Decisive battles

[Hasforth9]

Will we see decisive/important battles this time, or will we be able to field another huge army in 3 turn after losing a large battle to the AI?

I personally think that pitched battles should be much more important than in earlier games, and I really like CA's decision to focus less on siege spams

[Hasforth9]

Also longer battles with lower kill rates, higher morale instead of the very arcady "charge = win" battles in Shogun 2

[Dunadd]

Completely agree on needing decisive battles - the number of units in an army needs increased massively compared to the first Rome Total War. If there are worries about what number the average computer can handle at once on a battlefield then put in options (or a slider) to limit the number of units each side can have on the battlefield at once, with the rest having to wait in reserve until others are destroyed or rout off the map or retreat off it.

This would make things both more fun (because if you fight a major battle and the result is nothing - just that you have to fight another dozen the same, it gets dull and repetitive) and more historically accurate (historically there were a few very large battles in most ancient wars because neither side wanted to fight until it had most of it's available forces together in one force. The Romans were an exception due to their high manpower that let them raise new armies after big losses, but even the Second Punic War had only a dozen major battles)

I don't think morale needs changed, but a slider to reduce the rate of kills by units in combat or by archery would help to allow for people who like longer, more historical battles on the one hand and people who like fast battles because they're short of time to play on the other.

[a tw player]

Most casualties should occur when one side routs, as was true of the time. Battles shouldn't completely screw over your army rendering it useless until replenished for a few turns when it's on the victorious side (in most cases anyhow), and the defeated army should be massively weakened.

With this in mind, death rates in combat should be much much lower than currently portrayed (anyone ever played the Roma Surrectum mod?), until one side becomes surrounded/flanked/ambushed and loses the will to continue fighting, or of course they are up against much higher quality opponents. 2 units of infantry of equal quality should basically stalemate for a long period of time; the player should be made to use tactics to outmanoeuvre his foe and force a quick result, other than (as it should be if no tactics are used) a long meatgrinding battle that doesn't really progress.

[ironbrigade]

Will we see decisive/important battles this time, or will we be able to field another huge army in 3 turn after losing a large battle to the AI?

I personally think that pitched battles should be much more important than in earlier games, and I really like CA's decision to focus less on siege spams

Also longer battles with lower kill rates, higher morale instead of the very arcady "charge = win" battles in Shogun 2

Completely agree on needing decisive battles - the number of units in an army needs increased massively compared to the first Rome Total War. If there are worries about what number the average computer can handle at once on a battlefield then put in options (or a slider) to limit the number of units each side can have on the battlefield at once, with the rest having to wait in reserve until others are destroyed or rout off the map or retreat off it.

This would make things both more fun (because if you fight a major battle and the result is nothing - just that you have to fight another dozen the same, it gets dull and repetitive) and more historically accurate (historically there were a few very large battles in most ancient wars because neither side wanted to fight until it had most of it's available forces together in one force. The Romans were an exception due to their high manpower that let them raise new armies after big losses, but even the Second Punic War had only a dozen major battles)

I don't think morale needs changed, but a slider to reduce the rate of kills by units in combat or by archery would help to allow for people who like longer, more historical battles on the one hand and people who like fast battles because they're short of time to play on the other.

death rates in combat should be much much lower than currently portrayed (anyone ever played the Roma Surrectum mod?), until one side becomes surrounded/flanked/ambushed and loses the will to continue fighting,

agreed with all above, im really exited about what ca is going to do here.most likely much larger armies. Besides the number of siege battle [they will be fixing] this being fixed as well [fighting many small battles every turn that mean nothing] will both improve rome 3 alot over previous titles.