after hearing jack lusted TW needs more options on battles

[total relism]

So in this video
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=579431

jack lusted says the battle speed/kill rates will only be slightly reduced from shogun 2 total war. To me and many others this is a big disappointment. I hate the speed of battles in tw games, they are way to fast, it ruins the fun of battle.

as others agree
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=551944
[more links provided on this thread to other threads about speed of battle].


staying power of units/ Casualty rate. 3-5 minutes of battle added after first contact would make all the difference in the world.
Even if ca added 5 min to each battles after first casualty, that would make all the difference in the world. I am not asking for [I would love] 1-2 hour long battles, but just that after units engage, they would fight a little before running. I think if 2 matched units fought a additional 3 min after contact that would make a very very big difference in the feel of battle, the strategy and the fun.


Speed of units
To me many mods have gotten right in the past as well as medevil 1 and maybe empire. I think a 30% reduction in run speed and a 20% in walk speed would make for great fun/strategy in tw battles. It would also make battles not feel like a video game were armored men run like mini-cars around large maps over hills etc. It would feel more like I am actually commanding a real army.



real battles vs video game
To me the feel of battle is so very important, to feel like I am really fighting a battle at that time period like I am actually there.. This cannot happen with current speed/kill rates of battles. There may be slight time periods within a battle when this is so. But it would be great if I forgot I was playing a video game and felt like I was really fighting a war. Rome 2 appears to do such a great job with unit variety,realism, [more so than Rome] unit color and the look of cities and units like they have wear and tear this all adds to the feel of battle as if actually in a real battle/war. So it is a shame that the battles would not follow as well.


My solution [not originally mine cant take credit] is to have game-play sliders/options to set certain settings such as unit speed and kill-rates to our own more enjoyable preference. Than we could all create the gameplay we would enjoy best.

So for example, one slider would be labeled unit speed walk/run than a slider starting at 50% [normal setting] could be moved to faster paced 60% plus or slower units speed 40%minus.


here is a thread on this topic, it received over 80% of the vote to add to tw games. Also not one argument was made against, only a few who thought it referred to difficulty settings.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=549370

[Tankhive]

I think this entire forum deserves a 1st world problem meme written exclusively for it.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

I would like to see it be a bit more like medieval 2 in terms of pace, and the casualties should not be so high. I think that armies getting completely destroyed was very rare in those days.

[Hopit]

I would like to see it be a bit more like medieval 2 in terms of pace, and the casualties should not be so high. I think that armies getting completely destroyed was very rare in those days.

that would be horrible. Medieval 2 battles take ages and I could get a good nights sleep before 1 major battle ended...

[total relism]

but if you actually try to do some skirmishing, you'll have rather long battles (30 minutes for a straight skirmishing, probably an hour if both you and your oponent keep pushing each other to commit as many mistakes as possible).

I have asked many shogun players to link me battle videos of battles even 30 min after first contact, never has even one been provided. i often get 15 min full stack and the first 7-8 min before first contact.

As others already have said, I always value the campaign map gameplay more than the battles. So I don't mind short battles, especially since I usually don't auto-resolve, and because of that by mid to late of a campaign I am usually fighting several battles per turn, and at which time I really don't want to spend long periods fighting each, or else campaign progress grinds right to a halt.

Hopefully ca is fixing this for rome 2 less more important battles is what they say. But would 5 more minutes of battle and less battles really make that much a differences to you?.

I trust Jack and CA i think the speeds will be fine especially if they have that slowmo button that was in Empire and Shogun 2 we will manage...

If you trusted them for shogun, and they say rome 2 is similar to shogun 2, than I trust the speed swill be to fast yet again. But why not have a slider to control ourselves anyways? if we like what they do for speed than leave the setting alone.

I always using fast forward especially naval battles in Shogun 2, at least until the army/navy meet.

Agreed,as do I. This is not about asking for more time b-4 first contact.

[-=PHX=-Hades]

Well first of all Jack said they haven't determined yet just how much they are reducing the speed of battles. Second, one of the reasons that battles were so fast is because they were rather small and from what CA has been saying, the battles should be much, much bigger this time. You also have to realize that some people don't want to spend all day playing video games, so they aren't going to want to spend 5 hours doing 1 battle.

And, as I have said in many of the threads like this, maybe we should wait to see just how much they reduced the speed of the battles before we complain about it.

[total relism]

I would like to see it be a bit more like medieval 2 in terms of pace, and the casualties should not be so high. I think that armies getting completely destroyed was very rare in those days.

I liked medevil 2 pace as well, before gunpowder and other elite units came into the game, the first 100 turns or so was great.

Well first of all Jack said they haven't determined yet just how much they are reducing the speed of battles. Second, one of the reasons that battles were so fast is because they were rather small and from what CA has been saying, the battles should be much, much bigger this time. You also have to realize that some people don't want to spend all day playing video games, so they aren't going to want to spend 5 hours doing 1 battle.

And, as I have said in many of the threads like this, maybe we should wait to see just how much they reduced the speed of the battles before we complain about it.

He said the pace would be reduced slightly. The battles will be bigger, they say so I agree. In turns of scope,size of maps etc nothing to do with unit speed kill rates.. If you read OP you will see I say I am not asking for 1-2 hour battles. I would love so with a save feature maybe. But even 3-5 minutes extra of engament of units and for units to walk/run at realistic speeds not racecar speed. I think we can complain given recent tw games, and that jack lusted said units speed/kill rates will be reduced only slightly.

[CptAustus]

Second, one of the reasons that battles were so fast is because they were rather small

This. When it came to Shogun 2's MP battles, many people complained about them being too short, but those same people brought (almost) exclusevely melee and didnt employ any skirmishing whatsover, they just committed all their troops into the fight at the same time (me included), but if you actually try to do some skirmishing, you'll have rather long battles (30 minutes for a straight skirmishing, probably an hour if both you and your oponent keep pushing each other to commit as many mistakes as possible).

[Ichon]

You also have to realize that some people don't want to spend all day playing video games, so they aren't going to want to spend 5 hours doing 1 battle.

Why do people go to the 5 hour or all day thing for the battle speeds? It's like saying if you go to the dentist either everything will be perfect or you lose ALL your teeth.

30% slower movement and 20% lower kill rate wouldn't even double the time of battles. More like 40% longer so battle instead of taking 5 minutes would take 7 minutes. CA at least needs to slow it down enough can actually take some time to watch the the animations and graphics they spend so much time and money on.

At minimum have more graduated speeds. 1/3 slower, 1/2 slower, 1/2 faster, 3x faster, 6x faster.

[Lockcaps]

God no, no Medieval 2.

"Hey here's some spear militia! And some more spear militia! And more! And archers that have zero effect! Enjoy this for 150 turns!"

[emotion_name]

I agree with the idea of the sliders to set user preference!

This is something i want to see more of, sliders to control things like resource values, rebel frequency, battle length, attrition/disaster penalties/occurences, CAI (with BAI seperate slider again).

I mean, set it up so its on what CA think are preferred settings from the box soon as you install it, but allow us as players to tweak and fine tune these things to personalise our campaigns.

[Stavroforos]

I have no problem with the length of battles, since to me they are just distractions from the campaign map which I try to win as quickly as possible so I can get back to it.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

I totally disagree with you. Yes longer battles would more realistic, but here it is simply a gameplay choice. Sorry but when i play a Total War game 2h is mostly the time i have. When battles are that long, and we have no choice to save a game in a battle, than it would be unplayable for a lot of people.

[total relism]

God no, no Medieval 2.

"Hey here's some spear militia! And some more spear militia! And more! And archers that have zero effect! Enjoy this for 150 turns!"

My fav part of med 2 was early, but what we were referring to is not the unit variety, but the pace of battles. I thought was still a little fast in many cases. not so much causality rate,but how fast units would run. Medevil 1 and empire early were close to perfect.

I have no problem with the length of battles, since to me they are just distractions from the campaign map which I try to win as quickly as possible so I can get back to it.

But I see this as a major problem, that I agree with you. I think battles should be part of the fun in a TW game. They are advertised as such. If the battles were done right, they would be a great addition to the campaign map, not a distraction as they often are with current battles.

[Stavroforos]

But I see this as a major problem, that I agree with you. I think battles should be part of the fun in a TW game. They are advertised as such. If the battles were done right, they would be a great addition to the campaign map, not a distraction as they often are with current battles.

Well I think the player should be given the option to choose how long their battles should last, but if they decided to make battles much longer, I'd love for there to be a way to save your progress in a battle and play later. I remember when my computer used to overheat, I'd hope to finish a battle quickly before the computer would shut down, lol.

[.Mitch.]

My major focus is the campaign map, and tbh I'm sure most people don't want really long battles, I remember back to MedII where they were literally a chore to do each turn. I see battles more as a quick 5-10 minutes of action where I can make some strategic calls (or mistakes) to further effect my campaign and indeed see the fruits of my labour from the campaign.

[hanbarc]

Guys read the OP, threads have been done to the death on whether longer battles are better or not. A certain proportion of fans believe they are, but that's a discussion to be carried on in those previous threads.

This thread should be about whether CA should include more customisation options at campaign start, one option being to choose the kill rate in your battles.

[magpie]

Patience is a virtue.
If Jack and the Team come up with epic battles one would want to savour them rather than treat them like a fast food meal.
Of course it would be great if there was a save function if one was under pressure time wise. The company Boss maybe approaching your desk?
So you could continue where you left off.

[total relism]

My major focus is the campaign map, and tbh I'm sure most people don't want really long battles, I remember back to MedII where they were literally a chore to do each turn. I see battles more as a quick 5-10 minutes of action where I can make some strategic calls (or mistakes) to further effect my campaign and indeed see the fruits of my labour from the campaign.

Yes I think most would agree that the campaign map is the best part of tw games. I think the reason battles have felt like chore's is because of how many there are. Hopefully this is fixed in rome 2 as they have taken action to do so. But would it not be nice to have battles that are better more important and spread out, as well as actually fun to play and exciting. this is my hope for battles in tw games.

I totally disagree with you. Yes longer battles would more realistic, but here it is simply a gameplay choice. Sorry but when i play a Total War game 2h is mostly the time i have. When battles are that long, and we have no choice to save a game in a battle, than it would be unplayable for a lot of people.

That is why sliders would be great, we could both have the battle length/speed we enjoy. But if you read my OP, I was simply saying a added 3-5 min after first contact would make a world of differenc.

Guys read the OP, threads have been done to the death on whether longer battles are better or not. A certain proportion of fans believe they are, but that's a discussion to be carried on in those previous threads.

This thread should be about whether CA should include more customisation options at campaign start, one option being to choose the kill rate in your battles.

TY

Patience is a virtue.
If Jack and the Team come up with epic battles one would want to savour them rather than treat them like a fast food meal.
Of course it would be great if there was a save function if one was under pressure time wise. The company Boss maybe approaching your desk?
So you could continue where you left off.

lol

[spartan_warrior]

As others already have said, I always value the campaign map gameplay more than the battles. So I don't mind short battles, especially since I usually don't auto-resolve, and because of that by mid to late of a campaign I am usually fighting several battles per turn, and at which time I really don't want to spend long periods fighting each, or else campaign progress grinds right to a halt.