PDA

View Full Version : On large scale battles: Wow, that's cluttered.


otomotopia
02-10-2010, 01:16 PM
My first impressions from the trailers are very mixed. I love the action. Absolutely LOVE it. But it looks like there's just... and I can't belive I'm saying this, but too much!

Maybe its because the art style of the game is somewhat cartoonish (WCIII cartoonish, not Toontown/Slyfox). This means sharp edges, and dark, burned backgrounds. Units just melded into eachother, or didn't visually process.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uec6QNN6yMU
1:31-1:33, and 1:38-1:44 are perfect examples of that. At 1:35, Its hard to tell whos friend or foe besides direction.

But at 57-1:11, I absolutely loved it. It was beautiful, big, and awesome.

Though it will be hard to tell your infantry to rush in a seige battle, with that ridiculous long range of the weapons. the attacker just takes out the seige towers with his seige, then the archers, then the walls, and even the enemies rushing the army. Then you'll have the ability to move up your seige weapons to do your work for you. I can see this happening, especially with the statistics posted on the friday sessions.

Then controlling them...

So my main issues with what we've seen are these:
-Visual clutter makes it really hard to fully comprehend whats going on.
-Seige weapons look pretty over the top, and those defenses won't really do much-or will they?
-So many units, how do I control them ALL while still having control over my army?

I don't expect any full on answers to those questions, but I do want to bring these preliminary issues up.

Darvin
02-10-2010, 03:44 PM
On visual clutter, we really can't say yet. Those videos were made for cinematic appeal; it might actually be much clearer when looking at things from a bird's eye view. Certainly this is something that we'll talk about more in the beta, but until then we have little to go on.

For siege weapons, we've already been told that buildings leave rubble when destroyed, so you can't simply walk into a castle once you've pelted it with enough boulders. Siege are going to be a lot more challenging than that.

We've been told that the game will use a squad-based system, so units will be organized into small groups (between 5-20, the developers haven't confirmed the exact number yet) with heroes and large units (siege and monsters) being on their own.

ash12181987
02-10-2010, 05:38 PM
It's amazing looking IMO. I mean, it looked kinda like the the battle from The Two Towers... if it was being played out by lego-men heh (The graphics aren't bad, just sayin')

Aametherar
02-10-2010, 05:49 PM
It's amazing looking IMO. I mean, it looked kinda like the the battle from The Two Towers... if it was being played out by lego-men heh (The graphics aren't bad, just sayin')

That made me laugh, personally I don't mind the graphics long as they aren't insanely terrible, worse graphics generally means better performance which in my opinion is priority.

As for the original poster, I wish I could comment but seems that's something only the devs would really know the answer to, the rest of us could only speculate. I imagine it being similar to the Total War series in the "clutter" aspect. I doubt many battles will be totally covered in units the way the video is, and i'd imagine it starting out with small armies and groups fighting and more as you get stronger, so it's something I think you would learn adn get used to as you grow.

zach12wqasxz
02-10-2010, 06:50 PM
That made me laugh, personally I don't mind the graphics long as they aren't insanely terrible, worse graphics generally means better performance which in my opinion is priority.

As for the original poster, I wish I could comment but seems that's something only the devs would really know the answer to, the rest of us could only speculate. I imagine it being similar to the Total War series in the "clutter" aspect. I doubt many battles will be totally covered in units the way the video is, and i'd imagine it starting out with small armies and groups fighting and more as you get stronger, so it's something I think you would learn adn get used to as you grow.

well even total war battles arent cluttered, i can always manage my units when i play total war, even with 10k + units

Pilgrim
02-10-2010, 07:00 PM
Commenting on the issues I feel i can judge from here or from experience:

Unit graphics:

I totally disagree that the graphics are cartoony in a wc3 style way. I think wc3 units are intended to be very cartoony and DoF units are intended to be realistic. I won't dispute your other descriptions of the graphics but I have actually always been glad they are not cartoony in this game.

To the Reverie. team's credit, they do recognise openly in this forum that the in-game graphics don't match some other recent RTS titles.
So, with that said, we need to bare in mind that they are a brand new company working with far far less resources than the big game producers they are compeating with so they are doing their best (I know you are not disrespecting them but I wanted to point this out as something unavoidable).

One HUGE problem with the in-video graphics is that they are all scrolling shots. IE. the camera is always in mid-scroll when you are trying to get a look at the units, and even in wc3 the mid-scroll graphics are a blur. I think its a mistake not to include a lot of fixed camera shots in a video designed to advertise the game.

I don't agree that there is any more unit blending than in other recent RTS titles, but I do agree that its very hard to tell the teams apart on this video. Unless there is something I don't know then I think this needs to be fixed and the teams need to wear very obviously different colours, as in other RTS games, even at the expense of some realism.


Siege:

I agree with some of what you have written here.
Reverie. have specified that they have put emphasis on quickly-gathered, huge numers of seige engines to give a faster pased RTS and avoid the slow siege battles found in other RTS.

However, I totally disagree with this analysis and have always found that siege engines in RTS destroy fortifications ridiculously and frustratingly quickly, with Age of Kings being the only exception to have made me feel that 1) castles were worth the money I spent on them and 2) I experienced a little actual siege warfare.
So, I can only assume this will be an aspect of the game I like even less than in other RTS.

From what I've read on wikipedia, large historic sieges involved the employment of 2 or 3 seige engines, which took weeks to break a section of castle wall for troops to storm.
Now, obviously 'weeks' is far too long, but reducing it to meer seconds doesn't provide any feeling of siege, so I don't think many RTS get the time compromise right for siege warfare.
Also, allowing 20 quick-build catapults for a 200 man army and levelling a wall in a few seconds seems too far from realism for me.

People do keep pointing out here "well this is a fantasy world so anything goes" but look.. that excuse is just too easy and can justify anything. Reverie is obviously putting a lot of effort into realism despite that obvious excuse so that line doesn't convince me.


Unit Control:

I can't help worrying about that, but I think its because I've got used to wc3's ridiculous 12-unit selection limit.

Remembering back to Age of Empires where you could select something like 30 units at a time I feel more relaxed because you can probably select a hell of a lot more in this game.

This does mean that unit micro won't be anything like wc3 and it will be more about roughly controlling the army as a whole, but I think thats great.
It actually seems more realistic to me, thinking of the vague control a general would have over hundreds of men who can't hear his voice and just have to go by basic flag signals ordering them into approximate positions and following their training for various situations (in this case, their AI).
As Zach has pointed out, Total War obvious pulls it off. I have a feeling DoF will too.

.

Pilgrim
02-10-2010, 07:15 PM
PS. ^^ I don't agree that the siege range is too long. The game is pretty much to scale, and trebuchets normally had a range of around 300 metres.

Aametherar
02-10-2010, 07:27 PM
"One HUGE problem with the in-video graphics is that they are all scrolling shots. IE. the camera is always in mid-scroll when you are trying to get a look at the units, and even in wc3 the mid-scroll graphics are a blur. I think its a mistake not to include a lot of fixed camera shots in a video designed to advertise the game."

I find that actually has a lot more to do with your monitor than anything else, especially if you use a TV screen (xbox etc). Most monitors I have don't have trouble with this at all, but some do. So things going blurry in games seems to be more about that than the game itself. I never had problems with that in WC3 with the monitors I used at the time.

otomotopia
02-10-2010, 07:40 PM
PS. ^^ I don't agree that the siege range is too long. The game is pretty much to scale, and trebuchets normally had a range of around 300 metres.

Aye, but my problem is the attacker using their seige weapons to kill the defenders in their streets... Specifically using seige weapons as close AoE support. Right now it looks like Attackers get some ridiculous advantages with their mobile seige weapons. Defenders can only use their walls to pick off numbers with archers and ballista. it doesnt help.

We need some deterrents to combat that- I'd suggest something like making Seige AoE damage do friendly fire, or damaging essential buildings to the point of destruction and definitly repair.

Swift sword
02-10-2010, 08:32 PM
Actually, defenders get plots to mann defensive seige on their walls. According to a recent fantasy friday, they have even longer range than their mobile counterparts. Some food for thought ;)

As for confusion-any game would look confusing in these sorts of unit-view-scrolling camera that the video is made of. I'm pretty sure it'll look different from the bird's eye view-just look at the screenshot section at Dawn of Fantasy Heaven or Source. Both show most of the shots revealed, and they look much simpler. You could also take a look at the Fantsy Fridays or the Monthly Media (archives).

Also-yeah. We won't be controlling 1000 unit armies right off the bat-keep that in mind. It's likely we'll have at most a couple hundred by the time we finish the first combat quests, but that's still much easier to handle than those shots. I imagine mmorts will gradually step it up in the # of units needed to complete a quest, not all at once.

Pilgrim
02-10-2010, 08:39 PM
quickly - siege damage definately causes AoE friendly fire (and as is RTS standard, arrows currently don't cause FF).

Jonathan Werk
02-10-2010, 09:19 PM
Graphics - Pilgrim is bang on, that blurring comes from the fast camera scrolling. It looks sharper when the camera is still or moving at normal speeds. And I suppose it doesn't help that it's compressed for youtube, either.

Unit Control - most units are grouped into "battalions" of 5-20 units. when you select any unit in that battalion, the whole group is selected and the whole group acts upon your commands. You can select many battalions at once. So even if there are 400 units on the battlefield, you may only be controlling 40 groups of 10.
As Pilgrim said, this changes the face of unit micromanagement, but it does not eliminate it. There is still benefit to microing your battalions even if you can't micro its individual members.

Siege - I think you just need to give the devs some credit and trust that things will be balanced (and they can be further tweaked after feedback from the beta tests). Ranged siege weapons do area of effect damage to any player, and they do not have anywhere near the sniper-like accuracy featured in some other games. Additionally, the defender may have long range weapons as well.

Thanks for the comments; I think we have these issues under control, but it certainly doesn't hurt to keep them in mind.

Alex Walz
02-10-2010, 09:32 PM
Hi, all. Thanks for your enthusiasm. :)
I'll do my best to address your concerns.

-Visual clutter makes it really hard to fully comprehend whats going on.
-Seige weapons look pretty over the top, and those defenses won't really do much-or will they?
-So many units, how do I control them ALL while still having control over my army?
a) Yes, it does look a bit cluttered in this video. Like others have said, the battlefield looks significantly simpler from the higher, default pitch that you're be playing with. Also, the battles you see were scripted. In an actual skirmish, these units will run to defend a breech and not just stand around making their alliance ambiguous, as with the scene you pointed out. Your infantry will typically attack in an organized line while your archers will often form an arch behind them. Of course, the organization factor depends on the races, to an extent - elven formations are very neat while many orc formations are seemingly random mobs, and you can choose which formation to use for your troops and each one offers different statistical benefits.

b) Siege weapons fall quickly to enemy fire. You can't bring any siege weapons near the enemy stronghold until you have a thick infantry fodder wave or have taken out the defenses. A lot of these videos and shots show a ram or siege tower at an enemy wall but what they don't show are the multiple treants you send crashing down before the enemy is able to scale your wall.

c) You won't be controlling each unit - you'll be working with battalions, or groups of units. So that makes it easier to attack with big numbers and you can mass-select a large group of assorted units and send them roughly to the point of attack and use a mix of micromanagement and macromanagement from that point on. We actually just discussed this mix of strategy in an interview, which I'll post in the Media Fair momentarily.

We've been told that the game will use a squad-based system, so units will be organized into small groups (between 5-20, the developers haven't confirmed the exact number yet) with heroes and large units (siege and monsters) being on their own.
Correct, although the number in a battalion isn't standardized with every unit. Most human and elven battalions start with 7-10 units and orc battalions with 15. But with every 1-2 levels, you will gain one unit for that battalion.

Unless there is something I don't know then I think this needs to be fixed and the teams need to wear very obviously different colours, as in other RTS games, even at the expense of some realism.
Each unit has a player mask. It's kind of dark lighting, but you can see it. It should be pretty clear in all the showcase shots.

Now, obviously 'weeks' is far too long, but reducing it to meer seconds doesn't provide any feeling of siege, so I don't think many RTS get the time compromise right for siege warfare.
Like I mentioned earlier, breaches take longer than hinted at. You have to have heavy infantry fodder and take out all the defenses, and even then you will have to have a dedicated siege ram attacking the gate for a fair while and most strongholds have multiple layers of walls for you to hammer through.

Also-yeah. We won't be controlling 1000 unit armies right off the bat-keep that in mind. It's likely we'll have at most a couple hundred by the time we finish the first combat quests, but that's still much easier to handle than those shots. I imagine mmorts will gradually step it up in the # of units needed to complete a quest, not all at once.
True. You start with just a couple of units and can win over some more through early quests and train the rest. If you're playing as men, which is the "average" of the Dawn of Fantasy races, it's recommended that you have 400-500 military units before building your second layer of walls and another 50-100 before the first large-scale enemy invasion.


And finally, all the graphics inquiries,
I know most of you guys have been able to get past the fact that our graphics can't compete with multimillion dollar titles, and for that, I thank you. The truth is, we started out as an indie team with essentially no funding and very little resources. So we just did what we were capable of. By the time we had accumulated a decent amount of funding, resources, and experience, it was too late to drastically change the graphics as it would require an engine overhaul. Most RTS titles with battles the scale of ours work off of engines that automatically add fog effects and restrict the level of detail as you zoom out. Unfortunately, we did not do this at the time and so, everything we've done to reduce lag with distance has been outside of the engine. If we simply went in and replaced our models with higher-poly models, our engine just wouldn't be able to handle it with 1,000+ units on the screen. But, now we know, and we'll be able to make this a priority right off the bat if we design a second title.

Aametherar
02-10-2010, 10:06 PM
Wow, thanks for the in depth answers, it's a shame about the non optimized issue with the units, but that's how people learn. Also yes, youtube does leave a lot to be desired!

otomotopia
02-11-2010, 06:09 AM
Thank you guys for all the responses, especially the clarification on how seige warfare usually works-That really addressed my concerns on balance more then anything.

I'd just like to clarify that my previous problem with unit selection was the fact that we will eventually have 40+ battalions under our control, not 1000 individual units. It seems, however, that the people who can actually 'play' the game (AKA rigorously test the same map over and over ^^) have no problems with the system.

Thanks again ^^

Pilgrim
02-11-2010, 06:27 AM
Yes, Alex, Jonathan and man others in other threads. Very much appreciate how the Reverie. team address the concerns in the forums.

Negthareas
02-11-2010, 08:47 PM
Reverie has been saying for a while now that the graphics are not final anyway - they still have to update them.

With wall-mounted siege engines having farther range [which makes sense] the besieger would have to bring in significant numbers of siegeweapons in order to take out the defender's. Also, one of the Reverie people commented on a post of mine saying that siege engines will be limited by their inaccuracy. They will not be able to pick off moving targets at will. Think of Trebuchets in AoE2 - very effective against castles, towers, walls, and buildings, but completely useless against units.

malachan
02-12-2010, 08:42 PM
To me it's not really cluttered, but rather the battles are large and epic. This is one of the main reason why I'm so excited about this game over other RTS's. As a general rule of thumb with many RTS's, I think over time that the more one plays, the less chaotic/"cluttered" the game will appear since you'll have a deeper and better understanding of the game.

Pilgrim
02-13-2010, 06:44 AM
As a general rule of thumb with many RTS's, I think over time that the more one plays, the less chaotic/"cluttered" the game will appear since you'll have a deeper and better understanding of the game.

I very much agree with malachan. I have found that too.

welshie
02-13-2010, 09:59 AM
Just to put out there, if your defending your stronghold, if a player manages to scale ur first wall would u not expect chaos and lots of mixes of both teams battilions? if im the attack i would sure like to cause it!

HolyPollo
02-21-2010, 07:31 PM
Just to put out there, if your defending your stronghold, if a player manages to scale ur first wall would u not expect chaos and lots of mixes of both teams battilions? if im the attack i would sure like to cause it!

For sure. I think the mix can be taken advantage of, like the player who can keep his head amidst the chaos will always come out on top.

Negthareas
02-23-2010, 06:40 PM
I agree that with playing comes clarity. I remember the first time I played Age of Conquerors. I wasn't familiar with the units, and was confused by their similarities in appearance. Now, I have no problem. I still play AoE2 every once in a while - nostolgia.

metman
02-23-2010, 06:42 PM
For sure. I think the mix can be taken advantage of, like the player who can keep his head amidst the chaos will always come out on top.

Exactly you have to be able to fight amist chaos to win.

willrockyo1
02-23-2010, 08:58 PM
Exactly you have to be able to fight amist chaos to win.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with all this. When the screen is just filled with a jumble of units all slashing at each other at ridiculous angles, I don't feel like I'm playing an RTS. I feel like I'm playing an RTC (C=Chaos). I love RTS's that emphasis the use of formation and unit placement for maximum victory.

welshie
02-24-2010, 03:07 AM
I'm sorry but I don't agree with all this. When the screen is just filled with a jumble of units all slashing at each other at ridiculous angles, I don't feel like I'm playing an RTS. I feel like I'm playing an RTC (C=Chaos). I love RTS's that emphasis the use of formation and unit placement for maximum victory.

I have to agree with him to a point i mean i would want my guys causing chaos in maybe the first teir of a defenders town but i would want orginised/well planned movement and thought in an open battle or one leadining up to a wall otherwise it wouldnt be stragity. Yes i want to cause chaos after i scale his walls so that he can suffer and then make rash decisions but that is the only case that i would.

blackfang
02-24-2010, 06:20 AM
... i am also one of those that love the total chaos that happens when someone has scaled the walls of your city... its awesome:D

HolyPollo
02-24-2010, 06:32 AM
... i am also one of those that love the total chaos that happens when someone has scaled the walls of your city... its awesome:D

Exactly! Who needs formations when you have an epic uproar? I mean it's more historic anyhow. You can be a general with the most advanced strategies but when your troops clash in the field, all you're doing is fighting for your life. I'd say numbers is more accurate than "strategy" to determine an outcome.

blackfang
02-24-2010, 06:39 AM
its numbers, skills and will to win. You ever heard of a well financed with a lot of numbers kinda nation with trained soldier win? I don't think you hear that a lot. I mean take for instance china, their nationalists lost when they were financed by America because the will to win was so strong for the communists. Or we can use the current "war" in Afghanistan guess why the fighting is still going on? It is the WILL TO WIN. So basically you need numbers to frighten the enemy and lessen their will, skills to break formations and will to win so that your soldiers don't rout in the initial charge.

Josh Warner
02-24-2010, 10:05 AM
its numbers, skills and will to win. You ever heard of a well financed with a lot of numbers kinda nation with trained soldier win? I don't think you hear that a lot. I mean take for instance china, their nationalists lost when they were financed by America because the will to win was so strong for the communists. Or we can use the current "war" in Afghanistan guess why the fighting is still going on? It is the WILL TO WIN. So basically you need numbers to frighten the enemy and lessen their will, skills to break formations and will to win so that your soldiers don't rout in the initial charge.

I wouldn't say it's about will to win so much as it's not a real war. You can't 'beat' guerrilla tactics unless you're willing to level the entirety of the civilian populace they hide behind.


As for what's required in DoF, I'd say it's quite like most other large scale RTSes. For the most part you don't need to micro - but there's a pretty high skill ceiling for swapping formations/stances/using activated abilities. What I mean is, you can do well without much micro, but if you do get good at it, you'll have an advantage. How big that is, well that's a matter of balance and play testing really.

One of the biggest attractions to RTSes for me is indeed the overwhelming nature of it, what separates good from great lies in the fact that you can't do everything. There's so much depth it becomes about deciding what all your options priorities are. Do you need to manually be changing formations on the fly to maximize each battalions strength based upon what unit type they're fighting, or are you better off singling out good targets for your ranged units, or attempting to flank and knock out their high value targets say hero/ranged/siege with your own cavalry/stealthed units.


And as for strategy vs numbers, time and time again the brain of a talented commander proved more capable than tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands men. To an individual soldier maybe it doesn't seem that way, but there are countless examples of battles that given equal commanders one side would have won decidedly but in fact they lost.

blackfang
02-24-2010, 10:26 AM
Yeah i know, but look at it this way. Will to win equals more kills/death rate. In those terror organizations they use suicide bombings thats caused because of will to fight. However good commanders is a must too, its just that in this age all you need for a good commander is giving them a video game that teaches strategies and within a month that guy should be able to pull it off...

I played stormrise under a week now, and currently i can control a whole army almost at the speed of thought. So games are great for learning stuff... And thats why commanding doesn't seem like much these days. So these days its will to fight and technology that decides it, maybe in ancient times the commanders were more of a need. But not now... Anyways the only ones with commanding positions are people who "Earned" it through hard work. In ancient you just needed names like Julii or Brutii or being descended from some great bloodline...

welshie
02-24-2010, 10:57 AM
Yeah i know, but look at it this way. Will to win equals more kills/death rate. In those terror organizations they use suicide bombings thats caused because of will to fight. However good commanders is a must too, its just that in this age all you need for a good commander is giving them a video game that teaches strategies and within a month that guy should be able to pull it off...

I played stormrise under a week now, and currently i can control a whole army almost at the speed of thought. So games are great for learning stuff... And thats why commanding doesn't seem like much these days. So these days its will to fight and technology that decides it, maybe in ancient times the commanders were more of a need. But not now... Anyways the only ones with commanding positions are people who "Earned" it through hard work. In ancient you just needed names like Julii or Brutii or being descended from some great bloodline...

Nope totaly wrong, too much will to win makes rash decisions. Its all about training and how you react to situations a cool head always beats one that is trying to hard, fact. If all you needed was the will to win or numbers then WHY did the British army conqure 25% of the world? because in Britian its an awfully big place and they had the will to win because..? fights are determined by moral, tatical advantages and well trained troops. This is why i love the army/navy/Raf in the UK because it realises this, although we have less troops and less of a technolical advantage i still think we have some of the worlds best troops aka, SAS, Gerkers, Marines, Paratroopers.

Puppeteer
02-24-2010, 12:02 PM
This is why i love the army/navy/Raf in the UK because it realises this, although we have less troops and less of a technolical advantage i still think we have some of the worlds best troops aka, SAS, Gerkers, Marines, Paratroopers.
That is indeed true - I've had talks by various military personnel who toured in Afghanistan: a couple British but one American, and all agreed that the Americans had better equipment whereas the British had far better training.

blackfang
02-24-2010, 12:49 PM
Ok i will answer welshie, the commanders needs to be cool. The soldiers will kill more if everyone are fanatics and brits won 25% because they had the will to gain money no matter the cost, they put their assets into their military sent out armies and conquered territory where they could. I mean seriously a greedy people coming with big guns against a population who barely discovered the spears. Thats another factor they had so much greed that they were willing to bomb entire cities to conquer em.



also how come those rebels like hamas and that kinda stuff have lived for so long, they got the will to blow their own troop up with a car bomb... Its just their will to win, however a good trained technological superior well commanded army should be able to take them easily on open ground and cities. Its just the problem that they can hide anywhere and come forth blowing themselves up at any time, that demolishes moral. Increases the will from Some mark that cause not all are willing to join them after loosing their family in a explosion. However if you got all the conditions fulfilled then you got the strongest army mankind can make, and till now no one got that. Tough the romans were quite close as they united that amount of people under one banner, however later on they got a problem with arrogance which in return lead to many battles lost which in turn made the roman empire weaker.

A will to fight fanatically is needed if you got few people little equipment, and few to none good commanders. If they have the will they can always get over an obstacle. I mean how else could they have stood against Usa and all those other countries invading them for so long time when they got less/worse equipment poor commanders really they have some that got charisma to get people under their banner, they don't need real tactics even a child could lead their armies. Not that they can be called that. They got low popularity, the only two things they got aplenty is caves and people with strong will. Thats the point i am trying to make, more technology and numbers don't always lead to total victory, you know fanatics in war were not afraid to throw themselves at the sword of the enemy, however since the first charging line was decimated the other got a free way into the army and killing everyone. This is one of the few things that made the viking fearsome, they had some warriors that would inflict such a sight to the enemy that they would rout. Killing left and right as they go through the army. Another thing was of course their boats, the speed of their attack. Tough the most important thing for vikings was they they arrived without notice and left with a burning village and/or bodies scattered on the ground. Vikings had the will to fight to get new spots to farm, however first they thought that they might as well plunder while they are at it. Thus their will drove them to attack, pillage, rape and murder. What drove them was the will to get more riches and more satisfaction. That will is what drive every army. If you were the president of USA and suddenly told all the soldiers, "you are not getting more money for fighting for your country. All you get is food and shelter." Do you think the army would be as strong as it was before? i think not, their moral would waver soldiers would rather desert then fight. Its not always FOR THE FATHERLAND/motherland, its the will to gain something more. Ohh btw those that do it for their country for no money are people who actually want to fight a war, those people can also be classified as terrorists since all they want is create terror and chaos.

Next time you tune in on blackfangs answer channel you will see page 3+++ So follow it or miss the chance of your life to get answers to your deepest questions! Next time i will tell how the squirrels once killed a human! Tune in for the greatest of answers:D

welshie
02-24-2010, 07:01 PM
Ok i will answer welshie, the commanders needs to be cool. The soldiers will kill more if everyone are fanatics and brits won 25% because they had the will to gain money no matter the cost, they put their assets into their military sent out armies and conquered territory where they could. I mean seriously a greedy people coming with big guns against a population who barely discovered the spears. Thats another factor they had so much greed that they were willing to bomb entire cities to conquer em.



also how come those rebels like hamas and that kinda stuff have lived for so long, they got the will to blow their own troop up with a car bomb... Its just their will to win, however a good trained technological superior well commanded army should be able to take them easily on open ground and cities. Its just the problem that they can hide anywhere and come forth blowing themselves up at any time, that demolishes moral. Increases the will from Some mark that cause not all are willing to join them after loosing their family in a explosion. However if you got all the conditions fulfilled then you got the strongest army mankind can make, and till now no one got that. Tough the romans were quite close as they united that amount of people under one banner, however later on they got a problem with arrogance which in return lead to many battles lost which in turn made the roman empire weaker.

A will to fight fanatically is needed if you got few people little equipment, and few to none good commanders. If they have the will they can always get over an obstacle. I mean how else could they have stood against Usa and all those other countries invading them for so long time when they got less/worse equipment poor commanders really they have some that got charisma to get people under their banner, they don't need real tactics even a child could lead their armies. Not that they can be called that. They got low popularity, the only two things they got aplenty is caves and people with strong will. Thats the point i am trying to make, more technology and numbers don't always lead to total victory, you know fanatics in war were not afraid to throw themselves at the sword of the enemy, however since the first charging line was decimated the other got a free way into the army and killing everyone. This is one of the few things that made the viking fearsome, they had some warriors that would inflict such a sight to the enemy that they would rout. Killing left and right as they go through the army. Another thing was of course their boats, the speed of their attack. Tough the most important thing for vikings was they they arrived without notice and left with a burning village and/or bodies scattered on the ground. Vikings had the will to fight to get new spots to farm, however first they thought that they might as well plunder while they are at it. Thus their will drove them to attack, pillage, rape and murder. What drove them was the will to get more riches and more satisfaction. That will is what drive every army. If you were the president of USA and suddenly told all the soldiers, "you are not getting more money for fighting for your country. All you get is food and shelter." Do you think the army would be as strong as it was before? i think not, their moral would waver soldiers would rather desert then fight. Its not always FOR THE FATHERLAND/motherland, its the will to gain something more. Ohh btw those that do it for their country for no money are people who actually want to fight a war, those people can also be classified as terrorists since all they want is create terror and chaos.

Next time you tune in on blackfangs answer channel you will see page 3+++ So follow it or miss the chance of your life to get answers to your deepest questions! Next time i will tell how the squirrels once killed a human! Tune in for the greatest of answers:D

I know what your trying to say that just because people have money and more soilders doesnt mean they win already. But what i am saying is that will isnt enough to win battles, it requires a good mixture, and btw the soilders that fought for our empire didnt get anything so there will for the battles? and just to pop out there 10,000 romans vrs 50,000 british and romans won why? not because of there superior technolgy it was because they and their comander were stragitacly placed and none of them left formation (if one had left formation then they would of lost, now if they used their 'will' in that situation the way you have been putting it down like their lines would of broke and made mayhem making it easy for the brittish to kill them, chaos makes it easier for the army with the numerical advantage.

and as for you using humas and the other terroists organisations, they are the people not an army, small bands of fighters. and as someone stated before you would have to level cities and kill the populas before it stoped.

Sit back down i think,

zach12wqasxz
02-24-2010, 07:51 PM
i sort of sense an argument breweing, how about you both are right?

metman
02-24-2010, 07:54 PM
Yeah I think zachs right on this one we don't need a fight.

GPS51
02-24-2010, 08:53 PM
Don't start the wars before the game comes out. I award you both a keepsake Ogre point ;)

Negthareas
02-24-2010, 08:57 PM
I think we covered the idea of battles being cluttered -

It will only happen when players get big, and by then they will have to skills to use it to their advantage or to see through the clutter.

Bingo.

blackfang
02-25-2010, 12:01 AM
Ok, back to start. THE BASIC FOUNDATIONS OF AN ARMY IS MONEY. You see the romans were a quite rich people, their soldiers were paid more. However they also had the best equipment and the most arrogance at that time. Arrogance can be changed into will to fight. Money is the basic foundation of will to fight. Also the reason that the romans won of the brits (i am just guessing you mean that with the woman who lead them) That was their discipline and one of those times where will to fight doesn't really matter. They had positioned themselves with their backs to a mountains, no one could run. Thats the "desperation" Which indeed is a way to get your soldiers to fight harder. However the romans where at some times so arrogant that they did not even bother keeping their formations while marching through a hail of arrows. I can totally see why, you know the roman empire covered the Mediterranean and all its soldiers were simply overpowering. At first they were middle class and up soldiers, then they had a normal sized army like any other country however the young ones wanted to fight badly. Then they made a reform and every class could now become a soldier, thus all the farmersons and fishersons began the soldiers life in hope of bringing treasures back to their families and also to escape the boring life of being a farmer or fisher. There were many things that drove them, those very poor people NEEDED all the money they could get, and by being a soldier you get a cut in the looting + you get the payment for your work. Once again its money that drives them, gives them the will to fight. However a good commander and discipline, technology osv based armies are a must, but if you have the will to fight then all the other things is acquirable. A will to fight or do something for the good of others can also be used to steal tanks, manufacture incredible amounts of ak's and stingers. Its just without the will, then you cant do anything there is really no point if you dont push yourself in war. War can almost work like paintball (its a game i play on my free time) Paintball is like war with bullets of paint, in it i have to use my will since i am not a very trained person i easily get exhausted (besides my marker weight more then my playstation does) However i still push myself over my limits and feel the downsides the day after. However if i had no will i would just stay behind cover and do nothing, thats kinda like how it is. I cant explain anymore since i got school today...

welshie
02-25-2010, 04:53 AM
Ok then, its pointless me saying anymore on this situation.

blackfang
02-25-2010, 07:46 AM
:) Thanks for understanding, the will is the one thing that make us do anything so if you got enough people with an iron will you can do anything even destroy the American military.:D Anyways i am going to the prom now:rolleyes: