Battles shouldn't last more than a month

[Jutsurai]

Greetings everyone.

In Imperator, I feel like battles lasting 2 to 3 weeks is the way to go. Beyond that could be an overkill. Even though I think that should have been the case in EU4 too; I understand that they had to do it due to both balance and late-game logic reasons, since 18th century was almost Napoleonic Era and battles were more complicated during that era.

But in CK2, I think the battles should have been a little shorter. I understand that they represent a mechanic of both Scouting, Fighting and Pursuing; but even that lasting months doesn't make sense most of the time. Most of the "actual battles" were about a few days at best. But I also understand the reason they did it this way. If it wouldn't be this way, there could be no meaning to split the army, since there would be no way for a backup army to catch the fight. But now, they have a chance to "arrive at the dawn." Making more tactics available.

Yet, we don't need this anymore since there are extreme amount of provinces. Now the backup army can catch the fight in a week, which is enough to justify a battle lasting a few weeks at most. Above that could really be unnecessary. Also, there will be in-game tactics which compensates for the long battles.

One other argument against shorter battles is that this is a game, not a simulation; so fun should come first. But I believe that this argument will not work in Imperator due to it being a war-oriented game, whereas EU4 was more about a balanced approach. You can just compare Eu4 and Ck2 to understand what I meant.

This is my opinion, after all.

Thanks for reading.

 

[roug1234]

Why should a battle last for weeks? its total unrealistic, in the battle of Cannae where Hanibal killed 86000 Romans, historians says it took about 6 hours with 30-40000 men.

This is what i hate about the paradox games, the battles takes to long.

My opinion

 

[Amallric]

Instant battles would make the game much more strategic and challenging, but it goes against the Paradox design policy of "direct impact" so it won't be considered.

 

[Denkt]

In paradox games battles don't represent just large pitched battles but a whole series of skirmishes and conflicts.

 

[fabius]

In paradox games battles don't represent just large pitched battles but a whole series of skirmishes and conflicts.

I think that's the way to look at it.
Even many 1 day ancient battles had days of maneuver, or facing off, camping and facing off again.

I reckon we'll have to wait and see. I vote for gameplay over realism on this; but anticipate there will be various mods for our tastes on this.

 

[RhaegarTelcontarTargaryen]

To be honest I would love to see Paradox making battles last a day or two, couple of days most, but make player have much more influence over tactics and the way troops array themselves on the battlefield (also make AI smart so he poses a challenge). Maybe even go full "total war" and make battles playable.. I know it is not happening, but personally I would not have anything against it. At least make player decide the way troops array, like grouping units into "regiments", giving them commanders and assigning them to flanks. Yes a lot of micro managament, but it would improve realism and increase fun I believe.

 

[fabius]

To be honest I would love to see Paradox making battles last a day or two, couple of days most, but make player have much more influence over tactics and the way troops array themselves on the battlefield (also make AI smart so he poses a challenge). Maybe even go full "total war" and make battles playable.. I know it is not happening, but personally I would not have anything against it. At least make player decide the way troops array, like grouping units into "regiments", giving them commanders and assigning them to flanks. Yes a lot of micro managament, but it would improve realism and increase fun I believe.

They could try something different with Rome. You post reminded me of the aspect of Agoed games where you can see the battle events after the battle too.

I'd be keen to see 'cohorts' and battle more visually represented
And more control. Not Total control, but maybe an Army planer to position cohorts, eg stacking best on one flank and ordering deny/delay battle on the other. And key for commanders, when and where to commit reserves. All auto-able for those who don't want to, or multiple and lesser battles.

 

[AureliusBob]

In paradox games battles don't represent just large pitched battles but a whole series of skirmishes and conflicts.

I don't know why people keep saying this. Look at the battle screens in EU4 and CK2, they are clearly modeled after a large decisive battle (100% of troops congregate to one province, calvary flanks, artillery fires from back row, etc). If Pdox wanted to represent combat via a series of skirmishes and conflicts they could easily just do it without "representing" it in a completely manner.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

@roug1234 @amallric

The main argument in favour of long battles in I:R is the same as it has been in all previous grand strategy games by PDS, and it is a good one: it is by design a n-player real time game, not a singleplayer game.

It follows from this fundamental design choice, that:

• However battles (or anything else) is handled, it must be done in a way that does not require the game to pause since pauses affect all players, not just the ones affected by the event; you can add pausing options for singleplayer purposes, but the game must play well without them
• Anything that requires any player to respond must take long enough real-time while the game-time keeps advancing to give the player time to react to an alert that something needs responding to, assess the situation, and meaningfully respond; the less time a player has to respond, the more the game resembles whack a mole when playing without pausing

This is the hard truth that any "how about making battles shorter or adding complexity to them via player choices" has to deal with. And it sounds as if PDS is adding a bit of complexity this time around; it'll be interesting to see how that works out, whether it is done as a tradeoff with battles taking even longer time or whether they've got another interesting way of handling it. We'll find out in due time.

More generally, the question of just how long time is needed for a good balance between players feeling frustrated by not getting to meaningfully react to a situation (the whack a mole scenario) and feeling frustrated by battles taking a long time is always a challenge - especially when it is possible for players to be fighting in multiple theatres of war at the same time, yet only being able to see one of them on screen at any time.

Which is why I once again expect several weeks long and in case of major struggles, possibly months long, battles, where players have time to reinforce ongoing battles with other forces in theatre.

 

[Jutsurai]

Why should a battle last for weeks? its total unrealistic, in the battle of Cannae where Hanibal killed 86000 Romans, historians says it took about 6 hours with 30-40000 men.

This is what i hate about the paradox games, the battles takes to long.

My opinion

I absolutely agree with you. I also want this though I don't see it happening due to multiplayer reasons. Even in some Ottoman Wars, there were battles lasted a few hours.

To be honest I would love to see Paradox making battles last a day or two, couple of days most, but make player have much more influence over tactics and the way troops array themselves on the battlefield (also make AI smart so he poses a challenge). Maybe even go full "total war" and make battles playable.. I know it is not happening, but personally I would not have anything against it. At least make player decide the way troops array, like grouping units into "regiments", giving them commanders and assigning them to flanks. Yes a lot of micro managament, but it would improve realism and increase fun I believe.

This is exactly my opinion. I can understand battle lasting a few months in Eu4, but if this is a game about wars, it should have a more realistic approach.

 

[Amallric]

Everybody says it's hugely important to allow the player to send reinforcements into an ongoing battle, even at the cost of realism, but in fact it is a fallacy. There's nothing smart or funny in starting the battle and then watching as the enemy suddenly marches armies from all over his empire into the meatgrinder. In the end it only gives the advantage to whoever has the most troops overall.

I'm pretty sure if instant battles were a thing we would just adapt ourselves to them. Placement and movement would be hugely important. You would have a constant trade-off between army size and attrition. Battles would be much more decisive and not just meatgrinders. I think it would introduce a new tactical depth that doesn't exist today.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Everybody says it's hugely important to allow the player to send reinforcements into an ongoing battle, even at the cost of realism, but in fact it is a fallacy. There's nothing smart or funny in starting the battle and then watching as the enemy suddenly marches armies from all over his empire into the meatgrinder. In the end it only gives the advantage to whoever has the most troops overall.

Likewise, there's nothing smart or funny in battles being over in so short a time that every advantage lies with the player initiating an attack on an enemy force, because the defender doesn't have time to react unless he is watching the force being attacked already rather than, say, being dealing with any of the other issues that occupy player attention and screen real estate at any given time.

Which is why I talked about striking a balance between the two extremes.

I'm pretty sure if instant battles were a thing we would just adapt ourselves to them. Placement and movement would be hugely important. You would have a constant trade-off between army size and attrition. Battles would be much more decisive and not just meatgrinders. I think it would introduce a new tactical depth that doesn't exist today.

Of course we would adapt. We are human.

One way we would adapt would undoubtedly be with an increased wailing and gnashing of teeth, if we played multiplayer.

Losing a war due to a losing a decisive battle you could do nothing to prevent because you happened to be looking at something else and doing something else when your enemy declared war and sent his armies across the border to deliver a knockout blow before you could react to the surprise of the attack is the sort of thing that can sour people on a game.

I also predict that fighting on two fronts would be very hard, possibly nigh impossible, in the circumstances you describe unless playing singleplayer with pausing or having overwhelming forces, not due to any of the "historical" or "realistic" reasons for two front wars being harder than one front wars, but because you can only see one front on the screen at a time. I mean, it is already hard enough to fight against multiple human opponents in PDS games even if you have defensive or numbers advantage simply because they've got the strong advantage of being able to act simultaneously in more theatres than you can effectively watch or control. With instant battles and more decisive battles, it is hard to imagine it would be anything but a slaughter.

But again, of course we would adapt. That's what humans do. I just don't see how it would make a better gaming experience.

 

[Amallric]

I find you unconvincing. Yes it is hard to fight against several enemies in multiplayer, because of a lot of factors. The length of battles is just one of them. Not sure how the instant battles mechanic would completely modify the experience to such an extent that it shouldn't even be considered. If anything instant battles would even help you to multitask. You only have to be reactive at the moment the battle happens. Once it's over you can focus elsewhere, for good or bad. You don't have to watch that battle endlessly going on and on, cycling your troops out and in.

 

[Thure]

I find you unconvincing. Yes it is hard to fight against several enemies in multiplayer, because of a lot of factors. The length of battles is just one of them. Not sure how the instant battles mechanic would completely modify the experience to such an extent that it shouldn't even be considered. If anything instant battles would even help you to multitask. You only have to be reactive at the moment the battle happens. Once it's over you can focus elsewhere, for good or bad. You don't have to watch that battle endlessly going on and on, cycling your troops out and in.

But HOW would instant battles work mechanically exactly to make them fun? There is no way you could influence them. You couldn't send reinforcement etc etc.

 

[Amallric]

But HOW would instant battles work mechanically exactly to make them fun? There is no way you could influence them. You couldn't send reinforcement etc etc.

The entire point is that there's nothing fun about sending reinforcements. In Total War yes you can influence the battle in fun ways. In Paradox games you can't, you already don't control what happens. The only thing you can do is send reinforcements, which is annoying and unrealistic. So do we really need this mechanic so bad?

 

[Thure]

The entire point is that there's nothing fun about sending reinforcements. In Total War yes you can influence the battle in fun ways. In Paradox games you can't, you already don't control what happens. The only thing you can do is send reinforcements, which is annoying and unrealistic. So do we really need this mechanic so bad?

Ask Napoleon at Waterloo...

 

[Amallric]

This is somewhat ironic because all of Napoleon's victories were about strategic manoeuver so he was able to corner separate enemy detachments and beat them one at a time...exactly the kind of thing it is totally impossible to do in a Paradox game because the battles last long enough for every enemy unit in a radius of a few hundreds of km to converge and join as "reinforcements"...

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

You could do something like 'the battle will take place on [day X]', giving you time to prepare for it in the ways available to you. Add options to carry out battle plans for that day, receive reinforcements, etc. Retreating could be handled by selecting the option 'retreat on/before battle day'. That might also go some way to stopping the long-standing problem of AI being abused in Paradox Games by cycling intended destination, too.

 

[Kayden_II]

It follows from this fundamental design choice, that:

• However battles (or anything else) is handled, it must be done in a way that does not require the game to pause since pauses affect all players, not just the ones affected by the event; you can add pausing options for singleplayer purposes, but the game must play well without them
• Anything that requires any player to respond must take long enough real-time while the game-time keeps advancing to give the player time to react to an alert that something needs responding to, assess the situation, and meaningfully respond; the less time a player has to respond, the more the game resembles whack a mole when playing without pausing

If a battle has to last for ingame-weeks (instead of at most a few ingame-days), so that the player has enough real-time to react, then it's obvious, that the ingame-movement-speed of armies has to be lowered accordingly^^

 

[N7_ZeroDawn]

I think that if two opposed army's just ran into each other, then there should be a quick battle. However, if one of the army's is intrenched then it should take longer, just a few days. My main thing with army's is how they will treat seiges, because seiges worked very differently back then.