Battlefield Micro

[rrgg]

So apparently CA is taking steps to minimize the amount of micromanagement involved with large empires, which is something I highly approve of. So I was wondering, are they attempting any similar approaches with the actual battles?

Total War games especially are somewhere I do NOT want to worry about APM or babysitting buttons. I want plenty of time to actually fly around and watch my guys fight. So when I see stuff like the Carthage panoramic with tons of units, ships, and siege engines attacking from every direction I kind of start to hope that it isn't real game-play footage.

[c.ryo]

Hope that you need to micro manage, hope that battles wont end as fast as they start, hope that it will be

with tons of units, ships, and siege engines attacking from every direction

, and hope that there will be difficulty / realism adjusting options, otherwise as already stated many times, it will be shogun 2 vanilla all over again.

[CheesyFreak]

i hope not, that would make multiplayer much easier. also i like micromanaging alot, it adds to the difficulty and accomplishment of battles.

aaaah i remember when i was a new TW player and got my first Heroic victory against France as Spain

[What]

It would be definitely nice to have greater control over what your troops do in battle. Something as simple as "target the most valuable/least armor/most likely to break/closest unit in range" for archers. Simple features like that would go a long way to making battles a smoother, faster, more fun experience, while still retaining all of their strategic depth. I'm still going to tell archers to manually shoot at targets, I'm still going to manage when my troops charge myself, but at the same time, I don't have to deal with annoyances like my archers shooting at a mostly-dead unit of Bow Ashigaru at the edge of their range while lightly-armored Warrior Monks are marching directly at them because I'm busy trying to move my general out of harm's way. I want to micromanage specific, important sections of the battle, not every single unit I own because they're braindead if I don't.

[Muizer]

It would be definitely nice to have greater control over what your troops do in battle. Something as simple as "target the most valuable/least armor/most likely to break/closest unit in range" for archers. Simple features like that would go a long way to making battles a smoother, faster, more fun experience, while still retaining all of their strategic depth. I'm still going to tell archers to manually shoot at targets, I'm still going to manage when my troops charge myself, but at the same time, I don't have to deal with annoyances like my archers shooting at a mostly-dead unit of Bow Ashigaru at the edge of their range while lightly-armored Warrior Monks are marching directly at them because I'm busy trying to move my general out of harm's way. I want to micromanage specific, important sections of the battle, not every single unit I own because they're braindead if I don't.

I think that's the key thing: as players we should be in charge of the important tactical decisions, not having to baby-sit every unit because without input they are braindead sitting ducks. I've said it before, but battles shouldn't be affected much by how fast you can zip around the battlefield to give units basic orders that unit commanders ought to be able to figure out for themselves. I'm not saying that no skill would be involved in doing that. In fact, plenty of skill would be required. But it's just not appropriate to what the game is trying to portray. The player is supposed to be in the shoes of the general, not all of the individual low ranked officers at once.

[Jedi]

So apparently CA is taking steps to minimize the amount of micromanagement involved with large empires, which is something I highly approve of. So I was wondering, are they attempting any similar approaches with the actual battles?

Total War games especially I find are where I do NOT want to worry about APM or babysitting buttons. I want plenty of time to actually fly around and watch my guys fight. So when I see stuff like the Carthage panoramic with tons of units, ships, and siege engines attacking from every direction I kind of start to hope that it isn't real game-play footage.

You can still fly around and view it but the thing is its down to you and your army.You dont want to get split into tiny pockets having to micro.You simply need to keep your infantry compact and in a group.I imagine a phalanx or roman army would suit you like this.

Army group 1 = front line of 8 hastati
Army group 2 = second line 8 princeps

now u only have to micro 4 units if u keep them in roman formation.Just get ur troops grouped up and get them tied in.The only real micro problem is losing the charge if you dont click to attack a unit.Cant say im too fond of it to be fair as there should be a certain intelligence in the units.Having them stand idle and not face an ememy is frankly quite dumb.They should in part be able to do basic things themselves like brace for charge/turn face incoming enemy.

[Colonel Dax]

So apparently CA is taking steps to minimize the amount of micromanagement involved with large empires, which is something I highly approve of. So I was wondering, are they attempting any similar approaches with the actual battles?

Gods, I hope not. If there's one thing I cannot stand as of late, it's the move toward streamlining (or, as these things so very often turn out, simplifying) existing IPs.

I know I'm not alone when I say that the more micromanagement, the better. Charts as far as the eye can see...a sea of graphs...Hell, give me information for information's sake, I don't care. Anything in the name of depth, really.

[DaciaJC]

Gods, I hope not. If there's one thing I cannot stand as of late, it's the move toward streamlining (or, as these things so very often turn out, simplifying) existing IPs.

I know I'm not alone when I say that the more micromanagement, the better. Charts as far as the eye can see...a sea of graphs...Hell, give me information for information's sake, I don't care. Anything in the name of depth, really.

Indeed.

[Totalheadache]

Indeed.

thirded.

more strategy, def not less micro-management (what really cant the brain handle more complex scenarios rather than point+click) higher rating i.e 18, more gore. give me paradox/ca (although i dont like some of paradox's features and much prefer total wars, but there's def aspects they could use).

overall less cheesey arcade, more gritty strategic ancient war game.

[rrgg]

Gods, I hope not. If there's one thing I cannot stand as of late, it's the move toward streamlining (or, as these things so very often turn out, simplifying) existing IPs.

I know I'm not alone when I say that the more micromanagement, the better. Charts as far as the eye can see...a sea of graphs...Hell, give me information for information's sake, I don't care. Anything in the name of depth, really.

From what I can tell it mostly boils down to stuff like "Capital" regions that let you set orders for all nearby regions at once. So it's probably not a whole lot different from the AI governors in previous games.
But even refinements the AI governor system would still be moving in the right direction IMO.

[Eofor]

Gods, I hope not. If there's one thing I cannot stand as of late, it's the move toward streamlining (or, as these things so very often turn out, simplifying) existing IPs.

I know I'm not alone when I say that the more micromanagement, the better. Charts as far as the eye can see...a sea of graphs...Hell, give me information for information's sake, I don't care. Anything in the name of depth, really.

So, care to explain why adding **** to the game would genuinely improve the experience instead of just saying moar micromanagement=bettar?

[kronpas]

Gods, I hope not. If there's one thing I cannot stand as of late, it's the move toward streamlining (or, as these things so very often turn out, simplifying) existing IPs.

I know I'm not alone when I say that the more micromanagement, the better. Charts as far as the eye can see...a sea of graphs...Hell, give me information for information's sake, I don't care. Anything in the name of depth, really.

Eh, charts are information presented, theres nothing wrong with it. When people say about micro management in a RTS game like TW, its all about APM. After years of treating a TW battle like a SC match (although way less effort required), I'm a bit fed up with it, esp. after acardy Shogun 2.

APM-heavy gameplay is needed for multiplayer-centric games like SC2, and certainly Shogun 2 multiplayers loved it - it was the first game in the series which approached multiplayer from a more standardized gameplay with rock-paper-scissors unit types and quick, responsive unit formation (borderline acardy. I ve never seen my troops routing so fast in the whole series). But sadly that cake wasnt for me, and Shogun 2 with all its DLCs couldnt make me play past mark 550 hours.

[* Matolo Swazulu *]

If your really that desperate to watch the micro, then watch the replay of the game. It's really not that much of an issue. I prefer it when there is frantic button clicking, because then I feel the pressure that a general would actually feel. None of this watching my guys fight whilst I'm still playing the game, that can wait for the replay.

[rrgg]

@CheezyFreak
Never really bothered much with multiplayer, although how do you make it easier? Doesn't difficulty sort of depend on your opponent?
I tend to find large battles less rewarding if they're just fought by a bunch of stupid, barely-glimpsed ants that will stand there motionless and being shot by arrows/attacked in the rear because I was too busy elsewhere.

At the very least as a failsafe I'd really like an option to reduce the maximum units per army when starting a new campaign. Huge unit size + few actual units = fun combo for me.

[Lancy]

@CheezyFreak
Never really bothered much with multiplayer, although how do you make it easier? Doesn't difficulty sort of depend on your opponent?
I tend to find large battles less rewarding if they're just fought by a bunch of stupid, barely-glimpsed ants that will stand there motionless and being shot by arrows/attacked in the rear because I was too busy elsewhere.

At the very least as a failsafe I'd really like an option to reduce the maximum units per army when starting a new campaign. Huge unit size + few actual units = fun combo for me.

It would simplify the gameplay and narrow the skill gap. There would be less reward for speed and increased control over your units.

[The Juggernaut]

More frantic battles for me please! I hate it when I can just throw stacks at the enemy, and either auto-resolve or just throw my troops at the enemy. I like having my two units outflank an enemy in the middle of the line, or concentrate my archer fire on a particularly weak enemy. Oftentimes these little encounters are what turns the tide of battle. I remember on the Pyramids map in Napoleon, using the sand dunes as trenches for my men, while my opponent couldn't figure out what the heck was going on! It's the little things that add up, and I'd like to make sure I stay in control of the little things.

[Jom]

There's very little micromanagement in the game anyway, at least not on par with other RTS titles in which you control individual units which are instantly responsive, whereas in Total War games you always get a slight (realistic) delay as your orders are relayed and carried out. I don't think anything needs to be changed in this respect, as unit formations are the right size and are not too unwieldy.

[rrgg]

There's very little micromanagement in the game anyway, at least not on par with other RTS titles in which you control individual units which are instantly responsive, whereas in Total War games you always get a slight (realistic) delay as your orders are relayed and carried out. I don't think anything needs to be changed in this respect, as unit formations are the right size and are not too unwieldy.

Total War games that aren't Empire or Napoleon you mean (though I never tried Shogun II). First RTW they got the balance down pretty great, but those games really showed just how easy it is to push over the edge. You couldn't take your eyes off your guys for five seconds without them firing into a hill, refusing to fight due to facing the wrong way/being 2 inches out of range, or shooting into the backs of their comrades. And don't even get me started on the naval battles.

Point is, I just want to make sure they aren't trying to dig themselves into a hole by making huge, elaborate battles with way too much going on to be fun. Especially with the new sea battles they're describing. do you really want to be individually coordinating every single movement and ramming action of 20 different triremes at the same time?

[♠ Thomas Cochrane ♠]

rrgg you depress me.
Jom is right, there is practically no micromanagement in TW games to begin with! I understand you'd prefer to watch the conflict unfold instead of ACTUALLY FIGHTING, but CA have had this great little feature called "save battle replay". Surely this is the cinematic experience you want? When you put a lot of concentration and management into a battle, you can then go back and watch it and say "ooh look what happens here, this part is awesome, these guys get obliterated!"

Right now we have the battles and the replay separate. If CA listens to the likes of you there will be fewer and fewer controls and the two will merge into one another, and really, why would you campaign for FEWER game features?

[DeliCiousTZM]

I don't feel that we need less micromanagement as much as a better interface to maintain it.