PDA

View Full Version : Battlefield Map Edge - Yes or No



Lord Romulous
03-03-2003, 07:30
My analysis on each of the options.

Option 1.
"No map edge. risk of meeting other armies in strat map is good"
Jerome from CA said this
"Funny that this should come up... There was actually an early build of Rome which did get rid of battlefield boundaries altogether, and allowed you to walk from one end of Europe to the other on the battlefield, generating terrain from real geographical data as it went on a scale of about 5 : 1. But after some agonising we moved away from that approach because it was too difficult to integrate into the campaign game - for example, what do you do when an army involved in a battle walks off the edge of its 'battlefield' into a nearby territory which contains an army which is not involved in the battle?"
end quote

U have the risk of running into other armies and towns etc. also what happens if the enemy decides to choose only light cav and turns away from the battle and rides south for 3 hours until he hits your prize farm areas and destroys them. are u able to summon a force from the local garrison to intercept the cav? what happens if the enemy send 16 light cav in every direction. imagine the mircomanagment nightmare of trying to track them all down.
this the reason why i dont support the no map edge option.
how will reinforcments be handled ?

Option 2.
"No edge. spawn random terrain after regular battlemap ends"
this sounds good as it gets rid of the cheesy camping on map edge exploit and u dont interfere with strat map as the spawned random terrain is kinda like a never never land that does not exist in the strat map reality.
but again what happens if the enemy sends his forces in all directions. do u really want to spend 4 hours trying to find 16 light cav units. how will reinforcments be handled?

Option 3.
"I require a playable size of 4km X 4km"
a very large battle map. if the armies spawn somewhere in the middle it will take a while for a entire army to reach the map edge, and they will be very tired when they get there but so will the ememy be if they chase them. I vote for this option cause its large enough for horse archers to have fun and should prevent all but the most die hard edge campers especially if all the edges slope steeply downhill.

Option 4.
"Agree with CA RTW plan of 2km x 2km. MTW was 1.2 X 1.2"
I think this is still to small. edge camping will still quite possible although the downhill slope of the edge is a good deterence. mostly i dont like this option cause i feel the replaybility will be limited. eg if the map is a major choke point on strat map then it will be replayed over and over again. there will be only be so many good battle postions for the army. with the 4 X 4km option in theory u have twice as many hills, grasslands between forests etc for good battle postioning.

option 5.
Keep the size the same as MTW
For the edge camping, quick battle enthusiast. the smaller the map the less manover warfare strategy you can use.

Knight_Yellow
03-03-2003, 14:42
i thought CA said a rtw map was 9km x 9km not 2 x 2

Lord Romulous
03-03-2003, 16:12
JeromeGrasdyke

Programmer

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Dec. 2002
Creative Assembly / Horsham Posted: Mar. 02 2003,06:26

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As with many other things about games prior to release we're still experimenting with this, so take it all with a grain of salt, but right now the playable area is a little less than double Medieval's size - 2 x 2 km rather than 1.2 x 1.2 km"

LadyAnn
03-04-2003, 02:08
9x9 grid. A grid is about 2 km x 2km (or central action area). The Current MTW map is 1.2 km x 1.2 km. Just repeat what I read. Check the posts yourself.

Annie

1.2 x 1.2 = 1.44
2.0 x 2.0 = 4.00

The size then would be almost tripple the size of the current map in term of area http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Leet Eriksson
03-05-2003, 21:33
I was wondering how much time it will take for the troops to reach from one edge to the other....

Spino
03-06-2003, 02:02
Why are we voting on something that clearly will not be changed to reflect public opinion, let alone for an option that the developers have said would cause numerous headaches?

So long as CA gives us more room to maneuver and lowers the likelihood of any map-edge defense funny business from taking place then I will be very happy. One problem we will definitely see is the inadequacy of a 16 unit army on such a large battlemap. Even with sixteen units of 100 men I think some of the epic scope of RTW will be lost, especially when we attempt to assault those full sized cities OK, I'm definitely off the subject but I hope CA gives us larger armies to match the larger maps I hope they give us at least 20 units or some clever method of controlling more than one army on a battlemap at once.

In light of the bigger battlefields CA will definitely have to tone the fatigue factor way down. Marching and countermarching in RTW should have a much lower effect on fatigue than it does in STW and MTW.

1dread1lahll
03-07-2003, 04:34
Hi Ann, Jerome said it would be slightly less than double....I'de still like to see the unlimited map.

CBR
03-07-2003, 04:40
Quote[/b] (Spino @ Mar. 06 2003,01:02)]In light of the bigger battlefields CA will definitely have to tone the fatigue factor way down. Marching and countermarching in RTW should have a much lower effect on fatigue than it does in STW and MTW.
Yes... we already have problems with fatigue on large maps now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

CBR

TexRoadkill
03-11-2003, 01:05
Map size doesn't help to fix a 'gamey' problem. The only way to keep defenders from running away is to give the attack a real objective. Are the defenders trying to protect a strategic strongpoint or castle? The attacking team should merely have to move past the defenders or take up a certain position on the map to win. If the defender wants to run around then let him but it should't affect the outcome of the battle.