Poll: Do you like Capture points in non siege battles?

[Tartknocker]

Pretty straightforward. Lots of argument about this here and there, general consensus seems to say it makes the game more arcade-like and forces the player to dogpile on the capture point ignoring strategy. Here is a poll, I'd like to see what the majority of players feel about it.

[Eien]

It makes sense when I'm force marching, to simulate protecting a baggage train, others, no, as it hampers strategic deployment for terrain.

[BlackamusJones]

Earlier today I was playing my campaign and parked an army on top of a hill in the path of an oncoming enemy that wanted my settlement. I set up my fortifications, get the flaming balls ready, then start the battle only to find that there is a capture point at the bottom of the hill between me and the enemy. I got pissed enough to just alt-tab and kill the game in the task manager.

[1cmanny1]

Earlier today I was playing my campaign and parked an army on top of a hill in the path of an oncoming enemy that wanted my settlement. I set up my fortifications, get the flaming balls ready, then start the battle only to find that there is a capture point at the bottom of the hill between me and the enemy. I got pissed enough to just alt-tab and kill the game in the task manager.

I did the exact same thing. These were just a stupid idea, they should only be used for battles involving ships.

[Hopit]

This is a double edged sword for me, as above said, in force march it goes. (kinda also in fortifying mode (you got to hold the fort)) , but mostly, it is horrible.

[vonblunder]

mm why can't I vote?

[Hopit]

mm why can't I vote?

You need to have posts.

[big_feef]

Great idea, horrible implementation.

[Fastfreddie]

I've taken quite a few cities after capturing only the front gate when the city had several more places of importance left. It seems that if you route them at the gate they don't regroup and they auto end the battle when I know they had at least half of their forces left where as in the old Rome everyone regrouped at the city center which made much better sense. I mean if your going to be put to the sword away why not go down in style.

[jtfjtfjtf]

I don't like that they result in victory. In the combined land/sea battles instead of a capture point there should be a timer if one side only has boats left. If the boats don't land before the timer runs out they lose. For baggage train battles there should actually be a baggage train and if it gets destroyed the army with that baggage should suffer penalties for the next turn like it can't move, there's desertion, and morale is low. But they shouldn't lose the battle outright.

[Arrow2daknee]

Hate them, not game breaking but when there is a nice hill for me to deploy on but I can't deploy there because I have to babysit this stupid flag it becomes annoying.

[Fetzen]

I hate them. The goal should be to defeat the enemy army, in whatever way possible. A flagm, randomly positioned somewhere in the green, doesnt have anything to do with that and robs the battles of tactical variance instead of adding it. Who the thought this would be a great idea and who the didnt have the balls to tell that moron it was not?

[hzh]

Seriously, if we can't take advantage of the terrain, there's no point for battle anymore, I just auto resolve everything.

[TeaAndCheese]

As it stands now being forced to defend a flag placed in the middle of a field or somewhere else equally absurd is just stupid and arbitrary. I'd rather not bother with flags at all in field battles but they could have at least let the defending player place the flag manually before the battle starts.

[Black-]

They combined Starcraft and Battlefield to attract the casual-action gamer more.
I think that's a sign for the dying TW Series. New consoles doomed this game.
Now they are experimenting with new hardware which "could" run such games but only if simplified.

We better convince Paradox to combine Crusader Kings 2 and Mount & Blade.

[lordhedgwich]

I voted have no opinion on them since i never get to use them once i get into a city the ai just rushes me and i kill them all within a few minutes

[Humble Warrior]

Well, if this is true, it makes a mockery of any kind of military or strategic depth in battles and would be a sign of the death of Total war . It don`t take a genius to realise how this will make all the land features useless and might as well just be an iron board map. this has never happened in any Total War game before and whoever thought this was a good idea should be ashamed.

However, sieges don`t seem to have men climbing the wallss...

To the OP: You really don`t need capitals for the first option... Some would call it `influencing` a person`s decision and I don`t think it needs any influencing.

[chris10]

Well, if this is true, it makes a mockery of any kind of military or strategic depth in battles and would be a sign of the death of Total war . It don`t take a genius to realise how this will make all the land features useless and might as well just be an iron board map. this has never happened in any Total War game before and whoever thought this was a good idea should be ashamed.

I come to think that the victory points in open field battles could very well reflect in a certain way the difficulties and disadvantages involved back then...
as far as I have seen they are only present when certain circumstances have been met (like having exhausted all movement points)
an army which was attacked by another army, either at march or after having marched quite a distance, was caught somewhat unprepared and certainly could not select the battlefield nor make considerably movement with the majority of its force in order to get to a more favorable position...ancient/medival armys were often forced to fight where they stood...
as well this gives the oportunity that the AI could be in a better position and that the player has to fight uphill which with total freedom to move around almost never happens as players will always cheat or exploit their way to an elevated position after having studied the way the AI behaves, especially when the AI attacks the timer always runs in favor of the player so that in the end the AI will always attack uphill and the player always will fight downhill which would be cheat in a way,wouldnt it ?
We all have always tricked our way into an elevated position (if there was any) since Shogun and MTW and made the AI the idiot who had to fight uphill...always!
Now with these open field victory points...one exploit less I guess

[Humble Warrior]

I come to think that the victory points in open field battles could very well reflect in a certain way the difficulties and disadvantages involved back then...
as far as I have seen they are only present when certain circumstances have been met (like having exhausted all movement points)
an army which was attacked by another army, either at march or after having marched quite a distance, was caught somewhat unprepared and certainly could not select the battlefield nor make considerably movement with the majority of its force in order to get to a more favorable position...ancient/medival armys were often forced to fight where they stood...
as well this gives the oportunity that the AI could be in a better position and that the player has to fight uphill which with total freedom to move around almost never happens as players will always cheat or exploit their way to an elevated position after having studied the way the AI behaves, especially when the AI attacks the timer always runs in favor of the player so that in the end the AI will always attack uphill and the player always will fight downhill which would be cheat in a way,wouldnt it ?
We all have always tricked our way into an elevated position (if there was any) since Shogun and MTW and made the AI the idiot who had to fight uphill...always!
Now with these open field victory points...one exploit less I guess

No, no and no.

I`ve read about, watched and know something about many battles in history. There are almost NO examples of battle where a General or army is forced into a certain featureles spot on the battlefield.

Yes, there are best spots at rivers to defend. Best spots on hills to defend. Even baggage trains that need defending. etc, etc.

But the beauty of it is that a General might decide to be different and NOT defend that point, choosing an alternative area, even if that means the baggage train gets captured or the enemy gets across the river or even if the enemy gets on that hill. Even in a siege the General has elected to leave the city to the horde if in the longer run it suits his plan.

What CA has forgotten is that the General in reality always has the option to NOT do the standard tactic if he wishes, as long as its possible and might even win the battle NOT doing it!

Battleflags on the battlefield completely eradicate the Player using his INIATIVE and taking any risk that could win him the battle (or lose it). The pont is Battleflags artificially destroy initiative and taking risks like the more famous Generals often did.

CA made the huge mistake of not checking up history and fusing it with gameplay, instead they just thought `gameplay` and forgot what made TW great in the first place. So ultimately, they have actually turned battles into a tunnel-vision affair that never happened at all, ruining historical realism and, most importantly, the GAMEPLAY.

Here we see what happens if realism is ignored to the point that a tactical battle becomes no battle at all.

[chris10]

Battleflags on the battlefield completely eradicate the Player using his INIATIVE

My guess is that this is exaclty what was intended.
First battle with Victory Point in open field was just two days ago.
I was being attacked by a full stack and after positioning my troops I hit START BATTLE
and in good old TW manner I yawned, smiled and instantly ordered my formation towards an elevated position for the alltime uphill-downhill cheat...
and then I saw it..there he was...the victory point...I was like WTF ? Army stop...and instead of running to the elevated position to slaughter the AI with 100 to 4000 casualties I had to move forward to get to the victory point...obiously this ended in a huge hack & slash on both sides...I won as the human player almost always wins but I lost quite a few units...some tension at least
What I want to point out is that battles in the old way are always the same and since the AI has no cognitive abilitys...well...at least now the player looses the initiative from time to time and the ability to force its will always on the AI.
I stand by my point that this mechanic adds some variety from time to time
What I do not understand though is the poor implementation of the feature...tying it to a simple 30 seconds check is to generic
The counter should only start after one side has lost at least 50% of its units and < 25% of the enemy army (menpower) ..something like that
Mabye they can be made optional with a checkbox in the Main Menu but after all its impossible to please everybodys personal taste..on the other side..they are going to happen only every so often so whats the problem anyway ?