Currently in a campaign battle there is no incentive or reason for the enemy Ai army to move from it's location if it senses that it is in a superior position. (Unless they outnumber your army by a huge margin, in which case they have no qualms about charging in and fighting you)
This means that most of the time during a battle, if you want any form of action to happen on the map at all, you have to start it. This prevents you from setting up ambushes, or stationary defensive formations because the enemy Ai army doesn't HAVE to fight you in the location, so it chooses not to.
How do you prevent a battle from lasting an unlimited amount of time because both armies refuse to move their units, and just stand still for the entire battle?
Total War games have a somewhat simple solution to this issue: Battle timers.
What I would propose is: a 30 minute battle timer. (Time can be adjusted in the campaign menu)
If the time on the clock runs out before the attacking army can defeat the defending army, the defending army then wins the battle.
This forces the Army who initially started the engagement (aka the attackers) to take an offensive position and attempt to defeat the defending army before the battle timer runs out. The attacking army's goal would be to eliminate the enemies units or make their army route before this timer ends in order to win the battle. This allows for there to be more strategic variety in battles while at the same time it's seemingly very simple to implement, so no need to over complicate things.
We have a similar system to this in captain mode on multiplayer with a morale and match timer, and it works really well to force teams into fighting each other. While I wouldn't suggest necessarily that you add flags or a morale bar, a simple condition of: "Attacking army has to defeat the defending army before X amount of time otherwise defending army wins" I think would work great as a way to force an Ai to be more aggressive when it is attacking another army.
Is this system something that we might expect to see someday, or a similar form of it? @mexxico
Also sorry if tagging you is inappropriate, I'm not too familiar with the single player developers so I'm not sure who is the proper person to tag.
This means that most of the time during a battle, if you want any form of action to happen on the map at all, you have to start it. This prevents you from setting up ambushes, or stationary defensive formations because the enemy Ai army doesn't HAVE to fight you in the location, so it chooses not to.
How do you prevent a battle from lasting an unlimited amount of time because both armies refuse to move their units, and just stand still for the entire battle?
Total War games have a somewhat simple solution to this issue: Battle timers.
What I would propose is: a 30 minute battle timer. (Time can be adjusted in the campaign menu)
If the time on the clock runs out before the attacking army can defeat the defending army, the defending army then wins the battle.
This forces the Army who initially started the engagement (aka the attackers) to take an offensive position and attempt to defeat the defending army before the battle timer runs out. The attacking army's goal would be to eliminate the enemies units or make their army route before this timer ends in order to win the battle. This allows for there to be more strategic variety in battles while at the same time it's seemingly very simple to implement, so no need to over complicate things.
We have a similar system to this in captain mode on multiplayer with a morale and match timer, and it works really well to force teams into fighting each other. While I wouldn't suggest necessarily that you add flags or a morale bar, a simple condition of: "Attacking army has to defeat the defending army before X amount of time otherwise defending army wins" I think would work great as a way to force an Ai to be more aggressive when it is attacking another army.
Is this system something that we might expect to see someday, or a similar form of it? @mexxico
Also sorry if tagging you is inappropriate, I'm not too familiar with the single player developers so I'm not sure who is the proper person to tag.
Last edited:
