I would rather have many small skirmishes that occur randomly between the borders of the civil war. That would make the game seem more like there's actually a war going on.

word.

The Playstation doesn't.

Anyway, to be honest I'm not too bothered about being involved in massive battles - I wouldn't really consider them an essential part of the Elder scrolls, and they are not really the reason that I play RPG's.

There are definitely other things that I would prefer to see or consider more important.

I just want the game world to feel real. Giant battles or whatever, as long as it convinces me it's a real world, that's all I need.



Well that's the problem with alot of gamers anymore. They think they have to sacrifice something else to get something in their game even though that is not true anymore. Just because Beth puts a giant battle into the game, it doesn't mean they had to scrap a quest of you fighting a small group of marauders down a huge mountain slope or something. Now you can have your cake and eat it too.

20-30 ppl, even on each side seems more of an skirmish than a battle to me...



Welcome to the Real World™ But you've also a point. An AI that doesn't put a character directly in your way (like Oblivion) would be appreciated...



1. Wha?

2. No, you create a RPG where your character has been drawn into a big battle. Having one or two big combats here and there doesn't magically turns a game into a mindless slaugher shooter-type.

Yes but it would [censored] some computers.

Although, I hope the modders can think of something because my computer can handle everything.

I hope so. It's about time to harness the power of 4 - 6 CPU cores.

I honestly believe that the actual technology is ready for that. It's all about if the engine is also ready.

Hardware issues are one thing, but the AI in TES-games so far doesn't allow for battles. In order to have a proper battle, you'd have to create some sort of collective AI. which can force NPCs to form and maintain decent formations according to their weapons and tactics. As AI is now, lining up 50-100 soldiers on each side and let them fight it out would just result in a bunch of people charging moronically at each other - like a bigger Bruma "battle". That would be incredibly annoying.

I voted no. While I'm all for epic style battles, all too often the game either just fools you into thinking that everything is on your shoulders or these fighting armies are just place holders and it doesn't matter what they do.

Example: Recently there was a video on youtube about the new call of duty. They guy played an entire mission without shooting a single enemy. Call of duty for me (not just black ops) is the best example of this. There is mass mayhem everywhere but it really doesn't matter what is going on around you. The game is entirely dependent on you.

Alternatively, if you just stand there, the battle may be won all by itself.

It's tough to get right is all I'm trying to say. Oblivion style 'big battles' are fine with me. The one where you need to protect the dark seducers/golden saints is fine by me.

Can we get a "maybe" option?

At first I was put off by the Liberty Prime battle in FO3, but without that in FNV I found that I missed it. So as long as there is something for the PC to do besides just stand around and look pretty, and it is not mass chaos where you're not sure what to do, I prefer something big to happen occasionally.

Congratulations! You've figured out how war is it!

Seriously now, an AI that would just attack the closest opponent would just be enough.



Well, that could ruin the battle indeed...but why would anyone do that?

Alternatively, then just make sure someone finds you and you end up dying if you don't fight. As most probably would happen in a real battle anyway...

As much as they can fit with no lag would be nice. They shouldn't happen often but it would be great to use them to put emphasis on the civil war etc. It would be a cool scenario as well if there is a large battle going on, and in the middle of it a few dragons swoop in and start demolishing everyone, so both sides have to put apart their differences and start trying to take out the dragons.

No. I would play a 'war game' if I wanted that.
I am hoping to do a lot more variety of role playing, instead of just battle.

1. This was simply saying that most large scale battles in RPGs svck. The reason being is that large scale battles are a highly different problem than a small scale on for an AI to solve. Large scale battles need things like unit cohesion. A small scale battle does not. Also, a battle is incredibly difficult to follow on the ground level, so the player character can't actually be in charge, which limits player choice (and isn't very fun in my book). Plus, in any truly large scale battle, living or dieing would be more a matter of luck than skill (unless you count cowardice as a skill).

2. ... huh? Who? Where? What? How? RTS means Real Time Strategy. Basically it's a genre that's nothing but large scale battles. Thus a game that does large scale battles really well would be closer to an RTS than a RPG. I'm just attempting to further reinforce the idea that doing large scale battles correctly takes far to much away from the other aspects of the game.

I enjoyed the battle of Bruma. It felt fresh as opposed to the general, "go here, fight all these people by yourself" type of battle. I thought it helped with the immersion. It felt like what was happening was really happening to everybody in Cryodil. I'll admit, it was more of a skirmish than a "battle" but giving its limitations 4 years ago, I was impressed.

I would like to see more of that in Skyrim. Imagine a group of 20 or 30 guards trying to fight a dragon. That would help show the power of the dragons and the significance of being the Dragonborn.

Mount & Blade does large battles extraordinarily good. You have a defualt battle size limit at 150 people on screen at the same time (at least in Warband) and they're really detailed and well animated characters and the combat is extremely physical and famous for being realistic. If you haven't then check it out. This is a PC only game though, so yes I know consoles probably wouldnt be able to handle that many character models with complex AIs.

So yes I'd wish for battles with over hundred characters instead of a dozen like in the Oblivion Great Gate battle. :tongue:

It's cold in the morning. You're trying to warm yourself along with a few of your surviving comrades. The battle has only lasted one night, but you feel it has been decades since you last felt a warm fire in your chimney and a soft bed. But it has finally ended, and you've survived. With that pride surrounding you, you begin to pack your equipment and prepare to go home again. "I can't wait to go home and cook something nice", you think for yourself. "Heh, before that I'll probably help my ol' herder with the crops and the farm animals, maybe with sacrificing one or two. He has always been a bit of a softie". You smile at the expectation, and when you look at your right hand, you also realize that your sword could also use a visit to your forge.

"Yes, it's time for some rest", you think, realizing you still haven't shealted your weapon.

ok, that was nice read. but you know what I mean. I just don't want it to be full out massive battles everywhere. they would just get in the way.

Generally, battles before gunpowder changed things was more of a "shoving contest", where formations of men would clash with eachother. The strength in the formation lies in the ability to maintain a protective shield wall, with weapons being used "through" the shield wall. Roman legions and greek hoplites are pretty good examples of this.The side that broke formation first, usually lost. That's dramatically different from mindlessly attacking the nearest enemy. It will produce wildly unpredictable (and ridiculous) results. I trust Bethesda are smart enough not to go that way.

1. Unit cohesion is nice at the beginning. But we all know that doesn't last forever. As soon as you enter the battle, it's all about randomness. It's like smashing a butter block against the floor: it keeps compact at the top, but the bottom gets more plain and chaotic. An army is basically the same. And I can't see why a nice battle can't be fun, although you aren't in charge...

However, 100-200 NPC's in each side is not SO massive in order to require such complex things like leadership, tactics or unit cohesion. We're not talking about 5000+ per side here...

2. Somehow I confused the latest "S". I thought you meant "Shooter"



I'm not saying the entire game to be a big battle. But one or two would be nice, don't you think?

ok, perhaps one slightly large battle.

I would like to see a huge battle, but if it ends up like oblivion with 10 vs 10 for the "epic battle" at the end of the game, I'd rather see a cut scene.

Unit cohesion is vital throughout the entire battle. Lose it, and you'll lose the battle.

That was one of the main reasons the romans organised their troops in 3 echelons. When the cohesion of the first echelon started to suffer, they would retreat behind the second echelon and reform, leaving the fighting to the second echelon. If THAT echelon was in danger of losing cohesion, they would retreat behind the 3rd, last echelon. The most experienced soldiers would be placed here, to ensure that this line WOULDN'T break cohesion in battle. When the other echelons had reformed, they'd reassume their frontal positions. This way, the romans could always have (relatively) fresh soldiers at the front, maintaining unit cohesion over extended periods of time.

Not that big, like 20 vs. 20

Yes - Mount and blade shames TES in this regard.