Will infantry battles last longer in Rome II than in Shogun 2?

[SinerAthin]

That's pretty much my question.

In Shogun 2, Infantry Battles were extremely quick as we had bands of lightly armored guys charging each other with big swords. Naturally, it was a pretty quick massacre.


But I'm thinking that say, a Defensive Cohort vs a Stalwart Phalanx, I always imagined that the fight would last pretty long.


Will we notice an increase in the duration of infantry battles in Rome 2, compared to Shogun 2, when two heavily armed armies clash together front on? Or will they all be instantaneous slaughterhouses?

[BeastG33]

I believe they have said that unit kill speeds and movement have both been reduced since Shogun 2, but I don't have a source on that at the moment. Maybe the Strategy Informer article?

[jtfjtfjtf]

I believe they have said that unit kill speeds and movement have both been reduced since Shogun 2, but I don't have a source on that at the moment. Maybe the Strategy Informer article?

I think they said that in the Carthage video.

[Grobar]

Hardwaremaster from official TW forum played at E3 and said it was 20% slower then Shogun 2.
I hope you can slow down or speed up battle like you could in Shogun 2. “Slow motion” in Shogun 2 was actually a normal speed battle for me. “Normal speed”battles are way too fast for me.

[Fishdawg]

I've heard the same, battles will last longer. They only seem quick cause they have speed it up so they can show us a whole battle in a short time frame.

[geyserik]

Yes they did say kill speeds have been reduced but when you watch that E3 video It looks way quick.I hope this was because it was edited just to show a lot of action quickly, if not its way to fast.

[Mamertine]

I hope so. I referenced something similar to this with the Red Alert series from CnC. In Red Alert 1 and 2, you had to attack and be consistent. But when RA3 came along almost everything was killed in 1 to 3 shots. It was bad in imo. I want to see battle last longer than they did in S2TW, but I am afraid what others are saying might be true, in regards to R2TW just being a reskinned S2TW. Man, I hope that is not what is happening.

[sunny44]

since the game isn't out yet you will have to wait.

[ptoss1]

The battle speed in Shogun 2 has nothing to do with the historical way of warfare.

Contrary to popular belief, well made lamellar armour is just as good as a solid metal plate and lighter.
Scale plating combined with lamellar is better than either of those from the sources I've studied, but I don't have hands on experience.

Rome 2's battles will be a bit slower, probably because of balance and player complaints, but don't expect anything drastically different.

[Mamertine]

The battle speed in Shogun 2 has nothing to do with the historical way of warfare.

Contrary to popular belief, well made lamellar armour is just as good as a solid metal plate and lighter.
Scale plating combined with lamellar is better than either of those from the sources I've studied, but I don't have hands on experience.

Rome 2's battles will be a bit slower, probably because of balance and player complaints, but don't expect anything drastically different.

Source?

Just saying, then why did armor evolve to what it was before gunpowder? Lamellar was simply scale armor with no backing, and Feudal Japan usually used wood lamellar scales. Again, not trying to start a flame war, but why did lamellar fall out of place and plate armor take the place of stopping bows and swords? What stopped plate armor was gun powder, and to a lesser extent crossbows.

But armor evolved to plate in its pinnacle from what I have read. But yes, lamellar was less expensive and lighter.

[skofuz]

Source?

Just saying, then why did armor evolve to what it was before gunpowder? Lamellar was simply scale armor with no backing, and Feudal Japan usually used wood lamellar scales. Again, not trying to start a flame war, but why did lamellar fall out of place and plate armor take the place of stopping bows and swords? What stopped plate armor was gun powder, and to a lesser extent crossbows.

But armor evolved to plate in its pinnacle from what I have read. But yes, lamellar was less expensive and lighter.

It's a false assertion pulled right out of his ass. I'm assuming he is comparing Japanese lamellar to European plate armor, and asserting that it is just as good, which is just the most laughable assertion I've heard in a while. Dear Lord...

[ptoss1]

It's a false assertion pulled right out of his ass. I'm assuming he is comparing Japanese lamellar to European plate armor, and asserting that it is just as good, which is just the most laughable assertion I've heard in a while. Dear Lord...

I wasn't thinking Japanese but Mongols.
They used lamellar armor and did fine vs. the forces in Europe, but it seems like the Rus' and Hungarians used mail and lamellar as well apparently.

[ptoss1]

Source?

Just saying, then why did armor evolve to what it was before gunpowder? Lamellar was simply scale armor with no backing, and Feudal Japan usually used wood lamellar scales. Again, not trying to start a flame war, but why did lamellar fall out of place and plate armor take the place of stopping bows and swords? What stopped plate armor was gun powder, and to a lesser extent crossbows.

But armor evolved to plate in its pinnacle from what I have read. But yes, lamellar was less expensive and lighter.

Ya, you're right I got it mixed up. It's lamellar over mail in terms of penetration.

[oppaiO_O]

Did you guys noticed the unit stats?? things like 50 morale 40 defense 35 attack and such, with stats like that battles should last longer and they too said something about 20-25% longer than shogun 2...we just have to wait

[sleepyx732]

If I were to judge this solely on the E3 demo.. hell I'd say it's even quicker.

What with the chariots killing half of a unit and the accuracy of the artillery as if it was a laser guided missile and the speed of the ships.

But I won't.. I'm going to force myself to believe this was purposely sped up, granted they managed to skip around for the most of the battle anyway.

[xxxMoRaVexxx]

If I were to judge this solely on the E3 demo.. hell I'd say it's even quicker.

What with the chariots killing half of a unit and the accuracy of the artillery as if it was a laser guided missile and the speed of the ships.

But I won't.. I'm going to force myself to believe this was purposely sped up, granted they managed to skip around for the most of the battle anyway.

The troops flying in the air and such are just effects and don't really reflect its kills according to some forumers (and non-forumers) who had been at the E3 demo of Rome 2.

Remember in past TW games where some units would fly in the air or get knocked down when they are charged but still manage to stand up afterwards (without limping afterwards usually)? I think that "tradition" of exaggerated flying will be carried on to R2TW.

[McCarronXLD]

Needs to be more than 20% slower than Shogun 2. A lot more. Hopefully modding won't be as difficult as they say.

[Lieutenant Sharpe]

Yes I love long drawn out infantry battles. In M2TW: TaTW I would make full stacks of just infantry and fight them agaisnt each other. The carnage was amazing. Hopefully the AI will actually form thick battle lines instead of what it did in Rome 1.... Also, with the new weight mechanic hopefully the battle lines will flow back and forth.

[universalmind]

20% longer is no where near enough. ADHD crowd pleasers.

[jsully16]

20% longer is no where near enough. ADHD crowd pleasers.

Oh look, one man with an opinion being arrogant about it.

Long battles are cool and all that, but I don't want to sit staring at a computer screen for 10 minutes while my men have the clear advantage and I just have to grind out and finish them off.