https://youtu.be/w4_li-bSuOc?si=CFRNf4SV4IpeoGJ2&t=895This is why Total War melee engagements last minutes at most, but melee engagements in history lasted hours.Everyone stayed just outside of spear reach most of the time.There needs to be games that model this, instead of having suicidal troops fighting in close quarters. That way, battle can truly last hours like they did in real life (fast forwardable obviously), which allows plenty of time for maneuvers, skirmishes or just sitting back and enjoying the scenery.Add the realism of command, ie. incomplete information on enemy/own positions and numbers, incomplete info on the state of the battle, troops getting lost, troops not following orders, confusion, chaos, Murphy's law and we can have a real tactical wargame.You also shouldn't get the overhead view until the replay.
field of glory series does a great job of modeling extended melee engagements. Units locked in an engagement can grind it out for many turns without suffering massive losses.
>>1736800>Add the realism of command, ie. incomplete information on enemy/own positions and numbers, incomplete info on the state of the battle, troops getting lost, troops not following orders, confusion, chaos, Murphy's law and we can have a real tactical wargame.I always thought a multiplayer game about commanding line infantry on massive battles would be cool. The players would be officers in the field, like Mount and Blade, leading from the front, while the soldiers would be bots. Coordination would be done with NPC messengers carrying written orders, that could get lost, delayed or captured. A player on each side would be the general, having to coordinate his officers with partial information. Of course the fun it's in dealing with the fog of war, things like third party VC would ruin it, so I don't think it's really feasible.
It seems someome comes up with this brilliant idea at least once every week, but they never consider the obvious problem: Nobody would want to actually play a game where your soldiers don't do what you tell them to do. If you're stupid enough you might be able to fool yourself into believing that you do, but in reality the only result would be that you spend 90% of your playing time getting mad at the unit AI for "ruining" your strategies.Realism isn't fun, at least not in and of itself.
>>1737019You would only see the accurate play-by-play post-battle, that's when you know enough to get mad, but it's fine since it's already over. During the battle you'd only see the beauty of chaos.
>>1737019realism is also really fun. I want the battles I fight
cont.I want the battles I fight to be similar to actual battles that have occured, instead of just "beating the AI using the same moves #200"In order for that to happen, there needs to be realism at the contact level ie. Dynamic Standoff, and at the command levelI don't care about painting the map my color winning the same battle 200 times, but instead experience what a warlord would actually experience
>>1737019>Nobody would want to actually play a game where your soldiers don't do what you tell them to do.It worked for Close Combat.
>>1736932Theres already captains mode in bannerlord retard
>>1736932discord trannies would just coordinate to cheeat
>>1736800My god, will you ever stop spamming this board with this theme?
>>1736800Yeah dude I really want my soldiers to stare at the enemy soldiers like scared little bitches instead of fighting. Fuck off OP
>>1736800Like 20 years ago when I was in high school, this is exactly how my History teacher taught it. He was also big into collecting ancient/medieval weaponry. Often brought some of his weapon and armor collections into class. One of the best teachers I ever had.Shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that no one really wants to die. The idea of charging into the enemy like a kamikaze nutjob is just fantasy.Another thing people don't consider:The dudes in the backlines would often pick up rocks or any rubble they could from the ground and toss it into the enemy formation to bonk a couple heads while they were waiting.The guys at the front who sustained cuts/injuries would just back away and let the others rotate in.It was more like a dirty brawl than the cinematic-like battles you see in film and tv.
>>1737389>nooooooo, you can't talk about strategy games!!!! You need to talk about the latest paraslop map painter!!!
>>1737442>charging into the enemy like a kamikaze nutjob is just fantasySwiss pikemen did this with great success until they got wrecked once. Then they were much more cautious.
>>1737454Charging to an enemy and stopping just *outside* his reach is what we're talking about here. The Swiss were armed with very long pikes, so they can be at standoff distance and still endanger the enemy. The suicidal part of Swiss blocks was that they would match through gunfire and artillery just to get to the standoff distance.
>>1737250Nta but that's not exactly the realistic kind of fog of war/difficulty of command&control that would lead to, say, half your army wondering around 20 miles away being useless
>>1737398This is when morale, experience, and leadership win battles. Elite troops are more pro-active and so would be more aggressive during this standoff, initiating more local pushes which results in the enemy losing heart and fleeing peacemeal, a few at a time, before the entire side collapses and the killing actually begins. It's like a game of chicken to see whoever breaks first. A lot more interesting, realistic, and will last far longer than the 2 minutes of animations you get in TW before one side loses 50% of forces and runs away
>>1736800What he’s describing is EXACTLY what happens in total war games but it’s just way faster because obviously we don’t want to watch every battle for over an hour
>>1737442>It was more like a dirty brawl than the cinematic-like battles you see in film and tv.Why do you retards have to go way to far with everything. That’s just a retarded thing to say.
Everyone ITT is applying this to all battles ever when this is highly specifically about hoplite combat. Medieval battles were pretty different, so were early modern ones. It’s pretty hard to fight like this when not everyone is using the shield and spear combo anymore
>>1737588How is it retarded to say real warfare isn't like your hollywood movies? Are you fuckin dumb? lol
>>1737746Define cinematic like movie battle, because what I’m picturing is closer to real life medieval battles then a dirty street brawl based off notions of hopite battles of antiquity
>>1737771Any of the hollywood movies with people recklessly charging into enemy spear formations with no regard for their lives. Troy was one of the most recent ones I rewatched.You're misunderstanding the word brawl here. It's not a street brawl. It's a fight with medieval weapons and tactics, just not as movies would have you believe. I already gave examples so I don't know how to make it clearer.People in the backlines will pick up rocks and throw them at the enemy formation while both formations are locked into combat.People will prod and poke the enemy with their spears hoping to cut and gash them or maybe rip away their weapons/shields and force them to withdraw to the rear. You're not gonna see people getting impaled by swords and spears (in one end out the other) like they're made of butter every 2 seconds like in the movies. It's rare to be able to get such a deadly attack in formation combat.When the soldier loses combat effectiveness due to injury or lost/broken weapons, they will withdraw to the rear and allow his fellow soldiers to fill the gap.When you consider these things it makes sense that infantry engagements would last hours instead of 20 seconds.There's a reason why the overwhelming number of casualties happened during the rout when fleeing soldiers would get cut down by cavalry.
>>1737019>Nobody would want to actually play a game where your soldiers don't do what you tell them to do.Starsector. You can give your fleet orders, but they'll take them as just general guidelines.
>>1737489Even against other pike columns they would still keep pushing forward. Until the one time it failed badly, then never again.
>>1737799Most people have fun with the fleet battles by making themselves a powerful ship and wrecking stuff (mostly) solo. This is something that's entirely within their command.If you only had AI ships and had to fight battles with just the command interface it would be both boring and frustrating.
>>1736932Conquerors BladeYou are late to that tho
>>1736800Total War has FAR more fucking flaws than that. Just play Field of Glory or stop complaining about realism.
>>1737882>>1737799You mean Dominions, a beloved strat game even on this board.
>DUDE, did you know TW isn't realistic???>what if GAME was REALISTICthanks op, groundbreaking thread right here
>>1737019>Nobody would want to actually play a game where your soldiersBullshit. Just give free copies to a few popular streamers and Youtubers and people will buy it. It literally DOESN'T matter anymore. If a couple talking heads play it and hype it up (because you gave them a free game) and it's even just halfway decent, people will buy it.
>>1736811they even break off combat sometimes
>>1737585>because obviously we don’t want to watch every battle for over an hourI do. You can fast forward if you don't.Also, mixed units where the ranks behind throw shit at the enemy? individual skirmishers going through formations? Dynamic distance keeping which allows room in both space and time for more varied tactics? None of that is present in TW
>>1737882>Most people have fun with the fleet battles by making themselves a powerful ship and wrecking stuff (mostly) solo.Citation really needed here, because your flagship is just one of very many.
The Byzantine games like Field of Glory/Pike and Shot/Sengoku games are all great, but there needs to be a game that portrays this in real time in 3D. Doesn't even have to be playable, just a 3D replay would be fine.Say you just won a great battle in FoG 2 and save the replay, the replay would be like a TW-like 3D engagement where you can see the battle you just played being fought in real time. That'd be so cool
>>1736932Couldn't this be done on M&B Napoleonic Wars lobbies, assuming commanding real players doesn't divert too much from your original idea?
>>1737250I know about captain mode in Mount and Blade, I played a lot of WarbandNot the same as what I said, there is no dealing with orders and fog of war, they are just regular M&B battlesYou're obliviously the retard here since you can't fucking read>>1737359That's why I said it isn't feasible>>1737901Not what I said + chinkshit
>>1738655That's where I got the idea from, I guess it could be done, but there is no written order system for it.
>>1738665That's true, however I still think your original idea of orders being lost, delayed or captured could still work, albeit it would require messengers to agree not to lie and comply when captured.
>>1737489>The Swiss were armed with very long pikesthey used shorter pikes actually, they ferocity come from them being freshly converted, freshly liberated mountain Negroes and them having big surplus of males in harsh environment similar tactics(of bayonet charges) was done by revolutionary France
>>1737746it was more similar to how rioters fight the policewith braves charging up close and throwing shit or trying to bonk somebody from opposite teamwell trained/spirited forces could try to charge and bonk enemy in mass and enemy would resist or fold back
>>1737585maybe in earlier titles with moral shocks that could easily rout whole armies now when both sides have high morale so they need to grind each other before one side breaks(or just get killed)
>>1738648Just design one yourself. Field of Glory Empires is basically just that, another game/program which runs off/on FOG:II logs. >but that sounds hardYeh, and unprofitable. Graphicswhores aren't in it for realism. They're in it for the spectacle and they have TW for that.
>>1737934Why is his sword blade curved like that?
>>1746127https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame-bladed_sword>The design of the blade is decorative along with being functional by causing unpleasant vibrations when parried. Still, the undulating blade is no more effective at cutting than a straight one.[3] An advantage over swords with a straight blade is that a waved blade could better distribute the force of impact and thus was less likely to break.[4] It could also threaten the opponent in a duel and may have discouraged them from grabbing the blade
