/v/ - Video Games

Not every franchise needs to be total war

>ingame - raid your opponents economy with small platoons and completely avoid his army

So, just like in real life then?

>>13757004

That's just what happens when you use modern strategies. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if a SC Master were to go back and time and take control of a WWI army.

>>13757043

Tanks and foot soldiers can't move as fast as a gook's hands, especially in the forests and mountains of Europe.

>>13757040

>>13757040

>So, unlike in real life then?

yes

>most of historical battles - huge armies reaching tens of thousands fighting other huge armies of equal size

Except medieval generals normally avoided exactly that as much as they could and actually did ravage the countryside (i.e., raided the opponent's economy) instead because they could not easily replace their men or material.

Same way with sieges more than often being won by cutting off supply lines rather than by the use of siege weapons to destroy the walls of castles and fortresses. The German word "Belagern" (lit: be-camping) nicely expresses that.

>>13757004

Enjoy Gatsby's War in the East.

>most of historical battles - huge armies reaching tens of thousands fighting other huge armies of equal size

The most famous battles of history != what armies spent most of their time doing.

>>13757004

>ingame - raid your opponents economy with small platoons and completely avoid his army

Really goes to show you how important logistics is in warfare. Like Napoleon said "The amateurs discuss tactics: the professionals discuss logistics".

>>13757866

>want game about battles

>forced to play whack a mole logistics battles

Realismfags have truly ruined fun.

>>13758330

It is just one footman but time moves by really quickly in Age of Empires. One footman can bring down a castle if he stands there hacking away at the stone for 100 years.

>help, I cannot wrap my brain around abstraction

Better stop playing video games anon, you might be one of those mass murderers Jack Thompson warned us about

Most battles were actually sit outside their castle and wait for them to starve to death or surrender and then get the fuck out of there if they get reinforcements before then.

Sending hundreds of thousands of men potentially to their deaths is not a very effective war strategy compared to cutting off supply lines with a force so big they can't do shit to stop it without massive losses. The defending army must weigh up the cost of waiting for reinforces and a sortie. Any battle will result in deaths of your own men while waiting for reinforcements could potentially scare off the enemy without deaths or be so long your men die of starvation. Or in other words: die now and lose position or maybe die later and maybe keep position. The choice is obvious.

>>13758648

Castles do fight back in AoE2.

Are you retarded?

>>13757004

Play Cossacks

>>13758977

I don't think a bow archer can lean 90 degrees to shoot downwards. He would lose all of his power and stability, right?

>>13758991

He gets a helping hand by shooting into gravity's pull. You can also just drop rocks down on top of them too.

>>13759005

Thanks for knowledge. Never been one for archery myself.

>>13758962

>if you build a tower behind your tower so that it covers it

I've always used military buildings and palisade to protect it from infantry and other melee units but I guess that works too, even if this strat is expensive as hell.

>>13757004

that's absolute bullshit, armies in the middle ages wore small. Huge armies are part of ancient history

>>13759025

well obviously it depends on afew things, if you'd be cutting off his starting resource from him and if you actually need another tower

>>13759045

Still seems like a waste of resources to me though, you shouldn't need two towers right next to each other to cut off his gold/stone/wood income, at this stage of the game you would probably have quite a few archers to defend it and/or harass his eco even more, I've never seen something like it tbh, maybe only when someone fucked up the positioning.

>>13759049

Yes.

>>13759040

See the notches at the top of the wall? Archers would be firing from those, not while standing over the wall. Also climbing soldiers would be much more likely to enter through those, reducing attack surface. Making towers top-wide made a bit more room at the top of the tower, and it made it impossible to reach for hiding archers from the ladder because it's offset from the wall.

>>13759103

I thought murder holes were small ? Such that a man couldn't pass through them ?

>>13759116

You could pass your sword into it and fuck it about violently, if you catch archer by surprise you'll kill him.

>>13759101

>it's a waste of resource to deny him of his resources

what can any civ do to a tower at the dark age/feudal age?

>>13759145

Yes it is an abstract scenario, all sorts of shit tend to happen in battle and having one less way to die like a retard is a good thing.

>>13759139

Villagers can take it down pretty easily tbh but I see where this is going, I concede.

>>13759145

Also top wide towers could be just an architecture fashion, like large windows in gothic cathedrals.

>>13759174

nigga I don't want you to concede I'm not shouting you down or anything mate.

if he's sending villagers then he's hindering him self

>>13757004

>he thinks raiding wasnt an important part in medieval warfare

Look up the muslim-byzantine wars, they spent centuries like that.

>>13757202

>Banditry, piracy, and raiding never happened

You might be functionally retarded.

Armies of great magnitude didn't just throw down at each other like some RTS. They raided, skirmished, and tried to outmaneuver each other for months. Do you know why? Because they didn't want to lose everything they had accomplished in exactly 20 minutes. They had common sense.

>>13759220

Because while tedious RTS games tend to feel like full games.

RTT games feel incomplete to me.

>>13758962

>the meta in aoe is that murder holes are a waste of time

While tower rushing, sure. But there are plenty of common situational uses for murder holes. If one or both players go full castle, there aren't going to be any trebuchets. In later game with keep (for the few civs that it's viable) or bombard tower spam, the minor investment in murder holes is worth it to micro down melee, especially something like a group of battle elephants that might survive long enough to destroy a tower without that +1 bombard fire.

And murder holes is even more valuable in the expansions now that Arson turns mass infantry into mass siege.

>>13759220

Why are you suggesting RTT instead of 4X? RTT can be fun but you often end up having a very simplified economy or none at all. The entire game ends up being just the battles and they always start somewhat simetrical to some degree.

That's like telling someone "why are you playing an action RPG if you enjoy the fights? play a fighting game instead!"

>>13759275

Usually this is a thing IRL but not in RTS because there's the next day to consider IRL.

Not much good to win a war losing 80% of your army if your other neighbor stayed out of it and now outnumbers you 10:1.

Meanwhile, everyone starts on equal footing in an RTS as if past outcomes reset.

You also can't just throw some meat and iron inside some barracks, wait a bit and then tell the soldier that comes from there to throw himself against enemy forces without any regard for his own life.

Meanwhile, almost every RTS is a Clone Wars sequel that avoids the moral quandaries completely.

>>13759291

well if there's no trebuchets then there's got to be siege ramsfull of petards, although alot of the pro level never really micro their towers or castles even with persian douches tbh

>>13759303

I said RTT instead of RTS because the anon sounded like he didn't want to have his resources harassed, which is something RTT typically downplays in favour of positional battling.

>>13759339

It's a joke, you dip.

The truth is, RTS are eugenics programs. You throw retards into battle that don't even try to get away from harm and will even charge the enemy when vastly outnumbered, you're just cleaning the gene pool.

The few games that have something akin to moral or loyalty are the few where the retards are a bit above the average.

>>13759344

I dunno, a lot of RTT games still have an economic side to them but they rely on area control instead for the most part, something that's far more vulnerable to raiding than bases you can build up anywhere and in any number.

>>13759378

>far more vulnerable to raiding than bases

Uh… Depends what game? I think only Age of Empires has some way to really secure your resources by building walls, and even then you run out of resources and have to push out. But for most other RTS your base and resources can be super vulnerable, dying very quickly if not protected by an equal military force. C&C, Starcraft, Supcom…

You could make a case for Dawn of War, but it has similar area-control elements, especially because uncapping is faster than capping.

>>13757166

>army of gooks walking on their hands

>holding guns with their feet

>shitting from their mouths

>screams from the ass

>>13759332

No siege rams in castle either, lad, and you can't put petards in rams. And you wouldn't be microing towers or castles in a persian douche since it's an all-or-nothing dark age play. Are you a bot stringing AoE2 keywords together?

>>13759453

what's with people calling others bots, I thought it was just one anon being autistic as fuck in various threads but shit seems to be more common

>>13757004

Difference is that those huge armies had all manner of officers commanding them while in the game there's only you giving orders. Try playing Mount and Blade leading a "huge" (as in, a couple hundred troops) army against an equally big one and see how much battlefield awareness and control you can maintain.

>>13759220

>Chase

Is this a JoJo reference?

>>13757004

>this nigger doesn't know about chevauchée

>>13757004

>>most of historical battles - huge armies reaching tens of thousands fighting other huge armies of equal size

Tolkien wasn't a historian, anon.

>>13759562

I haven't seen much of that. I just called him a bot because he keeps bringing up AoE2 units/terms that he clearly has no understanding of.

Are you trying to tell me that video games aren't real life, OP?

>completely avoid his army

Rushing is a part of AoE2 multiplayer, but there are definitely situations with large-scale battles. There are a lots of strategies that vary in success based on map type, you and your allies' civs, and your opponents' civs.

>>13759220

>Seriously, if you just want army battles, play that old Warhammer game where you could play as Humans, Elves, Skaven or Chaos. It featured armies and hero duels and was a lot of fun.

Mark of Chaos?

>>13759303

>because there's the next day to consider IRL.

What does this mean?

>>13759378

>RTS are eugenics programs. You throw retards into battle that don't even try to get away from harm and will even charge the enemy when vastly outnumbered,

It's not eugenics moron. It's AI/engine limitation. There will come a day when RTS will play like real life.

>implying games doesn't have this system already

We call that morale system but there's a lot of shit that needs to be tweaked for it to mirror real life.

>>13761997

>What does this mean?

Consider

>Send out thousands of units to fight

>Win in direct confrontation

>Lost a good chunk of those thousands

>It's a game so who cares, victory message

And then IRL

>Send out thousands of units to fight

>Win in direct confrontation

>Lost a good chunk of those thousands

>You have won against X, yay!

>It's real life so you are now significantly more vulnerable than before and even though X has been crushed there are other factors to deal with

>>13761860

>Doesn't know the term hoist by one's own petard

Being those poor guys was suicide.

>>13757004

Sounds like ancient militaries were retarded and video games are helping to fix the mistake.

>>13761860

China didn't see the potential in weaponizing gunpowder.

>>13758902

Research Murder Holes you idiot.

And garrison in more men to fire more arrows.

>>13762024

oh you meant a macro pov as in one game isn't isolated to that map. I do understand. Back when I played C&C Tiberian sun, I always spam buildings and shit hoping that it would transfer them to my next playthrough.. Knight's of honor/Hegemony did that job but in as far as morale system go, I forgot. I think there's also no population involved.

Rise of nation also had a macro perspective but limited to wonders.

>>13761860

If China got every technology they invented IRL in AoE, they'd get basically the entire tech tree. Can't do that for game balance reasons. Also this >>13762111

>>13757004

If you want big battles like that, the campaign mode would be more your speed than random maps.

>>13757043

I hope you realize that there is absolutely 0 crossover of skill between RTS and actual military tactics

>>13757043

You do realize how expendable troops are in StarCraft and most vidya in general right?

>>13757043

>radio static

>harro everywun!

it'd go hilariously

All I want is total war with decent AI. Is that too much to ask?

>>13767891

Reminder that Bannon did everything wrong

>>13767892

He redeemed himself.

>thread devolves into discussions about long term consequences of war, castle designs and archer lives

Never change, /v/

>>13758455

>stab castle until it catches fire

>stone keeps burning for hundreds of years until a guy puts it out with a hammer

>>13758977

> Are you implying that the archer couldn't lean over the castle wall and shoot at the single footman ?

Archers aren't balanced for lean.

>>13765031

>and use new technologies that allow us to render hundreds of thousands of A.I

You forgot the AI part of what you have described, you not only have to render them but also have them all actually do something. The only way you can have hundreds of thousands of units on the field all interacting with each other is by joining them into larger units and simply having that act as an approximation, at which point you may as well not even have bothered making hundreds of thousands of them, since having hundreds of thousands of simultaneous processes all interacting with each other is going to crash your PC no matter how many years in the future you are looking at.

And before you jump to "muh quantum computing" as a solution, that doesn't actually work for the thing described. Despite what some pop-sci autists have been telling you, it calculating all possible outcomes doesn't actually make you calculate it any faster, in effect you are simply calculating in parallel instead of in series. In fact, quantum computers are for most uses SLOWER than conventional ones.