in that formation until either commander gives another order(but has orders limited by command points so orders one unit at the risk of not being able to order another as can only give so many commands within a certain duration it takes to signal all those commands out) or depending on the quality of the units, a veteran cohort might be able to change formation once every minute, a fresh auxillary cohort might only be able to change formation once every 3 minutes.

Never said anything about autonomous action unless you specifically give over command of units to the AI which you can already do and give general orders to that AI, hold position, attack, etc. The benefit of that would be for example archers where AI commander over the archers has his own command points/speed so the archers will fire or move to the rear without having to give them a specific command.

[Rasic]

Okay, I think I might of misunderstood what you were getting at earlier. I can see it a bit more clear now. You might have to slow down the pace of the battles for it to work effectively, which I'm more in favor for as long as it isn't an hour per battle.

Might actually help with the blobing the AI tends to do. From my experience a lot of that comes from all the jerk reactions the AI does prior to the units actually engaging. So limiting the actions you and the AI can take before the lines meet might reduce that as long as it isn't too harsh and there is a little room like a minor adjustment and making the major ones more of strategic decisions like formation changes.

edit: maybe a time penalty in the delay based on the type of action you're trying to take compared to an overall delay penalty. So making a slight adjustment to the angle of the formation would only suffer a 5 second delay as opposed to like a 30 for changing the actual formation the unit is used (like going into a testudo).