Do you like capture points in land battles?

[jamreal18]

Once you capture a capture point, you officially become the defender unlike in rome 1 wherein both of you can be both attacker...

If the defender try to attack the attacker, he still has the upperhand because he has the capture point, there is less pressure for him compared to attacker...

Aside from that, if one player captures a capture point, he knows now where to defend and where to position his army and just wait for attacker so it means there is 60% chance he might win and 40% for enemy because he has capture point unlike wherein capture points dont exists, the player may not know where the enemy might hit him and there is 50-50% chance of winning for both of them because they rely only on tactics and ground....

You should win a battle by annihilating or routing enemy army, not capturing capture points...

Also, you can fight fair and square without capture points because neither of you are depending on bonuses from capture points...

Just my opinion...

[Eien]

capture point battles insofar only occurs when an army forced marched and is attacked right? If that's the case, it's tolerable, but not in every single battle tho, that would take away the fun of a free-flow battle.

[green tea]

I would prefer if CA stuck to realism and would not invent such nonsense. I want to play battles as realistic as possible. And realistic battles are usually about defeating the enemy army, not about capturing sites of touristic value. While some points like bridges or hills are valuable because they give you a tactical advantage, you still only need them just to beat the enemy there. If the enemy which you attacked just ignores the hill you occupied, why must he now be forced to fight you there? Maybe I just misunderstood a brilliant concept, but I believe the only sense of that is to give more action to the multiplayer games. What will be next? Magic wells of regeneration? Spawn points that give you reinforcements? Please CA, let us as least mod this feature out so those people that prefer historic wargaming over action-movie multiplayer gaming have some reason to play this game.

[Ravefothepeople]

I would prefer if CA stuck to realism and would not invent such nonsense. I want to play battles as realistic as possible. And realistic battles are usually about defeating the enemy army, not about capturing sites of touristic value. While some points like bridges or hills are valuable because they give you a tactical advantage, you still only need them just to beat the enemy there. If the enemy which you attacked just ignores the hill you occupied, why must he now be forced to fight you there? Maybe I just misunderstood a brilliant concept, but I believe the only sense of that is to give more action to the multiplayer games. What will be next? Magic wells of regeneration? Spawn points that give you reinforcements? Please CA, let us as least mod this feature out so those people that prefer historic wargaming over action-movie multiplayer gaming have some reason to play this game.

You know that many battles in history, including roman era, had camps from both opposing armies. And from these camps, the armies formed up to meet each other in the field? If there was a general route, the fleeing army would retreat to the borders of the camp and attempt to sally or offer negotiable terms of surrender. If the camp was raided and lost, the army would fall apart and every man would flee for himself.

So realistically, the points make sense. Now from a gameplay perspective, I just hope not all camps are atop huge hills. As long as their position is not absolutely strategically overpowered like hill camping in other TW games, it will be cool addition.

[alex man142]

You know that many battles in history, including roman era, had camps from both opposing armies. And from these camps, the armies formed up to meet each other in the field? If there was a general route, the fleeing army would retreat to the borders of the camp and attempt to sally or offer negotiable terms of surrender. If the camp was raided and lost, the army would fall apart and every man would flee for himself.

Nein.

Look at the Battle of Gaugamela. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ba...a_decisive.gif.

Some Persians noticed a gap in the Macedonian Phalanx and broke through it. Instead of doing the smart thing and hitting Parmenion's rear and cracking the Macedonian left, they kept going and instead RAIDED Macedonian camp. They freed prisoners and tried to rescue the mother of Darius but she refused to go with them.

Well, despite the looting of the Macedonian camp, Alexander the Great's army won the day and proceeded to wipe out the Persian Empire.

[nameless]

Nein.

Look at the Battle of Gaugamela. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ba...a_decisive.gif.

Some Persians noticed a gap in the Macedonian Phalanx and broke through it. Instead of doing the smart thing and hitting Parmenion's rear and cracking the Macedonian left, they kept going and instead RAIDED Macedonian camp. They freed prisoners and tried to rescue the mother of Darius but she refused to go with them.

Well, despite the looting of the Macedonian camp, Alexander the Great's army won the day and proceeded to wipe out the Persian Empire.

I liked how you forgot to mention that a messenger was sent to Alexander informing him that both his army and camp was in danger and that he had two choices to make.

1. Chase Darius but lose his army in the process
2. Let Darius escape and return to his army and drive the Persians back and save it.

He chose the latter.

This guarding the checkpoint in the one, and only one, instance I saw and it looks more like "King of the Hill", which is more arcade-like.

I'm sounding like a broken record but I strongly advise you to go read up the Battle of Chalons and the Battle of Gettysburg, battles where it literally was a "king of the hill" fight so it wasn't arcade. For Gettysburg it was a fight to capture a tree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRZj48Ys25U

Go to 2:52. That's how battles were fought, ancient or not.

[Petroniu]

You know that many battles in history, including roman era, had camps from both opposing armies. And from these camps, the armies formed up to meet each other in the field? If there was a general route, the fleeing army would retreat to the borders of the camp and attempt to sally or offer negotiable terms of surrender. If the camp was raided and lost, the army would fall apart and every man would flee for himself.

So realistically, the points make sense. Now from a gameplay perspective, I just hope not all camps are atop huge hills. As long as their position is not absolutely strategically overpowered like hill camping in other TW games, it will be cool addition.

People keep putting up this argument that camps are historically authentic. While they are all they did was to be a big moral drop but it was in no case a decisive win factor. If that were to be true then I bet that at Thermophylae Leonidas would have just sent a small force to raid the Persian camps while they kept them from entering Greece and just waited for 2 mins to pass until victory would have been declared by the Gods. And then Xerses would have said ohhhhhh, I totally forgot to defend that! I never though the Spartans could hold on 1/4 milion men! Come on! Not fair!
So, while I do agree it is a great addition in the game the way it works is totally wrong. Losing it should be a massive moral drop for the defending army but in NO way a win situation. The same could honestly be done with city capture points too. I always found it odd that you could win a siege battle with 2 units using 1 to distract the full stack that was defending the city while the other sat around the market square waiting for the 2 mins counter to end - Yay! We got the square and we are just 200 peltasts! Now we get to kill all those 2000 legionnaires! How awesome is that?!

[nameless]

People keep putting up this argument that camps are historically authentic. While they are all they did was to be a big moral drop but it was in no case a decisive win factor. If that were to be true then I bet that at Thermophylae Leonidas would have just sent a small force to raid the Persian camps while they kept them from entering Greece and just waited for 2 mins to pass until victory would have been declared by the Gods. And then Xerses would have said ohhhhhh, I totally forgot to defend that! I never though the Spartans could hold on 1/4 milion men! Come on! Not fair!

For someone who claims to know that battle I'm kinda curious to know exactly how would Leonidas sneak around the Persian camp and even get anywhere close to damaging it at all. Plus not everyone was sent into battle, a garrison force is always left behind to keep watch and in the event the camp was attacked reinforcements wouldn't be too far away to rush back.

So, while I do agree it is a great addition in the game the way it works is totally wrong. Losing it should be a massive moral drop for the defending army but in NO way a win situation. The same could honestly be done with city capture points too. I always found it odd that you could win a siege battle with 2 units using 1 to distract the full stack that was defending the city while the other sat around the market square waiting for the 2 mins counter to end - Yay! We got the square and we are just 200 peltasts! Now we get to kill all those 2000 legionnaires! How awesome is that?!

Except now in siege battles there are multiple capture points so you can't just camp at one so your argument is irrelevant.

[Darth_Revan]

I hate capture points on the battle field, my goal is to kill every enemy soldier or rout them, not capture their camp.

[General Maximus]

They are forcing us to play their way by adding capture points. The main objective of TW games, ever since Shogun 1 (which had the greatest AI) came out, has been to use flexible strategies, tactics and formations to rout or destroy the enemy army. The objective has not been to just simply camp at a capture point and laugh until the timer runs out. Real warfare is not one bit like that.

But CA thinks every army used to be immobile and simply camped at little flags of their factions and tried to defend them from attackers, don't they? I hope capture points are only for multiplayer (although they can ruin multiplayer too) or there is an option to disable them. I like to have free flow of battles, something which TW series was famous for.

CA is turning this game into an arcade mess designed for dumb newcomers, it seems.

[GideonAI]

They are forcing us to play their way by adding capture points. The main objective of TW games, ever since Shogun 1 (which had the greatest AI) came out, has been to use flexible strategies, tactics and formations to rout or destroy the enemy army. The objective has not been to just simply camp at a capture point and laugh until the timer runs out. Real warfare is not one bit like that.

But CA thinks every army used to be immobile and simply camped at little flags of their factions and tried to defend them from attackers, don't they? I hope capture points are only for multiplayer (although they can ruin multiplayer too) or there is an option to disable them. I like to have free flow of battles, something which TW series was famous for.

CA is turning this game into an arcade mess designed for dumb newcomers, it seems.

My goodness, you haven't heard? Capture points only show up if an army that has been FORCE MARCHED is attacked. Please stop spouting against it if you don't even understand the circumstances.

[General Maximus]

My goodness, you haven't heard? Capture points only show up if an army that has been FORCE MARCHED is attacked. Please stop spouting against it if you don't even understand the circumstances.

You could've said it in much more polite way, sir. I am not the only one who has heard that capture points will be in all battles. Now do me a favour and show me a source, please.

Circumstances? What circumstances? Lol, did someone put a gun to CA's forehead and told them to force users to get this feature? Hilarious!

[GideonAI]

You could've said it in much more polite way, sir. I am not the only one who has heard that capture points will be in all battles. Now do me a favour and show me a source, please.

Circumstances? What circumstances? Lol, did someone put a gun to CA's forehead and told them to force users to get this feature? Hilarious!

You have a good point and I apologize for my outburst. Unfortunately after searching I could only find a source on Wikipedia, but here's the quote anyway: "Supply train battles: Supply train battles occur if an army intercepts another that is force marching. Since the defending army is unprepared for a battle, their supply trains are vulnerable and the men themselves are tired of marching, therefore having morale penalties. The attacking army can win if it manages to capture the enemy supply train or destroy army caught marching."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_War:_Rome_II

[Gazi Husrev-Beg]

My goodness, you haven't heard? Capture points only show up if an army that has been FORCE MARCHED is attacked. Please stop spouting against it if you don't even understand the circumstances.

This is good to hear and big relief. Although, Romans tended to have a lot of forcemarch. I would also like to see them build palisade camps eventually. That would make more sense than defending few tents.

Edit: After watching last E3 Demo, they talk about control points on open field battle!

Previously whn they introduced that system in Carthage demo, I thought not bad. Removes all that zerg rush to the center. Although I hoped that some of barricade installments we as player could choose to make, so we can halt enemy advancment how we want and where we want. Any way, in city setting i thought of capture points as adding bit more to the city battles, so not bad, although I would really like that we can during sieges make our own in city temporary fortifications and battle installations. Just as the one who is besieging is making siegetowers and ladders, etc. So that came to my mind whn they announced capture points.

Now, as for OPENFIELD battle capture points, that is just not right and they did not clarify this in latest E3 demo vid. Since that was a historical battle if I understood it correctly...is that control point only part of historical battle, or will we during the game be forced to let say attack our enemy and focus on capturing "the flag" in middle of battle field? Did I misunderstand the interview or if there is possibility that it is just the way I understood it! Whoaa, RANT OFF!

PS! just added my view for it from thread I made, but realised this one already existed.

As for strategic points in open field battles, next to forced march and whatever other strategic options...it would be nice if they kept it to the minimum. At least we should be able to gain something either from defending that particular stratigic point (supplies? if barbarian nomads -family???) So as long it has more sense than here is a flag...go get it and win the battle.

[Laconophile]

I disapprove.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

My army is still on the field and the enemy army is all dead or routing, but one enemy unit managed to sneak up on the capture point so the enemy wins the battle. While in real life I would have just been able to turn around and killed off that unit before it did much damage to whatever I was defending.

Capture points in battles seems to be a very artificial way of adding goals to battles.

[Serkelet]

My army is still on the field and the enemy army is all dead or routing, but one enemy unit managed to sneak up on the capture point so the enemy wins the battle. While in real life I would have just been able to turn around and killed off that unit before it did much damage to whatever I was defending.

Capture points in battles seems to be a very artificial way of adding goals to battles.

Why didn't you leave a unit to protect the capture point, in the first place?

[Greve Af Göteborg]

Why didn't you leave a unit to protect the capture point, in the first place?

Because routing the enemy army is far more important than to protect some bloody tents.

[Serkelet]

Because routing the enemy army is far more important than to protect some bloody tents.

Your soldiers that probably have their belongings, including the food, the weaponry, the tools, the reserve horses, and some of them their families, may think otherwise .

[Greve Af Göteborg]

Your soldiers that probably have their belongings, including the food, the weaponry, the tools, the reserve horses, and some of them their families, may think otherwise .

If CA portrays all of that I'll protect it, but based on the video it's just a flag near some tents.
I guess it makes some sense, but it just opens up some very cheesy moves that can end up being very annoying.