<<<<< LONG TEXT WARNING >>>>>>
>> That would be relevant if you had to actually find each other in the forest. That’s not the case, so it isn’t about familiarity, but distance. The distances in combat are short and would not take much time to traverse. The same applies to the ability of the unit’s to quickly engage each other in combat, as I described above. They might not always want to, but they can if they so choose. This is different from a game that has the assumption of larger distances as there you cannot engage each other quickly, even when you want to (Rome Total War).
Hmm, I’m not sure why would you say that. I thought when we’re ambushed/surrounded in forest, you know they’re coming in all directions (as opposed to the right side in usual battle), but you won’t know how many of them coming in a certain direction, unless you have spotted all of them, which takes several rounds. Well, in a forest you’ve never been before, with so many trees hindering your sight, and the terrain is rather uneven, how can you easily traverse the area and locate/attack the enemy? I not sure about it, but I doubt ordinary fighter can sprint in forest, zipping left and right between thick layer of trees, and deliver a lethal blow to enemy by charging into him. I think makes more sense if the human warrior treads carefully in forest, trying to locate enemy before enemy does the same on him, so he can launch preemptive strike on the enemy. It just doesn’t feel right if the warrior can dash in such situation. I can definitely foresee the scene where he was tripped by a large emerging root. If a unit can quickly engage another on plains, I would definitely accept it. Because you have clear sight thus better grasp of the situation(less uncertainty or hesitation), and the even terrain allows you to charge at the enemy.
>> As for the time spent on the battle itself, that just seems long because it’s turn based rather than real-time. The events taking place of which the turn-based system is an abstraction, actually happen much more quickly in this case.
Yes. I realize what you’re trying to say. It’s not just happening much more quickly, but everything is actually happening simultaneously. If a slash takes about 5 seconds (or 4 AP), a round would be about 11 seconds. If you take 7 rounds to finish a battle, you would have spent about 80 seconds.
I dunno… even if I always realize how the AP depicts the pace of the battle…. Even if you describe the battle as if it happens within a split second….
BUT my men just travel from left side of the map to the far right, and one of my men guard against a bandit boss with shield for several rounds at far left, then other brothers come back to rescue him, finally we kill the last archer at far right. It doesn’t look like everything happens in a flash. These people are moving too fast! Everyone is moving too fast! It’s weird that a confrontation has no hesitation or contemplation at all. I mean, even boxers would wait patiently for an opening to attack. And these people just….
bam! Bam! Bam!
… end of battle.
I dunno, maybe it’s just me. (Does anyone else think 7 rounds definitely take more than merely 80 seconds?)
You can’t convince me, leave me be.
>> Because units within range of the battle already take part right now. This means that for reinforcements during the course of the battle to be implemented, you’d need to make it possible for units farther away to join the fight. For those units to ever join, turns need to take a relatively large amount of time, otherwise they will never show up. You’d also always have to act fast as the entire map is effectively enemy territory.
Well, I’ve thought about enlarging the radius for NPC to join a fight. But it just doesn’t feel right, according to what I feel towards time. But it’s far easier for devs to enlarge the radius so it’s good in its own way. I can’t stop getting the feeling there should be a chance for you encounter a second enemy scout group when you’re battling the first at night time, where you’re not expecting it to happen at all because you didn’t spot the second enemy scout, and you didn’t expect the battle to drag on.
>> The enemy bases already sent out groups depending on whether they think they can take you, they just don’t leave the base unattended (to my knowledge).
Hmmmmm? Seriously. Why is it different in my case? Can someone else confirm this? Anyone routed enemy units in front of enemy base before?
>> A time consuming battle is already resource intensive in that you have to replace everything used and lost, plus that you already expend further resources through moving around, recovering, buying, etcetera on the world map. Having the amount of time you spent on the battle itself have an effect on this is an unnecessary punishment that does not facilitate interesting gaemplay
Fatigue already reflects this so you don’t have to change anything if you want to see that kind of dynamic. Adding incremental fatigue increase however, would result in it eventually becoming impossible to act, since a unit’s recovery would eventually be unable to keep up with the cost of actions. This will happen much sooner to a low fatigue character, giving high fatigue characters a game breaking advantage on top of all the advantages that it already offers. As for the undead, most of them do not tire, so unless you’d manage to kill them all in a few turns it’ll become next to impossible for you to beat them.
The current fatigue system doesn’t reflect the mental and physical impairment of prolonged battle.
How can a team be in a battle for 30 rounds, when their weapons are on the verge of breaking, yet their fatigue is as good as new? I just can’t believe it…
1% extra fatigue cost(rounding down) per every 2 rounds is a punishment? JUST HOW MANY rounds you’re intended to stay in a battle!!?
Well… if weapon getting exhausted can be fun…. why are you discriminating fatigue? I don’t get it… I don’t get discrimination at all.
>> Spear and dagger? What are you talking about?