Battle improvements

[Lellolello98]

In almost all TW battles at the beginning missile units fire some volleys, then the armies start a terrible melee brawl and finally an entire army flees.
Ancient battles lasted hours and days, but TW are often resolved in few minutes. Morale should last.more, because now even the toughest unit flees when they are beating the enemy 10 to 1.
Armies should be positioned in opposite sides of the map, and I would appreciate units of scouts that have to spot the enemy.

[Zimmy]

I don't have time to fight a 7 hour long battle in a video game, sorry.

[betto]

adding delay on orders and make killing slower would be nice...

7 hours is too much but 7 minutes is too few

[Gaius Marius Maximus]

adding delay on orders and make killing slower would be nice...

7 hours is too much but 7 minutes is too few

i like the answer +rep LoL

[katsusand]

adding delay on orders .... would be nice...

...I'm glad CA doesn't listen to the fans too much.

[Altimis]

...I'm glad CA doesn't listen to the fans too much.

heh some peoples here not realize this is a "GAME" not "simulation"

I would love to enjoy the game

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I don't have time to fight a 7 hour long battle in a video game, sorry.

No but having melee last 10 minutes rather than 10 seconds would already be a huge improvement

[TheRomanRuler]

So lets make it 17-37 minutes! (expect "huge" battles)

[XxAndrewxX2525]

Ye, I agree. As soon as the infantry actually engages, you have like 2 seconds to do tactical maneuvering like flanking before one of the lines just all out routs. I would enjoy having time to take out enemy cavalry, and actually do some hammer and anviling (or whatever it's called ;P) and re-position reserves.

[totalwar-zone]

Ye, I agree. As soon as the infantry actually engages, you have like 2 seconds to do tactical maneuvering like flanking before one of the lines just all out routs. I would enjoy having time to take out enemy cavalry, and actually do some hammer and anviling (or whatever it's called ;P) and re-position reserves.

And this is the reason why I do not understand what still many love at TW. Shogun and Medieval 1 for the win.

[krisslanza]

I'd say battles that take 5-10 minutes are fine for small ones, considering larger battles can last over 30 minutes. I mean, if you want hour long engagements, that's fine... but it shouldn't be forced, considering sometimes you may be fighting a half dozen battles per turn, and then the game would be kind of tedious having to fight hour(s) long battles every single turn, over and over.

[Anna_Gein]

I'd say battles that take 5-10 minutes are fine for small ones, considering larger battles can last over 30 minutes. I mean, if you want hour long engagements, that's fine... but it shouldn't be forced, considering sometimes you may be fighting a half dozen battles per turn, and then the game would be kind of tedious having to fight hour(s) long battles every single turn, over and over.

I think it would be great for both the battles and the whole game if multiple battle by turn could be something rare.

The lack of importance of even great engagement is the greatest weakness of battle for now.

[XxAndrewxX2525]

Only time I fight a battle on the campaign is if it's a siege, if it's a full enemy stack, or the odds are significantly against me. Otherwise I auto-resolve >.>. I just hope it's moddable, so mods can make it longer/more realistic. Then we don't really have to worry about it .

[atila9000]

i think a good idea to add to the battle is more hiding units. this isnt the usual hiding in forest or grass or whatever. this hiding is having your soldiers behind a hill, or trees, or whatever that prevents enemy units from spotting yours. to explain this, imagine you have a 1st person view from one of your frontline units, if that unit can visually see an enemy unit, that one isnt hidden. but if your 1st person unit can see any enemies, those units will be hidden. but still, we could still use the free camera to speculate where the enemies might be

[krisslanza]

i think a good idea to add to the battle is more hiding units. this isnt the usual hiding in forest or grass or whatever. this hiding is having your soldiers behind a hill, or trees, or whatever that prevents enemy units from spotting yours. to explain this, imagine you have a 1st person view from one of your frontline units, if that unit can visually see an enemy unit, that one isnt hidden. but if your 1st person unit can see any enemies, those units will be hidden. but still, we could still use the free camera to speculate where the enemies might be

The problem is this would clash with the camera, and also be a pretty large break from the strategy genre anyway. It would also probably result in a mess of Line of Sight issues where you SHOULD be able to see something, but can't or something.

[Deafening Milk]

Well it depends how it is done, europa barborum extended battle time by more morale and it took a lot longer to kill units, the result? Battles lasted longer however it meant phalanx was ineffective vs cavelry as they would run through all the pikes losing only 4 or 5 men and the rest engaged the phalanx up close so its sword on sword not pike in horse meaning the phalanx loses all effectiveness and crumbles. If it is only higher morale to make it last longer then ok im cool with that just not a slower kill rate!

[Mimoxx]

The good point is , Rome total war 2 should go to a more detail, complex battle system, with more factors include.

Also fewer and more decisive battles , that means that doing more than 50 battles during a campaign game is no sense,it irritates and gets boring with current tw games : playing a battle each turn and almost all the same and very arcade and simple tactics system gets really boring!!!!, so a big battle should be something you need planning a lot , supply factor etc .

So a battle should take like 6 hours to complete , But should be a save game battle so the player can continue later , of course in legendary level should be a auto save every 15 minutes.

For about 6 hours a battle , that let say you play like 100 turns, 5 min each turn to manage and like 20 battles = 500 min (management) 7200 min (battles) you dont need more battles

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

The good point is , Rome total war 2 should go to a more detail, complex battle system, with more factors include.

Also fewer and more decisive battles , that means that doing more than 50 battles during a campaign game is no sense,it irritates and gets boring with current tw games : playing a battle each turn and almost all the same and very arcade and simple tactics system gets really boring!!!!, so a big battle should be something you need planning a lot , supply factor etc .

So a battle should take like 6 hours to complete , But should be a save game battle so the player can continue later , of course in legendary level should be a auto save every 15 minutes.

For about 6 hours a battle , that let say you play like 100 turns, 5 min each turn to manage and like 20 battles = 500 min (management) 7200 min (battles) you dont need more battles

No.

The longest battle I've ever fought was two or three hours long, and that is PLENTY.

Six hours for a single battle is simply ridiculous.

[panzerschreck]

Time of your battles only depends of how many men you have on the battlefield. I always play with 300 to 500 men per unit. So it lasts more or less 20 to 30 minutes. In Rome 2, it has been confirmed that, like in FOTS, we will be able to have 40 vs 40, so it will take more time I think. Besides the maps will be large ones and some with naval warfare added.

[Zimmy]

I don't play the newer titles, I play the older ones and the battles are fairly long, I guess you're referring to Shogun 2 when you say battles are short.