|Suggestion| - A New Type of Battle

[JankoMega]

Hail all Total War fans!
I've been playing Total War games since the release of the Medieval Total War 1, and there's a certain thing that I'm considered about, and would want it in, in Rome 2. So let me hear yall thoughts about it below.
First of, I won't make this a huge thread, but will try to make it as small as possible, hence it would be easier to read/understand.
So lets start.
As all of you've been playing almost all, or all TW games, there's probably some good amount of you that can agree with this...When you'd get in war with a particular faction, you could not conquer the entire nation with only one HUGE battle, right? - That's the thing I'm gonna speak 'bout.
In the original Rome Total War 1, you would have to fight impossibly many battles before conquering some faction (no matter if small or big). You simply, had to conquer all of it's regions till it gets destroyed; But not only that; You would have to fight a good number of their family members till you basically kill all of their armies and get them completely weakened, before attacking the cities. Well, I've thought about something quite amazing few days ago, but I was busy with something else.
If you had ever watched Alexander the Great movie before, you would probably understand this quite fast. Now the actual suggestion.
Imagine if you could conquer one (again, no matter if small or big) nation with only one battle. It's not any type of battle, it would be the battle that would matter the future of the attacked nation, but would also matter the future of the invading nation. This battle could never be small, and as it was confirmed that there will be over 20 units available, this battle would be one of these with an incredibly big amount of units. It would basically put in all the forces of the attacked nation into that battle, while the invading faction would bring the appropriate amount of soldiers, depending on the amount of soldiers they have brought from their mainland. It's quite simple.
In a nutshell: For the fate of the faction that is being attacked, there would be a huge battle fought. If the attacked faction loses, all garrisons are destroyed and it's land becomes the part of the invading faction. Or if the invading faction loses, then it would only suffer huge loses, but the armies would not be broke completely, and it would take some time to rebuild the strength.
Another thing, which is quite related to this topic, is increasing the amount of time for recruiting units in settlements. This would give the authentic feel to the battles and would make them actually mean something. If you'd lose a simple battle against someone, you could not get another stack back in a small amount of time, so your defeated army would need to recover first for many turns. Now lets stay of that topic though.

Hope you actually understood what I meant in this thread, and, hopefully, agree with it.
Sincerely,
Janko.

[Ichon]

So no matter how large your faction is, a single battle can determine if you faction lives or dies? I don't think that is a good idea. Imagine you are attacked 2 times in a row... afterall that would be the best strategy for your enemies, wait for someone else to attack then follow immediately after as your army is beaten up. Now you lose the 2nd battle and game over? What would be the point of growing your Empire if you can lose it all in a single battle? A large part of the fun in TW is making the right choices most of the time and winning 90% of the battles but 1 poor decision or surprise attack can set you back really far however- you have the chance to fight back and regain what your mistake cost. I wouldn't mind if armies took longer to create or there were income problems sometimes after losing a battle (where people think they can get away with paying less taxes as authority of the government is damaged) but win or lose in a single battle seems bad idea.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

So no matter how large your faction is, a single battle can determine if you faction lives or dies? I don't think that is a good idea. Imagine you are attacked 2 times in a row... afterall that would be the best strategy for your enemies, wait for someone else to attack then follow immediately after as your army is beaten up. Now you lose the 2nd battle and game over? What would be the point of growing your Empire if you can lose it all in a single battle? A large part of the fun in TW is making the right choices most of the time and winning 90% of the battles but 1 poor decision or surprise attack can set you back really far however- you have the chance to fight back and regain what your mistake cost. I wouldn't mind if armies took longer to create or there were income problems sometimes after losing a battle (where people think they can get away with paying less taxes as authority of the government is damaged) but win or lose in a single battle seems bad idea.

I think and hope that the OP just means that the defeated faction would lose the region in which the Decisive Battle took place, if that is what he means it would be a great idea.

[The Juggernaut]

I just think that if you have all of your units in one huge army, and it get's destroyed, you're pretty much beaten, but that's your fault. If your faction leader dies I can see there being some confusion (I for one would love for Total War to have more problems with succession), but just because you won a single battle doesn't mean the fight's over. Look at the fate of the Teutonic Knights after the Battle of Tannenburg. Despite most of the army and a large amount of the high command being destroyed, quick thinking subordinates organized a resistance and saved the Order.

[Humble Warrior]

Interesting. The only way I could see that happening is if you were artificially forced into a limited number of armies (1 or 2) and no more. That way, nearly all your battles would be few, big and would really matter. Some games have tried this I think.

Problem is, you shouldn`t really artificially force the player to do this. The only way to make the Player have one huge army without forcing him, would be if the enemy AI gathered all its troops into one huge army. then it would be up to the Player if he would want to band one huge army togther to take on that.

Personally, if I saw the AI with only one huge army, I would split my army in two and go take all his other cities he`s no doubt left empty or nearly so while he takes maybe one or two, then double back with my new found wealth and manpower and destroy him.

It`s not always that smart to have just one huge army.

But I have had battles that really matter; ones that have broken the camel`s back- they just tend to happen at the end of a series of battles in a campaign. Actually, thinking about it, ALL battles do matter eventually...

[CptAustus]

Since Empire I've been fighitng one decent battle and conquered 3-5 regions with no resistance, decent battle, 5 regions. The AI doesnt put up much of a fight anymore, I remember having to wait for the perfect moment in Rome to move my troops out of cities they can replenish, and still get out flanked in the campaign map.

[Humble Warrior]

Since Empire I've been fighitng one decent battle and conquered 3-5 regions with no resistance, decent battle, 5 regions. The AI doesnt put up much of a fight anymore, I remember having to wait for the perfect moment in Rome to move my troops out of cities they can replenish, and still get out flanked in the campaign map.

Shogun is much more of a tactical grind in this respect. Many people compalined because the AI would leave its cities bare and then be easy to conquer. You can still catch rear cities almost empty in Shogun 2, though it`s not easy as the AI will fill it up quick as soon as it sees you near.

[Rinan]

I'm sorry, but I don't like your idea that much. Everything hinging on one army is simply not fun -- nor realistic. Think Hannibal: He completely destroyed thagreee Roman army at the Battle of Cannae. But the Romans produced another army and managed to survive. But I do agree that wars often drag out way too long even when it's very clear who's going to be the winner. The AI should surrender more easily, maybe.

Also, I think it'd be a good idea to introduce the notion of (national) manpower like in EU3. This way, if a big army is defeated it will be a serious blow since it will take a while for young boys to grow into adult men ready to fight in your armies. This way, a few decisive victories could make you win the war.

[Lord-Fisher]

I like the idea of longer recruitment times, making battles more decisive and large armies a real threat (think of it: you spot a barbarian force on it's way to pillage Rome while it's armies are elsewhere)...but the idea of the loser faction in the battle loses its regions? In my opinion, not a great idea. However, if recruitment times were longer, it would sort of do the same thing, except in more realistic and less silly way. If you destroy this army in the battle, they won't have time to rebuild their army before you've captured a fare few of their regions.

[Ryou]

Being able to conquer an entire nation, with its own diverse culture in one big battle is completely unrealistic. In most cases in history nations had to be defeated several times in battle before they are conquered. Rome was defeated time after time by hannibal but still lived. Carthage saw loss after loss (three punic wars) until it was finally conquered. Just about every anti roman town in Gaul had to be fought over before they fell to caeser. WHile I admit fighting battle after battle becomes repetitive and boring by mid-late game, it is historically accurate and harder for the player.
Also, CA has been moving steadily in bigger, decisive battles, as seen in Shogun 2. Clans rarely field more than 2 full stacks in the field.
Lastly, I do beleive battles will be less repetative in R2 simply because of the vast arrray of cultures in the game. THe enemies you encounter in mid game are completly different from enemies you encounter in late game. You might be fighing greeks, gauls, and carthaginians in early- mid game and egypt, parthia, britons, germanics or numidians in mid-late game, so battles are always interesting.
Its quite a different expierence fighting bezerkers, or elephants, or spartans, or cataphracts, or chariots, etc, which we will be sure to find in R2!

[Ichon]

I'd prefer to see a longer time to absorb conquered territories as well. Perhaps initially a surge of tax income as loot is absorbed but then its a long time to rebuild and integrate the economy into the victors economy. Shogun 2 it was ok since it was basically the same culture for the most part with different religion actually requiring longer garrison and some agents but for cultures as diverse as Rome and Germans hopefully it will take a bit more to make use of captured territories.

[Archimonday]

People here still forget how, even empires, were taken down during the classical era of warfare. Quite often large battles on the size of Issus, Carrhae, Cannae, and others were rare. More than half of the time, the target of a belligerent act was humbled by far less deadly means. Most 'wars' had a political objective and in many cases were solved by raids or other strategies that did not involve armies engaging one another. Even when skirmishes took place they were ahorr, and resulted in few casualties on either side.

When battles like those fought between Alexander and Darius, or Caesar and Pompey actually happened it was not because the two armies sought that outcome. Alexander found Darius on his flank, and waited for him to exhaust his resources before moving to find more. Except to Alexanders displeasure, Darius moved round behind his army, putting the conquests already gained at risk and jeopardizing his supplies, with no choice and on more favorable ground, Alexander faced Darius head on, with little choice.

When Caesar met Pompey in Greece, he had little choice, because through maneuvers Pompey had cut Caesar off from the rest of Italy, the Mediterranean sea, and any hope of reinforcement. Knowing his provisions would eventually run out, and his soldiers become weary, engaged Pompey, and won.

Nevertheless, large battles were rare, and of significant challenge and importance. Everything else had lesser objectives, such as harrassment, or denial of resources, or the claimance of crucial fords and bridges. Romans later developed defense in depth to protect against Barbarians, whereby smqll forts garrisoned with small numbers of men could respond to any raid into their territory by converging on the raiders from multiple directions, and protecting the people and supplies the raiders sought to steal or destroy.

[Ichon]

Just look at the 2nd Punic war, the conquest of Gaul, or Greece. There are long lists of battles in all those conflicts. Sure a few very centralized empires where almost all power was vested in a single individual or family could be brought down by a single loss but more often it required numerous battles vs a large state or cultural group and thereafter also some rebellions. Quite often Rome also did not move its legion in immediately after winning battles but established vassals first and then moved in for a total conquest when those vassals resisted or conspired to throw out the Romans. It would be interesting if there were more advantages to creating vassals... perhaps greatly reduced expansion penalty in diplomacy and better public order if vassals revolt and the conquering state integrates the territory directly into their empire. With more focus on intrigue actions centered around vassals states and internal factions it might be interesting.

[Ticklestick]

Problems. Many historical examples of things going terribly after a huge battle are due to internal strife, ie: alexander forced darius to flee at gaugamela, darius' satraps turned on him, some joining alexander. Not only that, even with the 50,000 or so dead at gaugamela, the army was still larger than alexander's most likely, politics took care of the rest. Total war games are really awful at depicting diplomacy on any level, so you can't have things like client states/allies abandoning your cause after losing a battle.

Also, many people when they surrendered to someone like rome, they did it to protect their people. If you lost a huge battle, you would surrender and be reasonably sure that your people would remain semi-autonomous and not have to fight anymore in exchange for paying indemnities to rome. Obviously this is missing from TW games, as being a client state of rome isn't the experience CA is going for, even if it is more realistic.

There are examples of people continually fighting to extermination though, just look at the punic wars. When hannibal was absolutely demolishing roman armies, the romans would just throw more and more men at him, before deciding to let his campaign wither from lack of support until hannibal couldn't sustain the invasion any longer.

The political blowback from losing huge battles is what ended wars, not really anything else except in a few occasions. When hannibal won (I think at cannae? maybe trasimene or trebia) 2 italian cities revolted and joined hannibal. These are the types of things that normally end wars. Rome had a fight to the death mindset at the time though, and wouldn't accept peace terms. The problem is TW does an awful job at diplomacy, so we are stuck with wars of annihilation, which generally don't end in one battle. If you want realistic depictions on this sort of thing go play crusader kings.

[Rinan]

If you want realistic depictions on this sort of thing go play crusader kings.

Good post but the last sentence made me laugh. If anything, conquering is even more dragged out in that game if you dont have a claim on the entire kingdom you have to take it county by county.

[Jezza93]

We do need more decisive battles but uh that isn't the answer.
Perhaps have men begin to desert from garrisons if you lose,20% desertion penalty for 5 turns or something as well as half your trade gone due to war.

[Xerrop]

Large Empires do definitely not collapse due to a single big battle. There are usually a series of them and of course political reasons ranging back for decades.
But fewer battles on the campaign map are for sure not a bad thing. Rome and M2:TW are the worst games in the series when thinking about many unnecessary and even meaningless battles. With Empire:TW it got way better. It reminded me much more on the good old days of Shogun1 and Medieval1 were you could conquer whole provinces and castles without any actual fight.

... If you had ever watched Alexander the Great movie before, you would probably understand this quite fast. Now the actual suggestion. ...

But it was not a single decisive Battle in the Macedon-Persian War.
You have atleast three big battles on the field at Granicus, Issos and Gaugamela. Then some sieges of important key cities like Halicarnassos, Tyros and Gaza. All of them and the Conquest of Egypt (instead of marching direct to Persepolis after Issos) in order to eliminate the still mighty persian navy acting in the Aegean Sea.
And even then Dareios could have hold out at the eastern provinces if he had not faced bad luck. His reign was by no means well established when Alexander started his campaign. With some years more before the war there would not have been that many nobles disloyal to him after some setbacks.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

This could be done by long recruitment time(5-20 turns) and a limited amount of troops for proper troops and shorter ones for auxilia's.

If you lose your primary army, you're screwed over for the next turns.

[Evalation]

I think having just one big battle to determine the fate of a faction is realistc, however you have to take gameplay into affect. If you could conqure a nation with just one battle you could steamroll through the campaign very easily and quickly because if your poised to launch multiple invasions into different factions, you could conqure 3-4 factions in one turn by fighting 3-4 separate battles. Thats not much fun. So i think on this issue Realism must take a backseat to gameplay.

[ironbrigade]

well im not sure about the op, but I am all for fewer more important battles.