View Full Version : Creative Assembly Should RTW get rid of the map edge?
One thing that is potentially cheesy about MTW is the map edge on the battlefield. You can anchor your forces on it and avoid being outmaneouvred by a larger or more mobile AI force. I wonder if it would be possible to have a tactical map that can be extended as you approach the boundary - eg by adding random terrain?
Would it be possible to get rid of the wierd forcefield that hems in the battlefield? Have CA discussed this? It might would reduce the temptation to camp and would be useful for horse archer type armies that fight by hit and run tactics. (I had great difficulty fighting AI horse archers with foot until I managed to hem them in the map edge).
From what I know RTW battlefields will be randomly generated based on the terrain of the region. Furthermore there will be no less than 9 battlefield maps generated for a single battle; one for the main battlefield in the center and 8 maps for the surrounding edges and corners to prevent those annoying situations you just mentioned. With all this extra real estate CA better tone down the fatigue factor in RTW because it looks like there's going to be alot more maneuvering going on.
To avoid generating a different map for battles taking place on the exact same real estate as prior battles the game will store previously generated maps for a given campaign. I am not so sure that this will apply to all map regions but certainly to city maps.
Getting rid of map edges would be great. They are cheesy.
PoLsKa_HuSaRiA
02-27-2003, 11:09
I think the decision to add the 9 battlefields is a great idea http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif However will this increase loading-time? Also will it have an impact on FPS?
Knight_Yellow
02-27-2003, 14:57
well i for one hope not since i usualy dont have fast or any calv for that manner ans have to corner an ai controlled horse archer with my inf.
Knight_Yellow: that's precisely why getting rid of the map edge is worth exploring. Horse archer types like the Mongols, Huns, some of the Islamic factions etc lose out in MTW because they can't use "hit and run" tactics against heavier slower foes. I think a more open map would allow them to pose challenges to the Roman legion in the way it did historically.
(Presumably the solution would be foot archers plus your own light cav).
JeromeGrasdyke
03-01-2003, 16:49
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?
Most of that original code is still there for generating the landscapes from the campaign map data, and I reckon we've ended up with a good compromise in that there is a lot of backterrain which extends the view out, even though the action is still constrained to a central area http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
The camping-at-the-edge-of-the-map that you get in Medieval and Shogun should disappear in Rome, because in the earlier games the edges of the map were always quite high, and so there was a tactical advantage to be gained from defending there. In Rome the edges of the battlefield blend seamlessly in with the backterrain and there are no edge hills... It's one of those places where the new engine allows us to fix gameplay problems in the old games which were really caused by technical limitations, and for very little cost.
The viewable area is a actually a little larger than 9 battlemaps though - it's actually a grid of 17x17, with the playable area at the center, and the battlefield size is currently 2km x 2km... make 'em much bigger and it just gets too hard chasing down the enemy, make 'em smaller and the larger cities don't fit
Also, all the maps you end up on from the campaign map are persistent - if you go down to a map at one location and later you go down to that map again, you will get the exact same map. You'll probably become quite familiar with some of the more important locations - the passes over the alps for example.
Jerome
Quote[/b] (JeromeGrasdyke @ Mar. 01 2003,09:49)]The viewable area is a actually a little larger than 9 battlemaps though - it's actually a grid of 17x17, with the playable area at the center, and the battlefield size is currently 2km x 2km... make 'em much bigger and it just gets too hard chasing down the enemy, make 'em smaller and the larger cities don't fit
Jerome
17x17??? Kilometers? Or battlefields? That would mean either 289 km2 or 1156 km2... massive in both cases I sould say.
1dread1lahll
03-02-2003, 03:08
thx for this info jerome, I was looking forward to the one map though, hopefully it can be revived for TW-IV, gotta hate the corner campers in multiplayer. Was also looking foward marching on roads in column, and getting a speed bonus for it...The ability to march was the real measure of greatness in a gerneal then as in now.. but hopefully the maps will prove to be 'big enough' for that. I agree with other post though, hope fatiuge will be reduced...thx for this info again, only reason i surf the site is for this kinda info....
Thanx for the info Jerome. sounds like the battlefields should be big enough.
1dread1lahll
03-02-2003, 05:41
After reading this again...... how big is the 'playable area' compaired to maps now? The viewable area can't be moved into or played on? Its not the slight rise in land at the map edge the campers run for, but rather just the impassable barrier upon which the anchor their flanks. This is what is so annoying. Plz can you clarify the maps size?
How big will they be compaired to maps now? The part that we can actually manover and fight on.
1master1wakibiki
03-02-2003, 05:54
If each of nine maps held an army camp which generated units every so often this would be close to a small scale multi-player campaign game which although diff. to achieve is on evryone's most wanted list.
JeromeGrasdyke
03-02-2003, 13:26
Quote[/b] (1dread1lahll @ Mar. 02 2003,03:41)]After reading this again... how big is the 'playable area' compared to maps now? The part that we can actually maneuver and fight on.
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.
The battlefield size is a pretty important gameplay balancing thing - smaller battlefield = quicker, more intense battles, larger battlefield = more realistic, but slower paced, and occasionally annoying when enemies go missing. It's a question of tweak, tweak, tweak until it's right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Hm sounds nice http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Yes road marches in column..yum
1.2 x 1.2 is that the large maps in MTW or medium maps as we normally play on?
CBR
in MP it is the edges that the enemy runs for as lahll correctly stated not the hills http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif, this stops them from being flanked and is a cheap easy tactic, is there anything that can be done about this ... just to know you are aware of this problem would be nice http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
what could be done im not sure but would be nice if you could talk to us about any possible solutions http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
1dread1lahll
03-03-2003, 03:08
Much thx for this clairification, and for the info on 'grain of salt' I can still hope for the 1 giant map on which I can march fron Egypt to Spain...
lahll: marching from egypt to spain? walking on water? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
If there are roads and making walking on roads would be faster than walking on the field (eh, isn't it the purpose of roads?) then a large battle map wouldn't be too bad.
Annie
Skomatth
03-04-2003, 03:02
What's to stop some one from running away forever?
This would be quite annoying and could be used to annoy peopl. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
I think getting rid of height at the map edges and corners is important. Height conveys a shooting advantage, so you can't dislodge and opponent from an edge with ranged fire unless you take enough ranged units to overcome the height disadvantage, and then your hth infantry would be far too weak to win. Without the defenders having height, an attacker can focus ranged fire into one side of a corner camper's formation and thus force him to at least unhinge the other flank, but I agree that no edges would be better.
Here is an idea for getting rid of the corner camping. Designate a circular area centered on the map who's radius is somewhat less than the distance from the center of the map to the edge. Require that each side must have at least one unit within this circle or else the battle ends in defeat for that side. It's like king of the hill except the area you must stay withing is very large. Being a circle will cut a big chunk out of the corners. There could be a relatively long delay before the loss is imposed, and possibly a warning message to the side that has no units in the central zone. This circular central zone need only be small enough to deter the corner camping and I'm thinking 1v1 here. Of course, in 2v2 or larger battles the corner becomes bigger, but my impression after many MP team battles is that corner camping doesn't work as well in big battles. The big games where it has worked well have always combined high ground of sufficient size for the camping armies with the corner.
That sounds like a nice solution Yuuki. Maybe add that units can't leave the circle without the explicit order from the player to do so (think about the worst case scenario where all your units are chasing the enemy while the enemy got 1 peasant hidden in the woods).
This solution addresses cornercamping, allows better cavalry tactics (hit and run and circle) and prevents the problem of people always avoiding the fight.
It would be nice if the host could set the radius of this circle on the map (large radius -> allow cornercamping, medium radius -> limit corner camping and cav tactics, small radius -> http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ).
wordsmith
03-16-2003, 06:22
I think a more realistic solution would be to add moral bonuses and penelties for map position. Units at the edge of the map should be more likely to rout then units in the middle. Realistic in that an army that controls the field of battle is less likely to be routed then one an army that is hanging around on the edges of an enemy controlled battlefield.
I guess that that would trash cavalry tactics Wordsmith: horsearchers routing for nothing.
wordsmith
03-16-2003, 19:03
I didnt say auto rout, just a penalty, horse archers shouldnt be pinned down in combat that would result in a rout any way. After an enemy is in there ranks its good night horseies, so a rout there wouldnt change much, It would have more impact on the edge hugging armies. as for manuvering around edges of the map it could be made so that the majority of the unit has to be in the "edge zone" before any penalty is given. That way you wont get penalties for just one small corner of a unit being close to the edge.
Not a perfect system but i dont like the idea of a king of the hill manditory battle system. It would be a great bonus to add on as a diff option to regular battles but I find it a little to unrealistic to want every battle to be fought out with such limited range of motion allowed by my troops, expecially on defense.
or a hybrid of ideas, use the king of the hill system except instead of an automatic loss for not being in the designated area you would just suffer a moral penalty to your whole army.
wordsmith,
The arena 'is' going to be huge and will feature enough terrain to set up a defensive/offensive position (I agree that the host should be able to set the radius of the circle: huge -the circle is larger than the square thus you have a normal MTW map, large, medium and small).
but I find it a little to unrealistic to want every battle to be fought out with such limited range of motion allowed by my troops
That will certainly not be the case. Mapedges are the unrealistic thing here: the defender can deploy his army near an edge and never has to worry about his back. If he deploys in a corner, he doesn't have to worry about his back nor flanks. The attacker of course has all exposed.
The power of cavalry is their mobility: flank and back attacks. The current MTW maps limit this. The arena maps will offer a huge map like normal and add an extra move through zone for flank and back attacks (it's proposed to have at least 1 man inside that huge arena). The same goes for flanking with normal infantry.
You underestimate the power of moralepenalties ihmo, which is also an arbitrary and 'invisible' thing in this case. Don't get me wrong, morale penalties are a good thing, but I doubt they will be a solution here, certainly not realistic. Horsearchers are a low morale unit: they live on the edge so to say. They will already get a penalty for being far away from friends and receive one for being near to the enemy. An extra penalty for being outside the arena will make them rout. As they are near the exit, they will fail to recover => this is an 'autorout'.
The drawback of unlimited maps is that the defender can always avoid the fight (one who has an always on connection and lots of free time will 'win' every battle. The drawback of edges on map is that they trash real world tactics.
Simetrical
12-10-2004, 00:25
I calculate one map square as being maybe 15-20 miles (24-32 kilometers) wide. Granted, it would be impossible to chase horse archers that far with infantry, but isn't that the point? Any infantry that tries to engage evasive cavalry should eventually drop with exhaustion. I would like to see a much larger battle map, but also more allowance for tactical withdrawal (i.e., you aren't considered to have lost if you withdraw, so you don't suffer any of the related penalties—although you might risk becoming a Coward). The map edges would still exist, but the map seemingly covers three squares by three (45-60 miles/48-96 km on a side), and if both armies are limited to starting near the center of the area, it'll take a pretty damn long time to reach the edges. At a 3 MPH (5 kmph) march, you'd have to spend several hours to reach the border!
Of course, missile cavalry will have to be rethought to some degree, because they'll slaughter any largely-infantry army with hit-and-run tactics under this system; what tactics did the infantry-based Romans really use to counter horse archers? Surely they could be adapted somehow into RTW.
-Simetrical
Wow... this is one old thread...
Simetrical you do know it was made long before the game was out right?
Simetrical
12-10-2004, 00:46
Yeah, I just realized that. I was searching the boards for any nuggets of wisdom I could find from CA staff, and thoughtlessly responded to one of the topics without thinking about the dates. D'oh.
Still, not all is lost . . . it's a pretty relevant topic still, don't you think?
-Simetrical
I think Simetrical just set the org record for digging the deepest shaft I've ever seen to pry out a thread from the past. How many times have I seen people get criticized for starting a new thread about an old topic? Here's a man who said "Show me that search engine!".
Good job, buddy! The tactical map is always a good topic. It's one of the Rome's strongest features. I fight every single battle if for no other reason than seeing and admiring a place I haven't seen before.
I think Simetrical just set the org record for digging the deepest shaft I've ever seen to pry out a thread from the past. How many times have I seen people get criticized for starting a new thread about an old topic? Here's a man who said "Show me that search engine!".
Good job, buddy! The tactical map is always a good topic. It's one of the Rome's strongest features. I fight every single battle if for no other reason than seeing and admiring a place I haven't seen before.
Argh... I never commended the guy for the deep digging. Crap!
Well, you can when you become Senior Member, with my blessing call yourself Head Digger or Master Digger. ~D
Good will shown there, keep it up.
Of course, missile cavalry will have to be rethought to some degree, because they'll slaughter any largely-infantry army with hit-and-run tactics under this system; what tactics did the infantry-based Romans really use to counter horse archers? Surely they could be adapted somehow into RTW.
-Simetrical
To my knowledge the Romans never really developed any great tactic against missile cavalry other then have greater cavalry numbers on the field.
When they were outnumbered the missile cavalry caused them enormous difficulty.
Cannae is a good example where the Numidian light cavalry were able to hold Consul Varro's cavalry in check long enough to be reinforced by the Spanish/Gallic cavalry from the other flank.
And of course, later near the end of the second punic war, half of Numidia had defected to Rome.
So as it stands the game is possibly fairly close to how it was.
Ellesthyan
12-10-2004, 09:01
Lol, thread necromancy :)
Anyway, it is true that missile cavalry is already one of the best units in the game; extending the tactical maps would make it virtually impossible to catch them. I think CA did a nice job with the limitations by lowering the map edges, forcing us to deploy a little more in front than we'd like to..
Simetrical gets the golden shovel award !!!!!!!
Good topic to dig up IMO
The maps are bigger but to me it seems skirmishing cavalry still get pinned to easy. The worst part is if you tell them to withdraw there is only a 10 percent chance they will actually cross that redline. Only to be be pinned in between the enemy and that redline and watch them needlessly get decimated when they are just a hop skip and a jump away from safety. Of course it puts them out of the battle but at least they have a future if only they'd just take that short leap to safety.
A possible solution would be to make the battle map 9 squares and that big square in the center just like the town square of a city. Have no idea what would make a good balance for a timelimit. But with that big of a battlefield whatever makes it off should live another day even if it is a 1 man army besides rebel scum ...... noone wants to chase them down all day.
Yes if you had some kind of objective system (even if it is just high ground) to concentrate the fight in the main battle area you could still have more open flanks for tactical play.
Paul Peru
12-10-2004, 15:52
Having the edges consistently lower would give an incentive to stay away from them (if the advantage of higher ground were as big as in MTW...), but it would probably ruin the feeling of playing on a zoomed-in portion of the campaign map. A morale penalty might be nice, though.
If skirmishers had some affinity for the center of the map, that would probably keep them from being trapped so easily.
Finally, there should be some kind of lightsaber-like buzzing sound when you touch the red line ~;)
Calmarac
01-21-2005, 22:58
Old thread or not this is still very relevant.
Using 200 man infantry units as rulers - deployed in 2 ranks with a 1m spacing between files gives a 100m frontage
I measure the campaign battle maps at 800 x 800 metres (deployment zones) with a further 100 m to the redline hard edge. 1km square in other words. This is tiny by any standards, and makes fighting with Huge units feel like you`re in a boxing ring, not a battlefield. Even on Huge settings, a 160 man cohort is 1/3 the size of its real life counterpart, yet there`s still no room to manoevre an army in a 1000m box
Jerome said in the thread above "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."
I make it 1/4 of that size - 1km x 1km with an 800m x 800 m deployment zone. Where are the large 2Km x 2Km maps we were promised :wack
I notice the Custom battle at Teutoburg Forest uses a large map (1700 x 1700 m) - as do the battles in Time Commanders/Decisive Battles. Look in the maps\battle\custom\Teutoburgerwald folder and check the descr_battle.txt file -
----------------------------------------------------------------
; >>>> start of battle section
Calmarac
01-21-2005, 23:01
Oops - post got cut short...
I notice the Custom battle at Teutoburg Forest uses a large map (1700 x 1700 m) - as do the battles in Time Commanders/Decisive Battles. Look in the maps\battle\custom\Teutoburgerwald folder and check the descr_battle.txt file -
----------------------------------------------------------------
; >>>> start of battle section
Calmarac
01-21-2005, 23:06
Sigh, and again (and I can`t find an Edit function...)
; start of battle section
battle 86, 106 ambient_settlement
playable_area_dimensions 1700 1700
home_faction germans
alliance romans_scipii, defending
alliance germans, attacking
----------------------------------------------------------------
Note the playable_area_dimensions line - this is the only custom batlle which has this
So - is there any way we can have a decent sized battlefield in our campaign game?
sassbarman
01-22-2005, 00:01
I love the idea of getting rid of the map edges, watching your army marching in formation across the map would be awesome. A possible fix for horse archers running forever on the battle map could be to reinstitute the auto rout from shogun and I think medieval where if a unit turns it's back to the enemy to many times it auto routs. As to not diminish the effectiveness of horse archers this effect would only come into play after all their arrows where used up and their only option was melee or flee.
Woreczko
01-22-2005, 12:27
IMHO the most historical solution would be to have a map theoretically without uncrossable edges, but with camps of both armies placed behind deployment area. If you capture the enemy camp and hold it till time runs out, you win. Historicaly all armies (bigger than small raiding parties) had to leave wagons, pack animals, food, non-combatants and the like in a camp before battle. If the camp was taken, soldiers would either rout or try to fight out the enemies, as without necessary supplies one cannot sustain sizeable army in one place.
Epistolary Richard
01-24-2005, 16:25
A possible fix for horse archers running forever on the battle map could be...
Another fix would be introduce a night-fall in battles. As soon as night fell, fighting would cease and units that had spread more than a certain distance from their commander would have to reform and would suffer possible desertion/dispersement.
Simetrical
01-24-2005, 23:18
A possible fix for horse archers running forever on the battle map . . .Why does that need a fix? Obviously they should get tired out eventually, but an all-infantry army should be slaughtered against horse archers. It's absolutely correct that horses shouldn't be able to be caught by infantry.
-Simetrical
Another fix would be introduce a night-fall in battles. As soon as night fell, fighting would cease and units that had spread more than a certain distance from their commander would have to reform and would suffer possible desertion/dispersement.
If I recall, wasn't that originally going to be implemented?
The Stranger
01-25-2005, 15:05
I love the idea of getting rid of the map edges, watching your army marching in formation across the map would be awesome. A possible fix for horse archers running forever on the battle map could be to reinstitute the auto rout from shogun and I think medieval where if a unit turns it's back to the enemy to many times it auto routs. As to not diminish the effectiveness of horse archers this effect would only come into play after all their arrows where used up and their only option was melee or flee.
that was very annoying never ever put that back in a game
time imits are dumb or to short they mostly fought till it was dark
sassbarman
01-26-2005, 07:37
I'm not to sure what the big deal with the auto rout for horse archers is, I mean if they have no more arrows and they are not going to charge, then why not have them exit the battlefield. I just fought a battle against parthia who of coarse brought mainly HA's, when they had depleted their arrows they just sat there for the remainder of the battle. I had mainly pikes on the other hand and held a small hill top but I knew if I tried to engage them I would have ended up playing a silly little game of chase the horsey around the map until the clock ended, only to have them win the battle because I couldn't rout them. Ahhh... no thanks.
Brutal DLX
01-26-2005, 13:39
IMHO the most historical solution would be to have a map theoretically without uncrossable edges, but with camps of both armies placed behind deployment area. If you capture the enemy camp and hold it till time runs out, you win. Historicaly all armies (bigger than small raiding parties) had to leave wagons, pack animals, food, non-combatants and the like in a camp before battle. If the camp was taken, soldiers would either rout or try to fight out the enemies, as without necessary supplies one cannot sustain sizeable army in one place.
A very sensible suggestion, but I guess too late to implement now. :(
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.