Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I'm getting more decisive battles with massive numbers partaking in them (ie, lastest had 75,000 up against my 60,000). Casualties and draining the man pool really impact how you want/avoid engagements.
One thing I have noticed is that battles tend to become long engagements with constant 1000 man spawns rushing to join them. Not that this is bad, but kind of ahistorical.
I'm wondering, perhaps all forts should be removed to make the game more about field battles? (except region capitals)
Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to get close to a point where battles are as impactful as they were in history with the constraints of the Paradox model. One thing I hope for in the future is to be able to mod shattered retreat to not be able to manually retreat without using the forced retreat button and that it will be slower and take longer before you can use your army again making battles, and especially big battles, much more decisive for the overall war.
Btw, I do agree with modder that battles should be more decisive, many of the great wars of ancient times were decided after 2-3 big battles and maybe a dozen smaller skirmishes were they tried to measure each other up. Pompey vs Caesar, basically one decisive battle, and that's the civil war, which could have maybe had a second battle if Pompey wasnt killed in Egypt.