Hope this can be modded out

[total relism]

Battles

in field battles you need to conquest the enemy deploy zone. and defend your Zone.
according to Gamestar (german Game magazin)

more found here
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?591475-New-Information-to-the-Diplomatic-and-Generall-Stuff-form-Gamestar-de-here-is-the-translation




anyone else see this as a big problem?. Its like capture the flag lol.

[Dan113112]

in field battles you need to conquest the enemy deploy zone. and defend your Zone.
according to Gamestar (german Game magazin)



anyone else see this as a big problem?. Its like capture the flag lol.

I think they mean encampment. Historically, capturing the enemy's camp meant you won did it not?

[HigoChumbo]

I think they mean encampment. Historically, capturing the enemy's camp meant you won did it not?

Nope, check the Battle of Gaugamela, for instance.

[SonOfCrusader76]

in field battles you need to conquest the enemy deploy zone. and defend your Zone.
according to Gamestar (german Game magazin)



anyone else see this as a big problem?. Its like capture the flag lol.

Hmmm. I'm not sure about that at all, not for field battles. For cities, it makes sense but otherwise - why would you want to capture a certain point to win a field battle? See, that's what happens when you introduce MP to a game: you get nonsense like Capture Points among other things.

[Yojimbo]

Um capture points make a lot more sense. Capturing strategic locations was what tend to decide wars, not slaughtering every enemy.

The STW system of strategic locations in combat boosting troop abilities was good.

[Modestus]

Um capture points make a lot more sense. Capturing strategic locations was what tend to decide wars, not slaughtering every enemy.

The STW system of strategic locations in combat boosting troop abilities was good.

They are not strategic locations they are tactical locations and while any terrain feature can take on a tactical significance during a battle just making one up and adding it to the map is daft.

The best and most clear cut example I can think of was Hougoumont at Waterloo however we cant have Hougoumonts popping up every time there is a battle.

[underworld965]

Um capture points make a lot more sense. Capturing strategic locations was what tend to decide wars, not slaughtering every enemy.

The STW system of strategic locations in combat boosting troop abilities was good.

well yeh, but what if you crush the majority of your opponents army, but, say, have no cavalry left. He then sprints his remaining cavalry to the capture locations aannnnnd gave over.

[torongill]

well yeh, but what if you crush the majority of your opponents army, but, say, have no cavalry left. He then sprints his remaining cavalry to the capture locations aannnnnd gave over.

So why exactly would you leave your capture zones without defenders? Besides, you assume that being in the capture zones gives you immediate victory, whereas every single TW since RTW has featured capture zones with time needed to be alone in that zone to be able to capture it.

Darmn, wasn't common sense supposed to be, you know, common?

[Modestus]

So why exactly would you leave your capture zones without defenders? Besides, you assume that being in the capture zones gives you immediate victory, whereas every single TW since RTW has featured capture zones with time needed to be alone in that zone to be able to capture it.

Darmn, wasn't common sense supposed to be, you know, common?

Lets use Hougoumont as an example, lets say Wellington loses control of the farm to the French does Napoleon automatically win the battle if he holds on to Hougomount for 10 minutes? No the French must still defeat the Allies before the Prussians arrive.

Lets position Hougoument behind the Allies lines so its harder for the French to capture it but of course now it has lost its tactical importance so its worthless.

Capture points make no sense unless they are in themselves of significant importance to the battle simply saying they are important is silly.

[underworld965]

So why exactly would you leave your capture zones without defenders? Besides, you assume that being in the capture zones gives you immediate victory, whereas every single TW since RTW has featured capture zones with time needed to be alone in that zone to be able to capture it.

Darmn, wasn't common sense supposed to be, you know, common?

Oh very clever. Couple obvious points. 1. In multiplayer, I don't know if you play, but by your posts I'll assume you don't, you generally need ALL of your units to fight a battle, assuming your enemy is competent. You can't really leave one unit sitting in the back just in case he decides to instead of charge your soldiers with his cavalry to send it to your camp. Additionally I'm fully aware of these "capture points" as I played shogun online with some frequency. They did not give victory, just bonuses. And isn't it "common" sense that cavalry move faster than infantry? So without cavalry, you can't get back from the middle of the battlefield to stop his cavalry from taking your camp.

As to the camp providing some sort of morale issue, it has no strategic basis. It makes no sense. In fact the enemy capturing camps DURING the battle sometimes harmed their cause (i.e. persian cavalry looting camp instead of attacking Macedonians at guagamela for instance). Capturing the camp should have literally no strategic, morale or otherwise (unless of course the wives and children are traveling with the army, but this varies faction to faction). If your goal is to capture the road so you can advance on the city, and you do that, yet your enemy takes your camp, well who REALLY won the battle? But by these standards you'd lose despite in reality winning. The idea that capturing a cam gives you an auto win is pretty dumb.

Oh further more, what battles were you referring too when you said generals who were horribly outnumbered left men to guard the camp? The only situations I can think of where that happens is if they need to hold a certain route open in order to retreat, or when they left the cripples to "protect" the camp.

[weirdoascensor]

Even If Rome 2 is Modddable, I think something like this is Hardcoded.

So, Most likely...No

[SODK]

I really don't think it will be like capture the flag... Could it be that some people on this forum are jumping to conclusion bit to quickly based on a german article? I for one think that CA has sat down and really thought of how to really improve the series and I think they will succed big time. I really don't think they are dumb (something many on these forums seem to think). I think that some people should just try, just try, to stay of the forums, take a nap, drink some coffee, have som fun and just wait for the game to be released. Then, when the game is released, buy it, play it, see for yourself (or wait for others to buy it and tell you how it is) and THEN you can start taking about what should and what should not be modded out and what sucks and what doesn't. Really no point in starting these threads all over the forums talking about an unconfirmed and probably missunderstod feature. Just wait till you see what the game is like. Then you can do whatever you like. Bash it, praise it - do whatever you like with it. But at this stage? Don't get you pressure up, you'll live shorter.

[UsulDaNeriak]

I really don't think they are dumb (something many on these forums seem to think).

Well, I don't think CA is dumb.

But I saw them doing dumb things more than once.

We just can pray, that capture points in open field battles are less dumb than they sound.

[Earende]

Just have to wait and see, but...

I for one think that CA has sat down and really thought of how to really improve the series and I think they will succed big time. I really don't think they are dumb (something many on these forums seem to think).

[Greve Af Göteborg]

I hope it won't be like this, YES i just killed off all of the enemy except that one unit that captured my "base". and now I lost.

[Dan113112]

I hope it won't be like this, YES i just killed off all of the enemy except that one unit that captured my "base". and now I lost.

If they do it properly I have no problem with it. But your idea gives me chills. I hope they do it right.

[Serkelet]

I hope it won't be like this, YES i just killed off all of the enemy except that one unit that captured my "base". and now I lost.

If you let one unit capture your "base", you did something really wrong.

[underworld965]

I hope it won't be like this, YES i just killed off all of the enemy except that one unit that captured my "base". and now I lost.

Yeh I've always wanted this idea to prevent people from kiting all over the map, but I could never get around the drawback of if the enemy sits like one unit on your base and wins. Maybe if the ATTACKING armies goal is to capture the opposing encampment?

[Dapyx]

Battles

in field battles you need to conquest the enemy deploy zone. and defend your Zone.
according to Gamestar (german Game magazin)

more found here
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?591475-New-Information-to-the-Diplomatic-and-Generall-Stuff-form-Gamestar-de-here-is-the-translation




anyone else see this as a big problem?. Its like capture the flag lol.

Battle of Cunaxa. Loosing the "flag" was a big issue.

[Punic Hoplite]

You guys aren't thinking it all the way through. If the enemy has control of your encampment/baggage train, that means they have a unit there occupying it. Now have you won the battle if the enemy has a unit not routing/destroyed? No. So go take that unit out. Think of it like Town Square, when you are in it, you are capturing it, but the second you leave it, you lose it. I think that's the idea behind this new system.