Offering Battle challenges

[Frost, colonel]

Greetings fellow gamers,

Seen as large open field battles can be a little rare as catching large enemy formations in the open doesn't happen very often. Although CA's idea of less walled cities helps alot, but it's not quite the same, and it always seems to be me attacking.

I don't know about this in history, or Warhammer lore, but I remember in the old film El Cid where the Moors challenge the Spanish to a field battle at an agreed place.

The basic idea, and I don't know if it could be implemented, or the best way to do it, but for example, the AI or the player issue's a challenge(which can be declined) to meet on the field at a certain location, similar to the quest battles I suppose. It could be to decide the fate of a province or city, ie the loser has to give up territory and agree not to attack for X no of turns or something to make it more serious, to make it a gamble(high stakes perhaps). The general idea being a large battle between hopefully multiple stacks?

For the sake of the law perhaps this could be only between certain factions, as I am not sure the Greenskins would ever entertain such an idea, and so perhaps only be between factions with a certain perception of honour, although any given faction leader may be an opportunist?

Just an idea I have always liked the idea of, and wondered if other players thought it was naff or could work to make the game more fun.

[Humble Warrior]

Greetings fellow gamers,
Although CA's idea of less walled cities helps alot, but it's not quite the same, and it always seems to be me attacking.

I don`t understand this. The sieges are bad but good? Sounds like you want to make a valid critical point, but, like some, feel like you mustn`t. Why not? If the cut down sieges are bad and lacking, SAY they`re bad and lacking.

It`s how you make things better.

[Frost, colonel]

Eh, do what, sorry Humble Warrior, my reference to sieges is that the way CA have done it gives us more open field battles in stead of just siege are siege. Several minor settlements I have attacked have had accompanying AI stacks by them, which has led to some very large field battles. In the past probably more than one Total war was criticized for having to many siege battles. To some up I quite like only the main settlements generally being the one's having walls, the rest pertaining towards open field battles.
Yes this is not the same as when I caught Grimgor moving in the open with 2 stacks against my 2 stacks, because that was like I was going hunting for the enemy, but the new open battles instead of sieges still help.

The only aspect of sieges now that I don't like is the cities often look so inviting, but the battle area is so small and dull in that I can't explore the beautiful environment on display around me, the same in this regard applies to open battles themselves. I would like to retreat across one of those little bridges that some cities have to make a last defense, or just explore some of the prettier open enviroments like LA Maisontaal Abbey and perhaps fight in it's precincts.

[geala]

I had a different experience than the TS in my 300+ turn last Empire campaign. I scarcely had so many multi-stack battles as in TW:Warhammer in any other TW game. The AI likes to sail in groups and catching them is easy in some parts of the map with closely assorted settlements. It's dangerous in open areas because the AI uses any chance to singly out stacks with more of their stacks. It even uses the lightning strike ability, a superior Greenskin stack currently beat one of my 4 stacks alone when I tried to relieve a siege.

I don't like multi-stack battles btw, 2 versus 2 is the most I can appreciate but I often had 3 or 4 vs 3 or 4. With the random appearance of the armies on the battlefield every multi-stack battle is a burden for me, auto-resolve nearly mandatory.

BTW what CA really got right is the siege mechanic. Thanks to the gods they kept the possibility to wall minor settlements. I also like that you have to strengthen the walls of big cities with a special building line. And wether you like the siege maps or not, the fact that the AI builds siege equipment first and gives you some time to react is golden. Because that's what fortresses were about.

[Frost, colonel]

I don't like multi-stack battles btw, 2 versus 2 is the most I can appreciate but I often had 3 or 4 vs 3 or 4. With the random appearance of the armies on the battlefield every multi-stack battle is a burden for me, auto-resolve nearly mandatory.

I have not had any more than 2.5 stacks attack my 2, each time I have been fairly lucky in that the AI's came on to my front or sides. To be honest I usually camp in a corner when they are this big, or anchor my line on a rocky area/obstacle as it gets too messy to control, and the fact that the AI seems to be quite tidy and group it's forces together helps make it both more epic and easier to manage.

I like to view the spectacle of an epic fight, not get caught in a clic fest. Although I suppose one can save at the end and view it later as purely a replay, but the replays are often not accurate, the weather can change, and so can the troop movements, quite annoying really!

[Påsan]

Ive never had so many giant field battles in any TW. Much due to the no siege in towns unless it got upgrades. Dont miss town battles at all really. Field battles were always the most fun. Just won a 3 vs 1 stack battle with Karl Franz vs Grimgor, his Wagh stack and the garrison that basically came down to Karl smashing Grimgors face in with his hammer with 250 health left. All i had left was a depleated Reiksguard and some spearmen.

[Frost, colonel]

basically came down to Karl smashing Grimgors face in with his hammer with 250 health left. All i had left was a depleated Reiksguard and some spearmen.

The close one's can certainly be the most fun Pasan, did you save the replay for viewing at your leisure? They can when they work give you ideas on how to improve your play, simply because you have the time to relax and think.

[xambo]

I think in the case you are describing it will be epic but tactically it will not be much fun since it will be chaotic. So many armies in the field will be difficult to control. I see the fun factor though.

[Frost, colonel]

I think in the case you are describing it will be epic but tactically it will not be much fun since it will be chaotic. So many armies in the field will be difficult to control. I see the fun factor though.

I think multi stack army battles are only difficult to handle if you have to fight in several directions, and or your forces are split, or you consider issuing orders under pause is cheating(I do not against the AI).

The largest I have had was when I attacked the unwalled Vampire settlement of Mousillon, their 2.5 stacks against my 2, my 2nd army coming on directly behind me where it was anticipated. I anchored one flank against the edge of the map, so I only had one open flank to deal with, which I tried to refuse plus some reserves in the area.

This was a veritable sea of skeletons and zombies and several Lords throwing magic about and their flying units which I tried to meet out front ahead from my main line. Securing one flank so you only have the line and one flank in the air isn't to hectic. Initial movement orders were done under pause, which I don't consider cheating as the AI can issue orders to all of it's 50 units at the same time, and I can't do this.
This was a rolling countryside battle and looked and sounded(7.1 surround) great. I have graphics mostly maxed and I like to see the battle, not do a click-fest from a distance, although you can still be busy.