Forthcoming patch notes

[Tifone]

Omnirizon - I support you in that.

Zeldor - I don't want to be critic, but we are discussing and you're still not bringing me a reason on why aren't those situations you mentioned to need some kind of adjustement, but the whole turn-limit system Am I wrong? Peace friends

[Zeldor]

Tifone:

I said it -
"Battles should be decided on battlefield. "
You kill the enemy or force him to rout, so you won. But being lucky or just using ways to stale [even if they also require planning] is not how battles should be won.

[Tifone]

mmh... but why not? staling tactics, waiting for 1) your reinforcements to come from the rear lines keeping the enemies at bay or 2) your rear lines to organize better the rearmost defences, are the bread and butter of the military campaigns.
Have you ever played Call of Duty, seen Saving Private Ryan (last battle), seen the movie 300?
If you did you know what I'm talking about Sometimes battles last more than one month because the defenders of one territory, even if doomed to lose on the long time, just doesn't want the enemy to pass through a point immediately and come out with tactics to slow him. Even in real world, without fatiguing magic So why to change this well-implemented feature in the game?

[Omnirizon]

dom3 is a game more about options than realism. that said, i'd ask first what allows for more options: 50 turn limits or 100? or 200? or whatever.

realism is decentered term anyway. does making a game more 'real' actually make it more real?

[Sombre]

Bottom line is the devs apparently didn't intend for BEs to stay up after the caster retreats.

The MoD issue brought this into focus, but they fixed what they considered to be wrong, which wasn't just MoD, it was the way they all worked with retreat.

I agree with them but even if I didn't I'd just have to get used to it.

[Tifone]

- Do you think the game will not be playable in the long future if the mechanics don't involve endless battle to take place in a month, instead of how is now working? What, Monopoly is now unplayable because after so many years, we didn't change the mechanics to the option of throwing the dices 100 times a turn, because our dice factories are better and we can now afford a bigger number of dices so mechanics of the game must adequate? Is the number of turns which made the quality of this game in the long time?
- Do you think if a mindless SC needs more time than 50 turns, it's not because he wasn't adequate to beat the defending army, but because the turn limit is not higher?

Sorry, don't want to seem sarcastic or mean or angry or whatever I'm not and I'm just explaining my points in the discussion and try to understand the reasons behind your ones, as actually I can't. Peace brothers, I really love you alllllllz

P.S. I know it is annoying losing mindless units after many battle turns. Exactly like it would be annoying if you sent unsupported mechs or tanks in enemy territory, and after much killing they don't own the territory and end their autonomy or fuel behind enemy lines. The people there would just dismantle them. I think this makes the same sense.

[Zeldor]

Tifone:

I have one suggestion - think before posting! If you want to convince anyone to your arguments don't humiliate yourself with examples that are neither funny or good.

Mindless commanders like Golem vanish! on turn 50, not retreat. They suddenly stop to exist.

As I said, you are the attacked, you win the battle, but do not manage to kill few enemy units. Ha, it gets even worse - your enemy routs, but does not manage to do it before turn 50 [say he has many crippled or low AP ones], so routing triggers for you and you have faster/flying ones, so you rout faster and you lose. Many battles get resolved on turns 30-45, but they need some edge to end properly [routing, killing last units, killing paralyzed units].

[Tifone]

Zeldor - saying that no matter how much you can stale, nobody will EVER arrive in time to take part in the middle of a battle, makes me ask so how armies intercept each others, or how they just MOVE from one territory to another (even 3, 4 provinces far if they are fast) in one month.

For the comment about your late game, well it is so realistic that it is self-explanatory to me. There were huge forces in your battle, balanced, none of them preponderant. Were they supposed to kill each other completely in one month if after 50 turns probably some unit didn't even come in contact to the enemy? probably not You and your enemies tried to win of course, not trying to stale, but still it takes too much time to huge armies to completely annihilate each other - in the game as in real war. The biggest clashes of the 100 years war weren't resolved in just one month, or it would have been called the A Couple Of Months War

[WraithLord]

I don't think anyone here suggests nerfing fatigue or delaying battle tactics.

If you could delay for 50 turns, with longer limit you'll need to delay for 100 turns or more. Its doable.

The turn limit need to be upped so that mindless SCs will have more time to win (if they can); so that huge armies could battle it out and most importantly for the game to scale well and be playable in the long future.

[Zeldor]

Tifone:

Your other army sits in a different province. That is tens of miles away! There is no way they can get in time for that battle, no matter how much staling you do 50 turn would be few hours max in real time. So not even realistic approach works here

In late game I had way too many battles ending in turn limit, that was just frustrating [and opponent didn't try to stale, he just put his armies, I put mine and we both tried to win].