[Suggestions] Battle Mod Focus

[Aethyr]

Since forever modder's have sought to get battles to feel more realistic and / or authentic, and the trend has gone almost universally to longer, slower slugfests which we have all enjoyed, I know I did, until time and time again I found my casualties to gravitate around the 500 for me, 2000 for them, mostly due to the fact that I would tank and spank whatever came my way. This would happen against 1, 2 even 3 enemy armies at times. The AI simply does not, in my experience, cope with these slower battles.

I was an avid DEI player in Rome II, and one sub mod for DEI was BDR, Battle Dynamics Reworked, the battles were faster but casualties mounted quite high on both sides in what was certainly the biggest and most challenging battles I had had in Rome II, and Alexandre Lange, the mind behind worked in some outside the box ways of doing things, and perhaps the success of the mod can be contributed to the fantastic balancing of units the DEI team achieved.

Now, as far as I know, Alexandre is working towards getting some form of BDR over to Attila, but I want to bring up some discussion around the idea's and notions above.

I argue that the battles SHOULD perhaps remain in the 12-16 minute mark with armies of equal standing, but the combat itself should be more furious, much like I saw in BDR, and why?

There is a general view that the battle itself was a slow arduous affair, and while I agree that the whole battle itself may have been, I put forward the notion that once lines were drawn, the fight itself would have been fast and furious in most occasions, and I think the exception to this rule would be with the highly elite fighting one another.
I believe the slow aspects cannot be simulated in the game correctly which I, as an admitted layman, contribute to general maneuvering of lines, probing and harassing the enemy and perhaps lines 'psyching up' and taunting each other just prior to the lines being met.

The other argument is that the majority of casualties inflicted were during the routing of either side, and I agree but I need to elaborate. Alexandre and I have talked about the notion of 'kills' in TW games, as have many others and considered it to also encompass the wounded and incapacitated. If your side won, your wounded would all things being equal be rehabilitated and lived to fight another day, if your army was the routed, you would most likely be put to the sword. So, the idea that the battles were mostly fought without any real casualties on the battlefield, and then one side quitting and allowing some wholesale slaughter seems a little less accurate, at least in my mind, than having one side battered and bruised having sustained casualties and THEN quitting. Again, I admit I am a layman in the field of classical and medieval warfare.

The above to me is my justification to the authenticity to high casualty battles, and I base a lot of it on modern experiences with the gang fights I grew up around as a kid. There was often a lot of assembling of other gang members for lack of a better word, people calling each other up to come down for 'backup', then the confrontation and subsequent fight. Everything leading up took a while, but the actual fights were usually over in minutes. These often involved bats and poles, and sometimes knives and machetes, the 90's were a volatile time in Melbourne around the area's i grew up.

Now, onto a gaming justification, the AI in my experience just can not handle the long battles and react well enough to us pinning their units and then flanking and utterly crushing them. Sure, Attila has improved this field a LOT and we are thankful for that, but its still not enough. The furious nature of bloodier battles allows the AI to break through lines and allow the improved AI to give the player a real challenge, and the challenging part for modders', is making this happen in a balanced fashion.

I hope this stirs some thoughts regarding the issue at the very least, and I would love to hear others thoughts on the matter too.

Thankyou for reading.

[Arthalion]

hi, did you tried my battle enhanced mod? A great battle can easily take 30 minutes like old medieval 2.
Melee combat are made for hold the line, you will need cavalry and skirmishers to finish faster the battles.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...d-(07-03-2015)

[Aethyr]

That is more or less my point Arthalion; the human will 'pin and hold', circle with skirmishers and cavalry and pummel the all but helpless AI and achieve the predictable 500:2000 casualty ration in most engagements. I put forward the argument that longer battles are not only less authentic, but far less challenging where the AI cannot hope to compete with a half competent player.

I would like to thank you for joining the discussion, I would like to hear your thought process in slowing the battles down that far and your thoughts on my standpoint.

[KAM 2150]

My DeI combat overhaul of Attila is based on experimental pack for regular DeI, which is pretty close with BDR in terms of our goals and methods.

Yes, while longer battles make it a bit more realistic in terms of combat speed, they also make the game 10 times easier. There is no fun and realisim in doing 20 rear charges with single cavalry squad.

[Aethyr]

Definitely agree KAM, and of all battle mods that we have in Attila, yours is at the forefront for me, however more than anything I am trying to bring up what to me is the elephant in the room, being a lot of modders seem to be pushing for longer slower combat because they believe that that is the status quo and desired outcome for battles. As you said, over time it came to light that while the slow stuff sometimes felt right, odds were definitely stacked against the AI which I mentioned above lead to repetitive brain dead battles which were obviously a bore.

My aim is to bring up the topic so modders and players can discuss the ups and downs, pro's and cons of this matter and perhaps we will see the gameplay experience elevated to a level we have not yet achieved. I feel the 'longer battles' mods are quite generic and sometimes made and released with little thought involved outside of the goal of making them longer, and I don't mean to discredit the modders themselves, im just saying that I think some more innovation and forward thinking might be in order.

[TWCassius]

Interesting subject.

I agree that the AI isnt smart when it comes to slow battles... but it is when battles are fast? What I see is that battles are harder, but not because the AI reacts better, but instead because the player has not enough time to think and manoeuver his troops... in seconds the first line is gangbanged and cut through (as the AI send 4 units over one of yours!!) For sure battles are harder like this, but is that fun? Units routing in 20 seconds, and coming back just for rout again in 15 seconds...

I've been using Arthalion battle mod, and I like it a lot. As he said infantry hold the lines pretty well and cavalry and skirmishers are very important. The battles are not too long, but they dont feel too fast either... for me is a good pace. For exemple, in my campaign as the geats, I've just fought a battle I was outnumbered 4200 vs 7000 enemy units (more or less). I'm using better CAI as well...

Starting the battle I managed to organise my lines in the open and to hide my cavalry in the woods not far. The AI joined his forces (3 armies) aswell and came to the offensive. After a very short missile engagement, AI sent his infantry in the center and cav on my left flank where they rout two of my axe units. I tried to flank his hurlers with my cav but promptly they sent lancers back to deal with - I routed a few units but the price for my cav was too high, almost decimated. At this point without cavalry, I still managed to get the advantage on the right flank, but lost miserably on the left. AI Reinforcements arrived from outmap, and among them 2 cav units. I was very happy (surprised) to see the AI contour completely my front lines for a full rear attack, I tried to intercepet them with swords (my lances were all engaged and reduced in numbers, exausted etc...) but they crushed everyone in their way. Finally I lose. I had 3100 men killed and the AI 3600. Everything in about 20 minutes (about 4 or 5minutes assembling troops).

If only the units were balanced correctly... Arthalion didnt touch the stats so we have to live with vanilla's unfortunately.

Aethyr, I suggest you to try his mod, and after come back to discuss... would like to know your impressions.

cheers

[Sheridan]

This is an unusual topic, in the sense that it's not brought up very often. But it's very nice to see someone spark the discussion.

I also agree that events in battles would probably be faster than one might think. Not necessarily the battle as a whole, but I think there'd be a lot more movement, groups of soldiers moving back and forth on each side as their "morale" - which is the term in the series - shifts, depending on what's going on around them. There would likely be physical contact causing movement as well, but I do think this would be less common than the non-physical form - pure speculation on my part however. In that sense, battles would presumably be furious, as the OP describes. What we see in these later games, however, is more commonly a drawn out static fight, whether modded or in vanilla, followed by one side routing and in some cases returning for another round. It doesn't really leave you with the impression of a real battlefield centered around the capabilities, but also human shortcomings (e.g. the self preservation instinct), of the individuals, in my opinion.

Enough with the ranting, anyway. I've been modding battles since a little after Rome 2 came out, originally with a narrow focus on very specific elements, which frankly have stuck with me throughout the modding "journey", but over time greater focus on a lot of various concepts which all fall into the battle category. Instead of trying to make battles long, drawn-out affairs, I've been working to enhance the prescence of soldiers and everything they would go through. It's been an attempt to add that realism in a completely different way, rather than focusing much on the battle length or realistic unit sizes as is common otherwise. I don't know if you've tried Para Bellum, or Warriors of Faith (its successor in Attila), it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts on that kind of approach to the matter either way. I should point out, the balance in the latter of the two is almost identical to vanilla, meaning battles can be really difficult or the other way around, depending on who you play as.

Regards

[Aethyr]

I have been meaning to more thoroughly check out your work Sheridan, Alexandre has spoken quite highly of your work ethic to me and I like the idea of 1hp battles, though i think that may leave too much focus on armor, still, my opinion remains reserved until I have tried it out.

@TWCassius, you are a DEI player, i suggest you might try BDR, its in the DEI Subform's, it manages to strike a balance between faster paced battles and authenticity. I agree, having your lines decimated 5 seconds into contact is not a matter of skill but twitch gaming, not what we need in Total War, and so as mentioned in one of the above posts, I think the challenge is finding the right balance where we cannot expect to go into a fight without being bloodied ourself, much like what I experienced in BDR.

Thanks for joining the conversation, talented modders such as yourselves honor me with your time, I unfortunately have no grasp of modding and scripting etc, I am merely an observer and experimenter

[Chris P. Bacon]

I feel like I'm in a car lot and all these modders are used car salesman trying to sell me something. NO KAM, I DON'T WANT YOUR NEWEST MOD OK? WHAT? Half off? Well maybe just a little testing...

10 HOURS LATER