Honestly just feel overwhelmed with that many units running around. I already need to rely on pauses to coordinate attacks, add another stack and my brain just gives up and the battle devolves into a mosh pit.
5 months ago | 281
most fun battles for me are 10 units or less per side. makes micro more manageable and tactical decisions more impactful imo. everytime i have a 40 unit army it just turns into an ugly blob
5 months ago | 152
Hard to manage, but I play Total War to smash my action figures together so I love it
5 months ago | 7
I like the spectacle, but they can be very hard to control. I prefer small skirmishes, when neither army is full, where each unit is impactful.
5 months ago | 4
I hate them. With 20 units (I'd actually prefer less) I can get everyone doing something useful, keep on the micro for units that need micro to not die, and individual units have a noticeable effect. It's satisfying. Add more units and I can choose between tedious management of getting the army in shape and keeping it that way, or just let the battle be a horribly messy tangle and hope I have enough bulk to keep that from being too costly.
5 months ago | 8
I love it as long as I have a ranged-based army with no fast units. I would have a stroke managing 10 cavalry units and 30 other units
5 months ago | 4
It depends on the factions for me. I have never hesitated taking on larger armies with dwarves. Easy to box in and go for the long haul and I kinda know what each unit can swing usually. Beastmen have me crying with the micro, it's fun, but not every single battle.
5 months ago | 12
I play a multiplayer campaign with friends, and when one of us has a battle, we give everyone a few units. Having 3 or 4 units and doing a particular job like focusing on flanking with cav is really fun.
5 months ago | 31
I hate that I can‘t decide which extra unit comes on the map next, when one routes or get‘s destroyed.
5 months ago | 35
I love massive battles. The bigger, the better. Plus, I love to challenge myself on managing my huge legions in battle, I don’t care if others say it’s a mess; I’m all in for fun, challenging and epic wars.
5 months ago (edited) | 8
I found with current system, it is impossible to effectively control army of that size, units are not even completely following your order.
5 months ago | 8
With friends, it's an absolute blast. In single player it can either be an amazing experience or a struggle to micromanage all units.
5 months ago | 2
I like the larger battles, but in game 3, the army losses kicks in at like 75% balance of power after losses, rather than in game 2 where it kicked in at 92% after losing a percentage of an army, so the big battles often feel like they end too early
5 months ago | 17
Taking the time to pause every few minutes to assess the carnage, zoom in on the front lines, and think of what to do next is always a fun part of these huge battles. The AI makes lightning fast decisions, it's just leveling out the playing field IMO. I've also gotten some sick screen shots from doing this as well.
5 months ago | 3
I prefer smaller battles, no matter how good you are controlling 40 units at the same time is tough, and when those mixed with the other 40 the thing is a mess
5 months ago | 22
I love to watch those battle. Not so sure if i love to play those battles lol
5 months ago | 2
Yeah it’s kinda dizzying sometimes but the scale and strategies when executed right make it feel amazing
5 months ago | 3
I think it isn’t wrong to like large battles. But personally I prefer when battles are no more than 14-15 units on each side. Unit roles flies out the window, the ai goes full on tard mode, everyone goes in to moshpits. Everything just gets too messy. You never get these clean exchanges between units (1v1) and the more units there are on the battlefield, the less they matter in the bigger picture. I think CA should add a campaign setting that limits army sizes or a sort build up mechanics which increases the unit caps every 10 turns on every faction. As I said, there is nothing wrong with big battles, but there should be an option so players that prefer smaller skirmishes can also have fun.
5 months ago | 1
As a multiplayer campaign enjoyer I love them - with two or three players to split the units between the numbers aren't overwhelming, and so you just end up with a big fun bowl of chaos
5 months ago | 2
I think it really depends a lot on unit composition, but they have a nice grander feel than smaller ones do. Less focus on individual units and more on unit groups, with generally taking away the ability of some characters to solo most of an army on their own can make things more interesting imo.
5 months ago | 1
Zerkovich
Are BIG battles fun? Like 40+ vs 40+ units? That's two stacks or more per side.
5 months ago | [YT] | 269