(Hear me out)
This is absoluty atrocious. The combat is not just TERRIBLE...it doesn't exist.
The armies bounce around faster then a ping-pong tournament in China.
Have you actually read or even heard REAL Battles in the time period??? Because obviously someone let this thing slide by without even a second thought.
There has been not been a SINGLE battle of consequence in this game. I mean, armies lose what, 13 people in a 15k, then bounce around in Foreign territory, and then fight again only to lose a full 26 people in a 15k Army (ironically, they gained all their reinforcements from losing the battle).
I mean, armies are running like stealthy Rebel Armies around my territory with POSITIVE consequences. One army had lost six battles in a row in enemy territory only to capture Rome. I mean, isn't "losing" a battle supposed to have negative consequences? Instead, all it creates is "guerilla" warfare that makes either winning or losing without ANY consequence. Armies are able to wander in enemy territory better then the Vietcong themselves!
Come on guys, have you actually READ what real battles were like Pre-Gunpowder. Armies the losing army at least lost 40% of their people to being Rundown alone in battle. Legions of men running at each other did not lose less then 10% of their forces in a so called "epic engagement" that had lasted for over 14 days.
In case you haven't figured it out, we don't demand much, but HISTORICAL ACCURACY is something we NEED. And right now, the battles are FANTASTICAL at best.
I. Make the losing army suffer 30-100% of their total forces to casualty.
---Instead of----
Armies are lucky to lose 15% of their total forces.
Gameplay Reasons: Losing has little to none consequence. If "losing" gives me the option to move past entire armies and to put new pressure via flanking, armies that have "lost" have wound up winning wars.
Historical Reasons: If two armies actually met in Combat, then thousands of men would die trying to run away, disease, and marching let alone from the actual combat.
II. Make armies wander in enemy territory alot more difficult and take a percentage of death each month their in enemy territory.
---Instead of---
Armies wandering in enemy territory with little to no consequence.
Gameplay Reasons: Armies can just march right through to whereever they need to go, without any form of real difficulty. Without providing pressure to prevent armies from scrounging around deep in the heart of the enemy, there's no real advantage to being the defender. It's annoying to see armies stamp around without any apparant penalty. No pressure for invading countries. In fact, what winds up happening is that the Offender ALWAYS has the advantage because putting pressure without taking enemy penalties means that the offender who chooses his battle and forces the enemy to react wins.
Historical Reasons: It's could be insanely embrassing when units like Elephants can march through the alps without taking a scratch vs RL elephants being killed across the mountains. Then again, I do not know for sure if what I said is true, but I most likely think it is. Even so, armies are killed in enemy territory, just look at the Germans in Russia or even Hannibal in Rome. In your game, Hannibal can roam wherever he wants in Rome without taking major consequences, but in the real world Hannibal DIED while walking through Rome. Armies delayed in enemy territory WILL perish.
These two changes could literally be done with one patch or with a bunch of modders. I do not see the inherit difficulty of commiting to these changes.
I am a big supporter of your guys, and don't delete the post because it's saucy, but you seriously need to fix this if you want to keep your fanbase alive and strong. Remember, people have spent DAYS trying to make your games MORE realistic PRO BONO. We want a REAL game that's FUN to play, right now, combat is neither.
Regards.
This is absoluty atrocious. The combat is not just TERRIBLE...it doesn't exist.
The armies bounce around faster then a ping-pong tournament in China.
Have you actually read or even heard REAL Battles in the time period??? Because obviously someone let this thing slide by without even a second thought.
There has been not been a SINGLE battle of consequence in this game. I mean, armies lose what, 13 people in a 15k, then bounce around in Foreign territory, and then fight again only to lose a full 26 people in a 15k Army (ironically, they gained all their reinforcements from losing the battle).
I mean, armies are running like stealthy Rebel Armies around my territory with POSITIVE consequences. One army had lost six battles in a row in enemy territory only to capture Rome. I mean, isn't "losing" a battle supposed to have negative consequences? Instead, all it creates is "guerilla" warfare that makes either winning or losing without ANY consequence. Armies are able to wander in enemy territory better then the Vietcong themselves!
Come on guys, have you actually READ what real battles were like Pre-Gunpowder. Armies the losing army at least lost 40% of their people to being Rundown alone in battle. Legions of men running at each other did not lose less then 10% of their forces in a so called "epic engagement" that had lasted for over 14 days.
In case you haven't figured it out, we don't demand much, but HISTORICAL ACCURACY is something we NEED. And right now, the battles are FANTASTICAL at best.
I. Make the losing army suffer 30-100% of their total forces to casualty.
---Instead of----
Armies are lucky to lose 15% of their total forces.
Gameplay Reasons: Losing has little to none consequence. If "losing" gives me the option to move past entire armies and to put new pressure via flanking, armies that have "lost" have wound up winning wars.
Historical Reasons: If two armies actually met in Combat, then thousands of men would die trying to run away, disease, and marching let alone from the actual combat.
II. Make armies wander in enemy territory alot more difficult and take a percentage of death each month their in enemy territory.
---Instead of---
Armies wandering in enemy territory with little to no consequence.
Gameplay Reasons: Armies can just march right through to whereever they need to go, without any form of real difficulty. Without providing pressure to prevent armies from scrounging around deep in the heart of the enemy, there's no real advantage to being the defender. It's annoying to see armies stamp around without any apparant penalty. No pressure for invading countries. In fact, what winds up happening is that the Offender ALWAYS has the advantage because putting pressure without taking enemy penalties means that the offender who chooses his battle and forces the enemy to react wins.
Historical Reasons: It's could be insanely embrassing when units like Elephants can march through the alps without taking a scratch vs RL elephants being killed across the mountains. Then again, I do not know for sure if what I said is true, but I most likely think it is. Even so, armies are killed in enemy territory, just look at the Germans in Russia or even Hannibal in Rome. In your game, Hannibal can roam wherever he wants in Rome without taking major consequences, but in the real world Hannibal DIED while walking through Rome. Armies delayed in enemy territory WILL perish.
These two changes could literally be done with one patch or with a bunch of modders. I do not see the inherit difficulty of commiting to these changes.
I am a big supporter of your guys, and don't delete the post because it's saucy, but you seriously need to fix this if you want to keep your fanbase alive and strong. Remember, people have spent DAYS trying to make your games MORE realistic PRO BONO. We want a REAL game that's FUN to play, right now, combat is neither.
Regards.
Upvote
0
