Can I please be outnumbered by the AI's army on campaign map?

[ray243]

One of the best challenge you want to have is to role-play as some of the most historically famous generals and face the same difficulties they had when they fought their battles.

You want to be Hannibal when he was being outnumbered by the Romans at Cannae, Alexander the Great when he was at Gaugamela and Casear at the battle of Pharsalus. \

Is it too much to ask CA to build the campaign map in such a way that the player can experience such challenge? Trying to destroy a much bigger army is much more fun and more challenging than trying to defeat a similar size army that have cheat bonus.

The problems you face when you are trying to defeat a much larger army is completely different from the problems of facing a similar size army. For example, what happens when the larger army lay out his army to ensure you cannot outflank him?

[SturmChurro]

So, you really just want more stack spam?

[ray243]

So, you really just want more stack spam?

I don't mind stack spam as long as the AI deploy all their armies at once as opposed to streaming in as reinforcement.

[Dumanthis]

No more stack spams there should be another way to make AI more challenging. I actually liked the Shogun 2 style that you could not go minus money and still keep troops standing both AI and the player like in Rome or M2tW.

[windsupernova]

So, you really just want more stack spam?

Nothing Wrong with Stack Spam as long as the AI concentrates its forces tbqh.

[He111]

To be honest, i rather fight massive amounts of Fullstacks instead of destroying single little Armys in skirmish after skirmish. The AI in Rome was just too bad to beat them in one Big battle which would decide the fade of a whole Empire, i remember my first Campaign in Rome (vanilla) in which Europe was seperated into two giant Empires, Rome (myself) and the Parthians, I just need to beat 2 Fullstacks in two Battles which took like 15 Minutes and the War for Europe was decided. After this i could auto solve all the Sieges to Win the Campaign. It really destroyed the whole gaming Expierience so far, there was nothing Special in this clash of two Epic Empires - either they need to finally Fix the AI or give them more focused manpower.

[Dumanthis]

To be honest, i rather fight massive amounts of Fullstacks instead of destroying single little Armys in skirmish after skirmish. The AI in Rome was just too bad to beat them in one Big battle which would decide the fade of a whole Empire, i remember my first Campaign in Rome (vanilla) in which Europe was seperated into two giant Empires, Rome (myself) and the Parthians, I just need to beat 2 Fullstacks in two Battles which took like 15 Minutes and the War for Europe was decided. After this i could auto solve all the Sieges to Win the Campaign. It really destroyed the whole gaming Expierience so far, there was nothing Special in this clash of two Epic Empires - either they need to finally Fix the AI or give them more focused manpower.

Well you haven't heard of Hannibal putting Romans to their knees after one single battle? You haven't heard of Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia? Those are clear examples how the things will go: massive battles that are hugely important and they DID decide the fate of EMPIRES. Once you lose a battle like that it is obvious you will lose as much regions as the enemy can conquer until you are strong enough to face them again. Armies are after all, GODLIKELY expensive. It is not only historically inaccurate to make enemy have SPAM ARMIES but also IDIOTIC WAY to make game more difficult on the expense of maybe IMPROVED AI (which is actually quite a killer in Shogun 2 so I am not worried about Rome 2's AI that much)

[He111]

Well you haven't heard of Hannibal putting Romans to their knees after one single battle? You haven't heard of Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia? Those are clear examples how the things will go: massive battles that are hugely important and they DID decide the fate of EMPIRES. Once you lose a battle like that it is obvious you will lose as much regions as the enemy can conquer until you are strong enough to face them again. Armies are after all, GODLIKELY expensive. It is not only historically inaccurate to make enemy have SPAM ARMIES but also IDIOTIC WAY to make game more difficult on the expense of maybe IMPROVED AI (which is actually quite a killer in Shogun 2 so I am not worried about Rome 2's AI that much)

Well, as i mentioned the Battle AI in all TW titles were pretty bad (Napoleon with Ai mod was okish) so im fine with Massive Fullstacks to counter the lacking AI. Im sure as hell happier with a better AI instead of this, but i dont think they will really fix the Ai this time.

Dont get me wrong here, single Battles should have impact on the War, but they should not decide them (until they fix the AI ). I dont want to spend hours and hours of expending my Empire, and then beat my greatest Enemy because the lack of AI in the Battle Map. The Campaign AI was pretty good in the Last two Total War Games, so they dont need to fix too much here.

[Ichon]

I am not sure if he is asking for AI to have more armies as it already does on high difficulties so much as that AI on higher difficulties maybe can have 30 units per army instead of 20 but lose the morale bonus? So the higher difficulties allow AI to field more units per army but not being so hard to rout? I guess that makes some sense as even if on high difficulty the AI enters battle with 2 armies they are separated and you can usually destroy 1 army before the 2nd army arrives. So he is saying to make the AI have only 1 larger army instead of 2 separate armies but without the huge morale bonus I guess.

Personally I'd like to see higher level barracks allow more elite units at a max cap which aren't necessarily much more expensive but that the unit sizes also increase. So AI on higher difficulties with money and recruitment bonuses fields armies with still 20 unit size but each hoplite unit might have 150 men instead of the 100 in players army created from lower tier barracks that is all the player can afford. So 20 units of players army might = 2,000 while AI army has 3,000. I think this might work better than simply higher morale where players units might be overwhelmed but has a chance still to rout AI army but it is more difficult as 150 size unit might need 75 casualties to waver instead of 50 casualties of smaller units.

[oppaiO_O]

i dont like this idea since im playing a fots campaign as the aizu on very hard and i only have the starting province and im fending off several stack armies(1-3) all full and im only with the garrison and my army of 10 and i agree is fun but even when i beat them turn after turn and ask for peace they continue to spam armies and they keep on attacking and i cant conquer
so....lets have CA fix diplomacy and you can play on very hard and piss people off (thats what i did my first turn ) and most clans next to you will attack you and you are gonna have to fend off with multiple stacks against one of yours

[TW Junkie]

I dont think hes talking about "stack spam" which implies many battles of full stacks attacking you. I think what hes asking for is large epic battles such as 10 to 1 ratio type of battles.

[SturmChurro]

I dont think hes talking about "stack spam" which implies many battles of full stacks attacking you. I think what hes asking for is large epic battles such as 10 to 1 ratio type of battles.

Which could only happen through multiple ai stacks unless CA raises the unit cap.

[ray243]

Which could only happen through multiple ai stacks unless CA raises the unit cap.

CA can do this by allowing the AI to have higher unit cap per stack than the human player on the harder difficulties.

Let's say the AI can have 50-60 units stack while the human player is limited to a 40 unit stack.

[Rikx]

CA can do this by allowing the AI to have higher unit cap per stack than the human player on the harder difficulties.

Let's say the AI can have 50-60 units stack while the human player is limited to a 40 unit stack.

In essence that's actually not a bad idea. Perhaps allow factions who were historically known for raising massive numbers for their armies have an increased unit cap and some bonuses, while smaller factions can just get the bonuses so they can still pose as much threat as the former to the user and other AI-controlled factions.

As for the stack spam thing: I remember I had a battle in Gaul as Rome where my greatest general, Quintus the Victor, had been fighting for a few years and beating back their armies. Then, out of the blue, 3 stacks of Gaul all show up and surround Quintus. I was super outnumbered but I won the battle due to the experience of Quintus's army and tactical maneuvering. He became Quintus the Great after that. Greatest battle i've had in Total War, and it was with Rome I's vanilla campaign AI.

So it is possible for the new game to have the AI control some more stacks and maneuver them in the same direction to cause battles such as this one, without it having to become battle after battle of you defending against hellstacks.

[daelin4]

One of the best challenge you want to have is to role-play as some of the most historically famous generals and face the same difficulties they had when they fought their battles.

In order to really roleplay as historical generals and their situations, a campaign will have to undergo very similar circumstances. If you play however you wish otherwise, any good player will be the one with a superior stack easily picking apart the enemy, not wait for the AI to assemble hordes to go after you.

You want to be Hannibal when he was being outnumbered by the Romans at Cannae, Alexander the Great when he was at Gaugamela and Casear at the battle of Pharsalus. \

No I don't.

]The problems you face when you are trying to defeat a much larger army is completely different from the problems of facing a similar size army. For example, what happens when the larger army lay out his army to ensure you cannot outflank him?

The campaign map wouldn't be the first thing to look at.

Essentially your idea is that the AI be capable of producing mass-hordes of armies just so you can fight titanic battles. Chances are, you might enjoy it for a while, but once you realize that your entire campaign experience will be outnumbered battles no matter what you do about it, it won't be fun.

Giving the AI a chance to be in a position where they can in fact mass-produce armies is a different matter, because the player can influence whether or not this occurs. If it becomes an inherent advantage of the AI on principle that "players want to fight in battles where they are outnumbered" then there will be only those players that will find it perpetually interesting: very few.

What the game needs to do is not allow the AI to just produce giant numbers, but make it so that only in circumstances (they conquer certain regions, defeat certain enemies, and not constantly get destroyed in battle) can they even start to raise large armies. In other words, impartial rules. If it takes 100 turns for me to produce a giant army, then the AI should also take 100 turns, not 20.

So far there are only two ways to fight a battle where you are massively outnumbered: you enter the battle with less units than the maximum allowed (in most TW games twenty units per army), or you let the AI get raised caps while the player cannot. Which is only NOT ridiculous if you're in the mood for some 10:1 ratio battles. CA might as well forego all that trouble and create a unit with machine guns that's only for the AI.

And in the campaign, why should an AI faction with 10 regions and no economy be able to produce more men, and deploy more of them in battle mode than the player who has 50 regions and flush with cash? If anything it's the winning player who deserves to have that sort of advantage, and in most campaigns that's how it goes- you win more lands, make more money, therefore you can create a bigger army than the other guys.

[Modestus]

In order to really roleplay as historical generals and their situations, a campaign will have to undergo very similar circumstances. If you play however you wish otherwise, any good player will be the one with a superior stack easily picking apart the enemy, not wait for the AI to assemble hordes to go after you.

No I don't.

Is it too much to ask CA to build the campaign map in such a way that the player can experience such challenge? Trying to destroy a much bigger army is much more fun and more challenging than trying to defeat a similar size army that have cheat bonus.

The campaign map wouldn't be the first thing to look at.

Essentially your idea is that the AI be capable of producing mass-hordes of armies just so you can fight titanic battles. Chances are, you might enjoy it for a while, but once you realize that your entire campaign experience will be outnumbered battles no matter what you do about it, it won't be fun.

Giving the AI a chance to be in a position where they can in fact mass-produce armies is a different matter, because the player can influence whether or not this occurs. If it becomes an inherent advantage of the AI on principle that "players want to fight in battles where they are outnumbered" then there will be only those players that will find it perpetually interesting: very few.

What the game needs to do is not allow the AI to just produce giant numbers, but make it so that only in circumstances (they conquer certain regions, defeat certain enemies, and not constantly get destroyed in battle) can they even start to raise large armies. In other words, impartial rules. If it takes 100 turns for me to produce a giant army, then the AI should also take 100 turns, not 20.

So far there are only two ways to fight a battle where you are massively outnumbered: you enter the battle with less units than the maximum allowed (in most TW games twenty units per army), or you let the AI get raised caps while the player cannot. Which is only NOT ridiculous if you're in the mood for some 10:1 ratio battles. CA might as well forego all that trouble and create a unit with machine guns that's only for the AI.

And in the campaign, why should an AI faction with 10 regions and no economy be able to produce more men, and deploy more of them in battle mode than the player who has 50 regions and flush with cash? If anything it's the winning player who deserves to have that sort of advantage, and in most campaigns that's how it goes- you win more lands, make more money, therefore you can create a bigger army than the other guys.

Even though I understand what they OP is getting at I tend to agree with the post I have quoted , part of your strategy will be for you to bring superior forces to the battlefield and not the AI, having some mechanism that allows the AI to have superior forces in any given situation or even to be able to support large armies regardless of its economy will make most of the game play pointless.

If its to allow the AI to attack with two full stacks fine but again only if the player gets themselves into that situation, if you want to land a single stack in Italy and pretend to be Hannibal OK but If your force is left unsupported I would hope that the AI will be able to defeat you in time.

[ray243]

It is simple to create scenario whereby the player suddenly found himself confronted by a larger AI army in an organic manner. Many of those battles where the famous generals were outnumbered is because they are campaigning deep into their foe's lands.

Hannibal was campaigning deep in Italy without much support when he fought at Cannae. Alexander the Great was campaigning deep into Persian lands when he fought his famous battles. Caesar was deep in Gaul when he fought his famous battles there.


There should be a home ground advantage in TW, and it is reasonable for the AI to have such advantage over the players.

[daelin4]

It is simple to create scenario whereby the player suddenly found himself confronted by a larger AI army in an organic manner. Many of those battles where the famous generals were outnumbered is because they are campaigning deep into their foe's lands.

You mean like playing every TW campaign normally, where certain factions rise over others and takes more territory thus makes more money, thus allows them to train more troops? If you want to get into that situation, all you have to do is assemble an army, march straight into an enemy's lands, and wait for them to attack you. Problem solved. I do that whenever I want a battle against larger odds, where I look for their larger stacks.

There should be a home ground advantage in TW, and it is reasonable for the AI to have such advantage over the players.

The campaign map itself gives "home advantage" to a faction who is under attack by enemy armies: settlements are close to the front, while attacking factions naturally are progressively further away as lands are conquered. This is simple logistics.

If what you're asking however is that whenever you feel like it the AI miraculously spawns fourteen stacks, then no thanks. The campaign is about building up your faction to dominate others. If every turn the AI gets to go at you with giant armies for free, then that's not fun. That's a grind. It's fun if you know that they took the time and resources to train them, using the same procedures and rules as you are. That's called balance, fairness, and fun.

Really, try playing a game of Monopoly where every turn you lose 10 dollars and the other players get 500. Or Risk where other players start every turn with 40 extra armies. You might ind that fun if you're daydream winning. For the first few turns. Or Battleship where the other player gets to see your ships.

There is the other thing you were talking about, how armies should reinforce simultaneously. This is more to do with technical issues. In RTW you can edit the preferences to allow all reinforcements to come in at once. In Shogun2 this feature is strangely missing and they even stream individual units at you. So there are really two sides to your idea: campaign map (in the form of cheats for the AI to produce more men) and battle mode (where the AI either gets to field more men than you can, or the reinforcements mechanics are improved).

[Tim_Ward]

If you want to fight battles where you're outnumbered

1) Do a custom battle
2) Deliberately fight with less troops than you're able to afford and make up some role playing reason why the other half had to stay home ("the senate hates your general Claudius Non Mateus, who is brilliant yet unpopular, and wants him dead, so they have sent him to face the barbarian invasion with but one legion, after which he will be either dead, discredited or both after which Septimus Excellentus Maximus, charismatic rising star of the Roman political scene and darling of the senate - yet secretly he is a vainglorious dullard who is a puppet of your political rivals - will crush the weakened invasion with a full Consular Army")
3) Start a fight with a much bigger Empire

But let's not mess around with the campaign game balance to artificially create AI stack spam, because that's always crappy - "Oh, another siege battle against a suicidal AI army? Fantastic, it's been all of 2 turns since I fought one of those". Sometimes situations where you're outnumbered will occur because of the general strategic situation of the main game, the game should not be balanced to create more of them than normal.

[smegmus magnus]

@Dumanthis

Howdy, I don't want to argue your overall point, but I do want to suggest that the Hannibalic war may not be the best example to illustrate that point. Hannibal spent 16 years inflicting many significant defeats on the Romans, at least three of which were indisputably massive (in terms of Roman losses). This, obviously, underscores the strength of the Roman allied state/colony system, as well as indicating Hannibal's inability to make serious inroads against that system (outside of some the southern/central Samnite and Greek communities).

Actually: I've always thought that Hannibal's real strength was as a tactician, rather than as a strategist; would, at least partially, account for the fact that he could win so many battles while still losing the war. This view doesn't seem to be that which is generally accepted, though.

...anyway, thanks for the chance to babble.