Late reinforcing forces (a feature from RTW) and logistic unpredictability.

[Yerevan]

I don't know if you remember this, but that's a feature from RTW that I miss a lot because it was bringing some of this realistic randomness that happens in RL wars. Sometimes, when you had planned to take a bigger AI force with a weaker army because you had a reinforcing army in the area, this reinforcing army would arrive later than you thouhgt and put you in a difficult situation.

As a player I find it sometimes boring how the TW system deals with zone of controls. I find it too automatic. It's like modern war logistic and analysis applied to ancient warfare and its a kind of a nonsense.

There should be a random factor applied to army movements orarmy's zone of control that would take in account the weather and other stuff.
Here's a post from BArry12 that describe what I'm trying to say in another way (maybe better, lol) :

c) Campaign AI is still awful and needs to stop making decisions based on the player's army strength etc. etc and just ATTACK. It's so boring for me having all my amazing cities with armies inside waiting for a good battle, but all the enemies does is wait and do nothing even when it has 5 full strength armies near me. Instead, it will attack a town with no defences. This needs to stop. Stop the pussyfooting around. If the enemy king has 5 stacks, and I have some stacks, let's just fight it out in an epic siege or battle. Don't attack the town that is situated 200 miles east of me on some random assault deep into enemy territory, then split your forces and wonder out into the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Indian and Southern Oceans.

The way it is now it makes the AI faction's decuision too much predictible. It also makes the CAI act in an exclusively logical way (I know its what you expect froim an AI) that sdometimes make it do actually dumb things. Like in R2 when it decide to move its 2 land stacks in the water opening you a road to its city just because yes, it predicted that it would probably loose the fight. In reality, and most of the time, when a general, was seing a numeroulsy superior ennemy force approaching to its capital it would fight whatever the odds, don't you think ?

Predictability brings staticness (or motionless, I don't know if the former word do exist).

I think that this potential movement zone that you see when you click on an enemy stack should just be an approximation. The same with zones of controls and the actual size of an army ! All those informations should come with a risk of being wrong ! No totally, but enough to create surprises ! It's been a long time since I haven't been surprise by the result of a battle in a tw title.
Because at the moment, we have a somehow brillant CAI, but even if it puts more challenge in some qqays, it also makes the game tedious in others. What do you think people ?

[Fredrin]

Yes, a degree of randomness to reinforcement's timing would be a good thing imo. As it stands the temptation to go around smashing enemies with numerical superiority (which then produces favourable auto-resolve decisions) is too strong.

A bit of randomness would counter that, especially if late reinforcements were factored into the auto outcome.

Plus a bit of added jeopardy in the way battles play out can't be a bad thing!

[IGdood]

I thought the reinforcements delayed message was given because the player didn't set UNLIMITED MEN ON BATTLEFIELD=1. In other words the game thought your computer can't deal with too many men so it gave that excuse.

[Yerevan]

I thought the reinforcements delayed message was given because the player didn't set UNLIMITED MEN ON BATTLEFIELD=1. In other words the game thought your computer can't deal with too many men so it gave that excuse.

Mmmh, I remember something like that... But we might not talk about the same thing. You mean when your units were arriving on the battlefield one after the other to fit the limit. But I'm more referring to the fact that your reinforcing army would sometimes arrive at the beginning of the battle (5 min after) or sometimes in the second half (after more than 15 min).

But anyway, whatever caused that, it brought surprise and unpredictabilityy to battles, and that was awesome !!! Even if it was a non voluntary feature ;-)

[Humble Warrior]

I thought the reinforcements delayed message was given because the player didn't set UNLIMITED MEN ON BATTLEFIELD=1. In other words the game thought your computer can't deal with too many men so it gave that excuse.

I used to think that when reinforcements were late or never even appeared at all that it was absolutely brilliant. I thought CA had coded an internal risk factor to relieving forces appearing, being delayed by weather, tarrying, distractions or whatever life brings- as often happened in real warfare. Then I saw it was just this and realised it wasn`t so brilliant after all. This was proven when I got a better PC switched this command on and I never got late reinforcements.

I doubt CA will ever add a realistic level like this to the game on purpose, seeing that they don`t want to cause any last minute tests on the Player at all.

[Yerevan]

I used to think that when reinforcements were late or never even appeared at all that it was absolutely brilliant. I thought CA had coded an internal risk factor to relieving forces appearing, being delayed by weather, tarrying, distractions or whatever life brings- as often happened in real warfare. Then I saw it was just this and realised it wasn`t so brilliant after all. This was proven when I got a better PC switched this command on and I never got late reinforcements.

I doubt CA will ever add a realistic level like this to the game on purpose, seeing that they don`t want to cause any last minute tests on the Player at all.

Ok, so they did not even do that on purpose, damn it !

That was really cool and I remember a few battles wich were so epic because my reinforcements arrived at last minutes ! Some i lost because reinforcements never arrived and that I would have never engaged have I known in advance and others I won in extremis because they finally appeared.

Implementing this in the campaign AI is critical for me as this mathematical way of thinking is having a notable impact on the enemy factions, who like many have complained, will wonder to the ends of the earth to tackle one enemy army it doesn't like, will raze most of the campaign map (rendering at a giant unplayable wasteland), and makes frankly bizarre decisions (putting it mildly) when it comes to building, maintaining and defending an empire.

Exactly, that's on the campaign map that this is needed the more. Because of its always perfectly accurate analysis, the CAI is often making the worst decision in terms of immersion AND gameplay !

[barry12]

I love your points about unpredictability.

It is a notion that these games leave out in the rain. Everything has its set rules and limits and statistics. General "A" couldn't possibly walk his army an extra mile because he's got a campaign movement range of "x", and unit "y" will always beat unit "z" because it has superior morale bonus etc. etc. While I appreciate that all games are built on numbers like this, if you don't take into account the unpredictability and randomness of life, you are going to have a very boring, predictable and scripted campaign.

Implementing this in the campaign AI is critical for me as this mathematical way of thinking is having a notable impact on the enemy factions, who like many have complained, will wonder to the ends of the earth to tackle one enemy army it doesn't like, will raze most of the campaign map (rendering at a giant unplayable wasteland), and makes frankly bizarre decisions (putting it mildly) when it comes to building, maintaining and defending an empire.

[Akhenaton]

Yes, I totally get what you mean! Back in Medieval 2, once my english crusaders were badly outnumbered by some Saracens, so I had to put my men-at-arms in narrow corridors at a farm and try to held them off until my reinforcements were arrived. They were delayed however and it became a really tough fight, but when the banners of my knights appeared on the horizon, flags flattering in the air and they rode like fury itself bringing the holy wrath of God down on the infidels, it just was AWESOME.

This was from my earliest Campaigns in Med 2 and I still haven´t forgotten that battle... With the new skill system for agents,generals and armies CA could really expand on such systems, make the skill trees themselfes branch out much more.

[Butan]

I know its a poor man's solution but increasing auto-resolve unpredictability (the yellow/red stripe zone) by a fair margin can help in that endeavor.

I would also love that reinforcing armies came as late as the predictable end of the battle, or even not at all, based on luck factors!

[Yerevan]

I know its a poor man's solution but increasing auto-resolve unpredictability (the yellow/red stripe zone) by a fair margin can help in that endeavor.

I would also love that reinforcing armies came as late as the predictable end of the battle, or even not at all, based on luck factors!

I think I saw a Magnar mod (Magnar mechanics) that does increase auto-resolve unpredicatability. Don't know if it also works for AI2AI battles.

One idea I had to make this more interesting in SP is if you had an army that was close but a bit out of range and you wanted to take a chance, you could 'roll' for an extended march to reach the battle, if you succeeded you could enter the battle late, if you failed, you suffered fairly heavy attrition (stragglers). Perhaps the AI could be empowered to have similar chances.

Generally speaking, I think some decisions get made in the interest of turning this a little bit into a competitive thing and so eliminate unpredictability, like head to head campaigns. Not why I play but I guess some do.

Yes, that's something I realised watching some people playing on youtube. I would see competitiveness suiting more to a total war arena or remaining only on the battle map. But I understand CA wants to appeal to the most.

Still we could have two different campaign modes. And I'd like to try H2H but not for the competitiveness :-)

[Butan]

I think I saw a Magnar mod (Magnar mechanics) that does increase auto-resolve unpredicatability. Don't know if it also works for AI2AI battles.

Yes, its from him I had the idea.

The only downside if that the auto-resolve unpredictability zone is grows from the middle, so 50% of the unpredictability will be in favor of the already foreseen winner, making possible scenarios where you have a crushing victory where you would have had a close one. But the trade is that its also possible you lose

I think the auto-resolve is already its own AI, with 0 human parameter, so it must work without the human player.



Magnar increased unpredictability values are the following: Makes autoresolve less predictable (max unpredictability increased from 30% to 50%, min : 0% to 5%)
Maybe a bigger minimum/maximum would create really unpredictable auto-resolve battles even when you manage to double-team the AI.

[Huberto]

One idea I had to make this more interesting in SP is if you had an army that was close but a bit out of range and you wanted to take a chance, you could 'roll' for an extended march to reach the battle, if you succeeded you could enter the battle late, if you failed, you suffered fairly heavy attrition (stragglers). Perhaps the AI could be empowered to have similar chances.

Generally speaking, I think some decisions get made in the interest of turning this a little bit into a competitive thing and so eliminate unpredictability, like head to head campaigns. Not why I play but I guess some do.

[Fredrin]

One idea I had to make this more interesting in SP is if you had an army that was close but a bit out of range and you wanted to take a chance, you could 'roll' for an extended march to reach the battle, if you succeeded you could enter the battle late, if you failed, you suffered fairly heavy attrition (stragglers). Perhaps the AI could be empowered to have similar chances.

Generally speaking, I think some decisions get made in the interest of turning this a little bit into a competitive thing and so eliminate unpredictability, like head to head campaigns. Not why I play but I guess some do.

I like this idea. A bit of randomness (because who knows what challenges might be thrown up by an extended force march) but enough incentive to make the kind of calculated risk that will save your bacon in a tight spot.

It would be great if there was a setting that accommodated the "random chance" preference for people who aren't playing the game for the competitive aspect (which I expect is the majority, thinking about it).

[von stoker]

I've always wanted to see a few more "dieroll" situations in total war to add unpredictability. A simple thing like random reinforcements would add tension to battles. Where they arrive, when will they arrive, will they arrive. It would also add a bit more strategy to extra tension to your decision making.

[Yerevan]

One idea I had to make this more interesting in SP is if you had an army that was close but a bit out of range and you wanted to take a chance, you could 'roll' for an extended march to reach the battle, if you succeeded you could enter the battle late, if you failed, you suffered fairly heavy attrition (stragglers). Perhaps the AI could be empowered to have similar chances.

Sure, that would be a step in the right direction :-) Maybe the forced marched mode's effect in general could even be randomized. With some bonus applied depending on your general's abilities/experience. The result in cas of total success could be more distance covered just with extra fatigfue, in case of partial success a longer distance covered plus fatigue plus an army integrity malus , and in case of fumble the same distance as in general but with malus applied to the army integrity and the general's authority.

I've always wanted to see a few more "dieroll" situations in total war to add unpredictability. A simple thing like random reinforcements would add tension to battles. Where they arrive, when will they arrive, will they arrive. It would also add a bit more strategy to extra tension to your decision making.

Certainty was certainly not something ancient warfare's generals could rely on. THey would have been much less supertitious overwise.

I'm happy to see I'm not the only one who would like this. Maybe, this random reinforcement timing can be moddable. Maybe even a minor randomization on the distance covered by armies. That would be for a nice experimentation in the waiting for CA to implement such a mechanism. But I suppose this is highly hypothetical

[Sheridan]

I think this is a great idea. Unpredictability is a necessary element to a strategy game, it just increases the need to carefully plan ahead. Even then there's no certainty anything will go as planned, but encouraging the player to take more factors into consideration makes it a lot more interesting and varied. I like what they did to the relative strength of power bar for auto-resolve, but the re-introduction of delayed reinforcements and perhaps even other delayed things would add some really tension filled moments in the campaign.

[maexim]

In Shogun II it was fine, reinforcments were coming late, so if you were having 1 army vs 2 ennemy, it was possible to beat them one by one.

At the opposite, if you were having 2 armies vs 1 strong ennemy, you goal was to wait for your reinforcment in the battlefield against a strong enemy.

In Rome II, the reinforcments come too quickly, so it's impossible to have this kind of strategy, i really hope CA or modders will fix this

[Ritterlichvon86]

No, your idea is bad. Dice throwing was removed for a reason. It is frustrating, leads to reloading, and I can only imagine the horror of it in MPCs.

People should think about the consequences before saying "YAY!!" to everything suggested here, and then crying "Fix it!" as if it was a bug. Seriously guys, this goes out to everyone who wants this in the maingame.

As a mod, yeah, no problem with that at all.

[Butan]

Dice throwing was removed for a reason. It is frustrating, leads to reloading, and I can only imagine the horror of it in MPCs.

CK2/EU4 battles are full of dice and not that bad.

[Huberto]

the horror of it in MPCs.

This is exactly why I want dice throwing. I want a better SPC experience because that's the game I play.