The fundamental problem of Total War...

[SenseiJT92]

and which does not seem to have changed in Attila, is the turn-based campaign system. Whilst it seems like it works, from a realistic point of view it given the human player an unnecessary advantage over the AI, in that the human player goes first.

Also, the fact that each country moves individually, means that strategic placement of units on maps is also defunct.

Scenario:

Red Star is Human player (though this can be AI, it's irrelevant really). As you can see, Red Star army wants to move to the river crossing marked.

Yellow Star is the enemy army; the commander of this army also wants to move to the river crossing as it is a very important strategic point to defend.

Now, Yellow Star army is clearly closer to the river crossing, however, due to a unseen-benevolent power, the commander of this army is unable to move until Red Star has moved.

Red Star army moves into position, reaching the riverbed first. When the Yellow Star army is finally allowed to move, they have to now attack the river crossing, rather than defending it. Unfortunately, this results in a loss for Yellow Star army.

Image

Solutions:

This is just one example where the turn based system fails... it makes strategic placement on the map a game of who-gets-to-move first. This not only affects the player but the AI fighting one another as well.

The only work-around solutions for this which I can think of is to go for a Real Time system, as seen in the Paradox series or alternatively a system where your moves are recorded and carried out (along with all of the AI) once end turn is pressed.

In the above scenario this would mean that the Yellow Star army reaches the river crossing first, as it should as they are damn well closer.

What are your thoughts? I doubt CA will ever address this issue, but I've been put off playing Total War games as a result of looking into this...

[AnonMilwaukean]

I disagree.

For one, the interplay between turn-based and real-time is great in TW: turn-based campaign map is where I set up the fireworks, and real-time where I control and watch the show after doing all that leg-work and planning. I really enjoy that, and for whatever flaws that system admittedly has, I think changing to a different system would not only be a massive re-styling of the series, but would kill part of the fun of not always having to be johnny-on-the-spot with pausing the game when a change needs to be made. I like the part of TW where I can drink coffee, plan things out, and eat a snack without having to worry about something unexpected happening and me not noticing it because the game is clicking through the years on fast-forward (though Paradox does have a good system of pausing for war declarations, etc.)

Secondly, the player's advantage in going first is sort of an illusion... you have to commit armies to parts of the map based off of guesswork because of this, which largely cancels out any benefits. You have no idea how many campaigns in different TW games would have been easier if I went second and had the benefit of seeing where the AI was moving towards before having to make decisions. Only when you can go straight from garrisoning your settlement into sieging an enemy settlement with the same army does going first become a real advantage, which is a bit more common in R2 than in the past, but only a bit, and even then some areas (nomadic steppe territory, some eastern territory) have massive tracts of land between settlements. So, I'm not so sure I agree that going first is a problem... if the AI's program routines were more complicated, it could probably really exploit going second, actually, and as it is, I think going second is better for the AI than going first.

Lastly, some stuff would have to be cut in a real-time system. As much as I do enjoy Paradox's strategy games, they suffer in terms of having to sometimes arbitrarily pause at intervals just to re-calculate if my agents (merchants, diplomats, missionaries in EU-IV, for instance) are still effective. Sure, I can place that info up on a sidebar or elsewhere on the interface, but even with doing that I have too much to handle to always let the game go on fast-forward when not at war or not dealing with more complicated peace-time stuff (like colonizing new territory). If TW games went to a real-time system, the manual movement of agents would be the first thing to get tossed, and I actually prefer having a physical agent unit rather than what is present in EU-IV, because having a physical agent unit means I have to more carefully consider where I place him, which becomes a meta-game in a way... in EU-IV, I just click the diplomat icon on the UI, and then assign a settlement or whatever. There's no 'choosing a route that might also uncover a hidden army' or anything like that. And none of this even tackles how you then go from real-time campaign to real-time tactical battle, which is exceedingly tricky and would have to be done to keep TW what it is... if you take away the real-time tactical battle with units you micro, then it's basically a Paradox game with less diplo.

In the end, I have to say I disagree with much of what you said. Nothing wrong if you prefer EU-IV or CKII or whatever, a matter of personal taste, really, but doing what you proposed would strip TW games of the thing that they are unique in, which is that combination of turn-based and real-time. Even games like Age of Wonders III don't go to real-time when they switch to battle mode. So, TW needs to have that interplay between turn-based and real-time, because if it doesn't, it ends up being either too much of a 'Sid Meier' turn-based clone (Civilization, X-Com), or too much of a Paradox real-time clone (EU-IV, CKII).

[PointOfViewGun]

This is not really a problem but a necessary evil. If you didn't have turn-based campaign it would be next to impossible to manage your empire as it starts to get big. Real-time campaign creates quite many problems in itself. What would you do during fights or sieges? What if an enemy army approaches an ongoing fight and you want an other army of yours to intersect but you're in battle? Then if you want to manage a lot of the new developments you're gonna have to pause the campaign a lot. As the game progresses you're gonna have to pause every few seconds because three will be something new happening every few seconds and you won't be able to see the entire span of your empire in a single glance. It would become too tedious.

[petertel123]

This is not really a problem but a necessary evil. If you didn't have turn-based campaign it would be next to impossible to manage your empire as it starts to get big. Real-time campaign creates quite many problems in itself. What would you do during fights or sieges? What if an enemy army approaches an ongoing fight and you want an other army of yours to intersect but you're in battle? Then if you want to manage a lot of the new developments you're gonna have to pause the campaign a lot. As the game progresses you're gonna have to pause every few seconds because three will be something new happening every few seconds and you won't be able to see the entire span of your empire in a single glance. It would become too tedious.

in paradox games it works just fine, and those campaign maps have a lot more depth than total war

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

I like my TW as TBS not RTS.

[crucify_ego]

and which does not seem to have changed in Attila, is the turn-based campaign system. Whilst it seems like it works, from a realistic point of view it given the human player an unnecessary advantage over the AI, in that the human player goes first.

Also, the fact that each country moves individually, means that strategic placement of units on maps is also defunct.

Scenario:

Red Star is Human player (though this can be AI, it's irrelevant really). As you can see, Red Star army wants to move to the river crossing marked.

Yellow Star is the enemy army; the commander of this army also wants to move to the river crossing as it is a very important strategic point to defend.

Now, Yellow Star army is clearly closer to the river crossing, however, due to a unseen-benevolent power, the commander of this army is unable to move until Red Star has moved.

Red Star army moves into position, reaching the riverbed first. When the Yellow Star army is finally allowed to move, they have to now attack the river crossing, rather than defending it. Unfortunately, this results in a loss for Yellow Star army.

Image

Solutions:

This is just one example where the turn based system fails... it makes strategic placement on the map a game of who-gets-to-move first. This not only affects the player but the AI fighting one another as well.

The only work-around solutions for this which I can think of is to go for a Real Time system, as seen in the Paradox series or alternatively a system where your moves are recorded and carried out (along with all of the AI) once end turn is pressed.

In the above scenario this would mean that the Yellow Star army reaches the river crossing first, as it should as they are damn well closer.

What are your thoughts? I doubt CA will ever address this issue, but I've been put off playing Total War games as a result of looking into this...

Hell No!!

[Humble Warrior]

I disgree also. The turn based system actually helps the AI. Each `Turn` gives the AI the chance to go over all parameters and come to a solution, then act upon it, then its turn ends. A real time system would be even harder for the AI to keep pace and make the correct actions, especially against Humans.

What we really need is a competent AI programmer, that`s all.

[MathiasOfAthens]

The Warscape engine is a problem and the lack of proper collisions. The new duel combat system is a problem. One or two soldiers holding back hundreds, because only one person can fight another at a time, is a problem. Lack of regions to conquer is a problem. TBS vs RTS is just an opinion and its a whole different system. Would be nice as an option. But that might be too difficult to implement.

[WarriorPrince]

I am also for the turn based campaign game play. I often auto-resolve battles but i get definitely enjoy growing and expanding my empire on the campaign map.

I find that the main problem with the campaign game play is faction "power" not being well balanced. It should be possible for a comparatively small faction, with the right resources and set up, to be a powerhouse within there own way. Right now development of a small number of cities is no where near as good as owning as many as you can. I guess there needs to be more opportunity for smaller factions to develop their cities more quickly and maybe more cons to being a large faction. I believe that something like this would require a hefty overhaul of the current building system, to create one with more depth of buildings which also allows for the nature of your faction (big vs small, economic vs. military etc) to impact on build times, economy bonuses, military bonuses and other things.

The other thing is I would like slightly more punishment (diplomacy wise) for being an aggressive faction. At the moment there is some sort of expansionism modifier, which as far as I know is linked to the number of cities you have. I think it would be great if there is a second one which is more temporary and kicks in if you start expanding aggressively by taking quite a few cities in a relatively short period of time. The main idea of this would be to punish players who overreach at certain points in the game.

[Cope]

and which does not seem to have changed in Attila, is the turn-based campaign system. Whilst it seems like it works, from a realistic point of view it given the human player an unnecessary advantage over the AI, in that the human player goes first.

Also, the fact that each country moves individually, means that strategic placement of units on maps is also defunct.

Scenario:

Red Star is Human player (though this can be AI, it's irrelevant really). As you can see, Red Star army wants to move to the river crossing marked.

Yellow Star is the enemy army; the commander of this army also wants to move to the river crossing as it is a very important strategic point to defend.

Now, Yellow Star army is clearly closer to the river crossing, however, due to a unseen-benevolent power, the commander of this army is unable to move until Red Star has moved.

Red Star army moves into position, reaching the riverbed first. When the Yellow Star army is finally allowed to move, they have to now attack the river crossing, rather than defending it. Unfortunately, this results in a loss for Yellow Star army.

Image

Solutions:

This is just one example where the turn based system fails... it makes strategic placement on the map a game of who-gets-to-move first. This not only affects the player but the AI fighting one another as well.

The only work-around solutions for this which I can think of is to go for a Real Time system, as seen in the Paradox series or alternatively a system where your moves are recorded and carried out (along with all of the AI) once end turn is pressed.

In the above scenario this would mean that the Yellow Star army reaches the river crossing first, as it should as they are damn well closer.

What are your thoughts? I doubt CA will ever address this issue, but I've been put off playing Total War games as a result of looking into this...

You are correct. Turn based strategy removes many tactical options.

Real time works perfectly fine in Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings II and everyone knows it. There is no reason that it couldn't work in Total War, and I don't really see that there is any benefit from keeping it as turn based.

[PointOfViewGun]

You are correct. Turn based strategy removes many tactical options.

Real time works perfectly fine in Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings II and everyone knows it. There is no reason that it couldn't work in Total War, and I don't really see that there is any benefit from keeping it as turn based.

Except both those games have a campaign map based on tiles. That's one obvious reason.

[Cope]

Except both those games have a campaign map based on tiles. That's one obvious reason.

Well of course you'd have to tweak the game somewhat, it obviously wouldn't work if you just slapped real time onto the Rome II campaign map. What I'm saying is that it could relatively easily be applied to future Total War games, and it should be. Turns are ok, but real time is better, as Paradox games have proved.

[Destin Faroda]

You are correct. Turn based strategy removes many tactical options.

Real time works perfectly fine in Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings II and everyone knows it. There is no reason that it couldn't work in Total War, and I don't really see that there is any benefit from keeping it as turn based.

Indeed. I especially like Knights of Honour's real-time campaign map and CA would do well to have a closer look at it.

[Rostam_e_Iran]

The Warscape engine is a problem and the lack of proper collisions. The new duel combat system is a problem. One or two soldiers holding back hundreds, because only one person can fight another at a time, is a problem. Lack of regions to conquer is a problem. TBS vs RTS is just an opinion and its a whole different system. Would be nice as an option. But that might be too difficult to implement.

This is the biggest fundamental problem in TW atm.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Indeed. I especially like Knights of Honour's real-time campaign map and CA would do well to have a closer look at it.

I actually took a look at that old game and I have to change my opinion. Total War would have to change quite a few things but RTS is possible.

[Påsan]

I think the CKII style real time could work very well on TW. Hell you could just scrap the TW model altogether and adapt the CKII campaign map and it would be the perfect game.

[Fanest]

i agree, having RTS on campaign map would be awesome, but instead of region based movement like in EU4 we could have corridors or smt of the sort to allow more strategic army maneuvering thorough the land

[DeliCiousTZM]

As a RTS gamer through and through. Total war is a turn based, RTS hybrid, it lets the relevant battle parts be played in RTS, and the deeper RPG/Empire building go in Turn based.

This concept is a wining concept, it is what makes Total war the most dominant game out there, pissing down on any paradox game that only offers half the experience at best. The only relevant point here is that it gets harder to coordinate attacks with allies, but i have a suggestion that would be revolutionary in total war.

Simultaneous turns for human Allies, it would allow for directly cordinated teamwork and test out the waters for further RTSification. But! More importantly, it would allow for 4 player multiplayer campaign, taking as long 2 player multiplayer campaign.

I recognize that this wouldn't be easy to pull off, but i hope CA have the guts to try it out.

[The Despondent Mind]

I always hated TBS, same goes with TW franchise. For anybody who played Knights of Honor, it's really obvious how fun the strategy map can be when you have to position your generals in Real Time. You have to have a good feeling of timing, you can chase around playing cat&mouse, you can try entrenching or drawing attention away. Basically hundreds of fun thigns to do like in the battles, but the TBS on the campaign map just kills all the fun and immersion, it's just bull.

[Diocle]

Erase the turn based strategic part of the game and you'll destroy what still makes the difference between TW and the other Rts crap around.

Any serious wargame is turn based, this is the best and the only way to have some realism in depicting human conflicts on a map or on the tabletop.