What's with the long battles fetish?

[dRokon100]

In every thread I see in this subforum that involves complaining (aka 90% of this subforum) is that "HURR DURR OMG BATTLES ARR TOO FAST, IT IS NOW RUINED FOREVER, I WANT BATTLES TO LAST ENDLESSLY SO I CAN ENJOY IT UNLIKE OTHERS WHO HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO HURR DURR"

The question is, why?

Battle speed has never been a problem to me, in fact, some battles seem too long for me, even in "1000X" battle speed of Rome II. In fact, I loathed RSII because it takes an minimum of 2 hours to finish a battle, because I need to do stuff other then TW

So why do people have a slow battle fetish? Sure, 30 minutes maximum is bad, but it's better then 3 hours for a moderate battle. There IS a slo-mo button under the "play" button, and that can double your time!

I'll ask you again; why slow?

[stevehoos]

Because there are no tactics when battles happen with a bunch of Carl Lewis type armies in 5 minutes. Some of us actually like tactical strategy games instead of wallowing around in COD type arcade nonsense.

[Sun Tsu]

Battle speed should be like Medieval II total war.... the question "why slow", but change the speed like here, it makes me feel more like a rush game, instead of a real battle... you honestly like that you can take and capture a city in less then 4 minutes ? That's not logic... but if you like rush-games, you should not play total war.

[Sun Tsu]

Battle speed should be like Medieval II total war.... the question is not "why slow", but change the speed like here, it makes me feel more like a rush game, instead of a real battle... you honestly like that you can take and capture a city in less then 4 minutes ? That's not logic... but if you like rush-games, you should not play total war.

[flaviusbrutus]

Because I want chance to actually look at my troops fight along side each other. Not just mosh and kill each instantly. I was looking forward to see my Pike walls clash but no they just mosh as well so I won't play a Greek or Roman till this stuff is fixed.

[pajomife]

We can set ,by CA option,battles times,as 20 ,40 and 60 minutes,but the battles finish in 5 minutes,something is wrong here,no?

[dRokon100]

Battle speed should be like Medieval II total war.... the question is not "why slow", but change the speed like here, it makes me feel more like a rush game, instead of a real battle... you honestly like that you can take and capture a city in less then 4 minutes ? That's not logic... but if you like rush-games, you should not play total war.

You mean like SS? Yeah, after seeing Skanty make his legendary AAR, I actually thought of buying MDV2,
but I chose Empire.

Worth it.

[Duncan III]

Some want a fast, arcade game with magic spells and power-ups, some want a serious game of ancient warfare. I would like the latter.

[geala]

I'd like slower battles (best they were in EB) because historically battles were important affairs which sometimes lasted for some times and had a meaning. I would like to put some tactics in it which is difficult if rush-one beat-dead/rout is all you need. Battles are more or less the goal and one big result of your campaign map gaming. If you don't like battles why do you play a TW game? Why do they concentrate so much graphical effort to make battles look good if it's over in no time? It also goes directly against their recent (and good) mantra to implement fewer but more meaningfull battles. I could live with auto-resolve instead of the current battles.

[DCyDe]

In every thread I see in this subforum that involves complaining (aka 90% of this subforum) is that "HURR DURR OMG BATTLES ARR TOO FAST, IT IS NOW RUINED FOREVER, I WANT BATTLES TO LAST ENDLESSLY SO I CAN ENJOY IT UNLIKE OTHERS WHO HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO HURR DURR"

The question is, why?

Battle speed has never been a problem to me, in fact, some battles seem too long for me, even in "1000X" battle speed of Rome II. In fact, I loathed RSII because it takes an minimum of 2 hours to finish a battle, because I need to do stuff other then TW

So why do people have a slow battle fetish? Sure, 30 minutes maximum is bad, but it's better then 3 hours for a moderate battle. There IS a slo-mo button under the "play" button, and that can double your time!

I'll ask you again; why slow?

Because in a slower paced battle, attrition plays a bigger role and if units have higher morale/hitpoints you can actually use some advanced tactics, reorganize your armies, try out different approaches, organize reserves and not send everything in at the same time, etc... Slo-mo button doesn't change anything as it also affects the walking/running speed and the morale/hitpoints stay the same, so it's just the same zergrush gameplay only 2x longer.

[musketeer101]

It's not a fetish... The game is supposed to be fun, but it's not fun when the AI charges towards you, gets flanked and routed and the battle ends. Every single battle. Fast battles effectively remove a major part of the game.

[TanOrpheus]

Because it doesn't feel like I've contributed anything to a battle when I just pointed 3000 of my men against 3000 of their men and they ran away in 3 minutes 10 seconds. This was on an supposedly even fight too where autoresolve was giving me about a 50/50 chance so I thought it was going to be really close and enjoyable. Also it gave me no time to zoom in and see any of the fighting take place or enjoy CA's graphics, good or otherwise.

I understand why some folks need it over quick though, they have limited time to play and want it over fast. Will soon have access to the data packs and a week off work so it can be changed to suit my personal preference

[Grimbold]

In fact, I loathed RSII because it takes an minimum of 2 hours to finish a battle, because I need to do stuff other then TW

Making use of exageration to enhance your position are we?

RSII is known for having longer battles, i'll give you that, but if it takes you 2 hours minimum to complete a battle, i got news for you: you're doing it wrong.

[Duncan III]

Some want a fast, arcade game with magic spells and power-ups, some want a serious game of ancient warfare. I would like the latter.

[Darkie]

RS battles were fine. I really hate the battles atm, it takes an average of 4 minutes to win or lose a battle, no tactics involved. Also, the siege battles suck. Just send a unit to burn the gates and you've won.

[Santini]

RS battles were fine. I really hate the battle atm, it takes an average of 4 minutes to win or lose a battle, not tactics involved. Also, the siege battles sucks. Just send a unit to burn the gates and you've won.

4 minutes? How in the ef are you getting 4 minute battles?Or are you including the setup phase? All of mine are over about 15 seconds after I make contact with the enemy

[Keyser]

In every thread I see in this subforum that involves complaining (aka 90% of this subforum) is that "HURR DURR OMG BATTLES ARR TOO FAST, IT IS NOW RUINED FOREVER, I WANT BATTLES TO LAST ENDLESSLY SO I CAN ENJOY IT UNLIKE OTHERS WHO HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO HURR DURR"

The question is, why?

Battle speed has never been a problem to me, in fact, some battles seem too long for me, even in "1000X" battle speed of Rome II. In fact, I loathed RSII because it takes an minimum of 2 hours to finish a battle, because I need to do stuff other then TW

So why do people have a slow battle fetish? Sure, 30 minutes maximum is bad, but it's better then 3 hours for a moderate battle. There IS a slo-mo button under the "play" button, and that can double your time!

I'll ask you again; why slow?

So that your strategy is a bit more complex than recruit "the best swordmen and send them against their spears and levy" but also involves some units slowing the ennemy (even if they have no hope to win) so that you can, you know, manoeuver a bit or exploit a success somewhere.

Also, so that you can admire the animations and graphism, as it is, you play from afar, see a blob against a blob and it's over before you could actually zoom. Sure you can play, on slow motion or in pause, but that's not the same feeling.

Also, so that loading 1 or 2 minutes for a battle feel less useless. 1 minute loading, 3 minutes battle, unloading. Ok, next time i will auto-resolve...

[da_snada]

Because it´s NOT Civilization! TW is known for tactical deepness, and this deepness ist getting lost when battles take 3 Minutes and the only order you can give is an attack order, because after this the battle is over. In my opinion it´s not only a problem with the battletime, it´s a problem with the Unitspeed, to. They are moving too fast. Modders (I think Darth Vader and some others) fixed this problem and battles where much more challenging. Actually battles are just rushing-crap like in any other RTS game, but I´m convinced that there will be some mods to fix it, soon...

[CatoTheYounger]

The op is likely a CA apologist attempting to say there is something wrong with the players not the game. If you have read a hundred times how people hate fast battles you should pay attention to reasons they give. You simply click your men to attack and battles are basicly over in a couple minutes with no tactics needed or adjustments to make. Not fun.

[Igor85]

It need not to be a 40minute battle, but at least a big battle should take 10-15 minutes normally. Not 5.