Battle Realism

**Delicate Strawberry** · November 21, 2015, 06:24 PM

Does anyone use this? I'm always tempted to use it, but I get annoyed with it due to the odd enemy unit routing and then not moving back towards my army and taking ages to find them. Saying this I think it would make battles harder, thus fairer for the AI. Thoughts?

**Draewn** · November 21, 2015, 06:41 PM

If it's making things fun for you than absolutely. So far as my own experience, to be honest I can't stand interface-imposed difficulty as a balance / AI band-aid. It's like games that balance things by requiring hardcore micro for your gents to remember to throw their grenades (or move away from grenades at their feet, for that matter). That's fun for a lot of people and more power to them, of course, but boy it sours things for me. Different tastes, I suppose.

**Furgon** · November 22, 2015, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by Draewn

I can't stand interface-imposed difficulty ... Different tastes, I suppose.

I have a name for such peple, to which I belong myself: lazy gamers. It's enjoyable to have a relaxing gameplay, to give orders and see what happens then. There's too much stress in life to be pressured even in the game. But it sure differs from person to person.
Real generals often commanded from some hill or height near the battlefield to recreate their own demigod view, so seems some of them were lazy too.

**JCB206** · November 22, 2015, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Furgon

I have a name for such peple, to which I belong myself: lazy gamers. It's enjoyable to have a relaxing gameplay, to give orders and see what happens then. There's too much stress in life to be pressured even in the game. But it sure differs from person to person.
Real generals often commanded from some hill or height near the battlefield to recreate their own demigod view, so seems some of them were lazy too.

Most generals in this time frame did not "command from some hill", they led from the front. Most in the cavalry, but some in the infantry line. Hannibal ran the infantry line at Cannae. Phillip II of Macedon quite often was with his infantry during battle. Julius Caesar's own journal explain the fighting that he did from foot. Were these not "Real Generals?" Not sure on Scipio. Napoleon, of course much later, was fond on commanding from some hill. He had greater command of the army. All of Europe copied this mind frame. I'm positive he wasn't the first, but during the age of this game, commanders were expected to fight from the front. Most soldiers wanted to see the man they were dying for. I'm sure many didn't but the most successful did. Sure they scouted the positions (from a hill for example) from their own view or from scouts reports to position the army and create the plan, but then moved to wherever their Elites would be on the battle line.

The greatest generals, slept in camp, ate what their men ate (publicly), and fought next to them. These were the real generals that a man was willing to fight and die for. Generals that didn't connect with their army, could see them willing to quit the field when things got tough. History is full of armies with 2-3 times the number advantage flee the field from men that were willing to die for their cause. The greats rose and fell on the backs of these soldiers.

Do you think Caesar, Hannibal, or Alexander were "great" just because of their strategies? The had to have the men to carry them out or die trying. Most battle plans, during this time frame, were very simple due to not knowing what their men would do if they lost touch. For example, Hannibal took a great risk sending his cavalry around the flanks. If they had been successful and followed the enemy instead of turning back to attack the rear, his infantry would have been ground to dust. But alas, he had commanders and men that would rather die than let him down. Too many times we see armies go on to plunder the camps while the battle was still going on. Less protection (less chance of dying) and more reward monetarily. When men refrain from this to help complete the job, that is when you know your army loves and/or respects you. That bond is forged before you every step on a battle field. It can be strengthened there.

**rick1063** · November 22, 2015, 03:51 AM

I always use it, it is not interface imposed difficulty but limits your vision to the vision of your units on the battlefield, therefore more realistic than being a floating demigod who can see everything! I haven't had any problems with units routing and then not heading back to battle personally

**zonks40** · November 22, 2015, 04:37 AM

I find it good as really, a birds eye view of the battlefield makes it far too easy, I liked how in Rome 1 you had the option for "General Camera", having the camera local to your General only.
It also prevents giving commands while the game is paused and restricts info on enemy units, for people looking for realism I cannot see why they would not use it.

**JCB206** · November 22, 2015, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by zonks40

I find it good as really, a birds eye view of the battlefield makes it far too easy, I liked how in Rome 1 you had the option for "General Camera", having the camera local to your General only.
It also prevents giving commands while the game is paused and restricts info on enemy units, for people looking for realism I cannot see why they would not use it.

I agree. I very much miss the "General Camera". It greatly increased difficulty. Your general had to act like a general, going from one wing to the other, instead of a very usueful Heavy Cav Unit. Only thing that hurt that part, was I wish you could give responsibilities to each wing of the army or to one and take charge of the other. Tell them to defeat the enemy cavalry and turn to the center for example. Instead we can give them an order from anywhere on the field and they move without hesitation to do our bidding exactly, like they have walkie talkies or something. When units don't move, following my orders, I treat it like they are following the flow of battle.

Everyone likes to play differently.