Turns per year?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Hopefully it'll be 4, with a movement restriction bonus in the winter, like in EB. Would make the campaigning much more interesting. What would be even cooler would be if there'd be desertion and disease for armies on the march, with those factors increased dramatically in the winter turn. Has there been any information on the number of turns per year yet?

[Monarch]

I heard it was one campaign. And that is spanning 500 years. Four turns a year means you'll be having 1000s of turns jsut to finish. It'll be 1 tpy probably.

If the time span was shorter, like in EB, then perhaps four turns could have been implemented.

[King Noob the Stupid]

I don't tink it would be good to have more than 2 turns per year, for example if your young, new king completely sucks you'd have to play 50 years/200 turns until he finally bites the dust...

[Rilder]

a several thousand turn long campaign *dreams* but all those "leet" power gamers who pwn europe in 6 turns would hate it.

seriously i dont really see the problem with 4tpy, it would allow for whole bunch of different dramatic stuff like winter fighting restrictions, bonuses in spring for your economy,due to all the the new hunting, bonuses in autumn due to harvests, and summer restrictions in the desert, after all if they dont it will get modded in one day anyways

[A.Saturnus]

I don't believe they will do 4 turns a year. That would mean almost 2000 turns in the whole campaign. But I hope they will make at least 2 per year. Otherwise the RPG-aspect of family members or whatever personage we'll see will be diminished.

[Templar Knight]

hopefully 4 with the ability to choose your starting date similar to MTW

[ajaxfetish]

Yes. 4 turns a year for the entire span of the game would be LOOONGG. If they offered multiple start dates it would be much more practical, but I'm still not sure I'd want that many turns. Two a year would be nice, though, as the summer/winter difference is the most important anyway.

Ajax

[econ21]

I'd rather have one turn a year like the original MTW. TW campaigns tend to drag on too long anyway. Plus one year is ideal for a PBM - each player can have a full reign that does not drag on too long or overly limit the number of players.

I'm not sure I understand Saturnus's point about more turns for the RPG elements. I would have thought a faster turnover of kings and generals will allow for more variety of characters and thus more RPG elements. I find the quality of kings and generals seems to matter more in 1 turn per year MTW than 2 turn RTW and least in 4 turn STW (where you were only the shogun and maybe one heir).

EDIT: One other point - one turn per year means you get your new toys (better units due to improved technology) faster. That's a key hook for long campaign games for me - eagerly waiting for the Marian reforms in RTW or for cavalry in STW or knights in MTW. I like the building and upgrading; just conquering more territory with the same kind of army gets old.

[Ludens]

I rather liked Shogun with its four turn per years, but I agree it would make to long. Anyway, a poll on this subject would be interesting.

[caio giulio]

Well.... i'd like to see 4 turn per years because i like seasons like in STW. But I think the game will become too long....

[Templar Knight]

1 turn per year has no strategic or tactical stuff - ie, campaigns in the winter or spring...

[econ21]

Anyway, a poll on this subject would be interesting.

Ludens, you are full of good ideas! Done. (Hope Legio does not mind the addition.)

[King Henry V]

I would suggest a compromise (yes, another one). Like the original MTW, it should be split up into three different starting dates (say 1080, 1228 and 1378). There should be four different campaigns: 1080-1228, 1228-1378 and 1378-1530 and one grand campaign from 1080 to 1530. The three shorter campagins should all be 4 turns per year with limited movement in winter. The grand campaign should only be one turn per year.

[Husar]

I´d like to play a long campaign with 2 turns per year though, I want at least summer and winter time.

[NightStar]

I hope for 2 turns a year for the summer/winter feeling. IMHO 1 year a turn is not enough.....

[Monarch]

I voted for one. There weas not much differrence, thats noticable to me, between summer and winter in RTW, except for snow on the map and the fact it takes two turns to make the year counter move on. Honestly, I think there were only two turns in RTW to compensate for it covering half the amount of years MTW did.

They didn't really do much with winter/summer in RTW, so I think all this talk of hunting bonuses is a nice one, but not realistic. It would be nice though.

I voted for one, I agree with SimonA about the interesting quicker turnover of kings and such.

[Moorkh]

While I can see the problem with games lasting 2000 turns, I believe that seasons were more meaningful and interesting turn lengths than years or half-years. Moreover, a ruler should have more than a couple dozen turns to put his mark on history.
I suggest an option at the beginning of the campaign, much like civ4, where you can choose between several game lengths.

[Claudius the God]

I think 4 turns a year for 500 years is much too much, I like the summer/winter turn system

[Powermonger]

I voted 1 turn per year, that is plenty and I never ran out of time playing campaigns in MTW.

[Craterus]

I´d like to play a long campaign with 2 turns per year though, I want at least summer and winter time.

I agree with Husar.

[Cowhead418]

Definately one turn per year. I don't get much time to play MTW and the campaigns are already long enough. Two turns would make it waaaaaay too long for me. The campaign lasting 500 years is long enough. One turn per year is the best.

[Samurai Waki]

Maybe the player should get the option of choosing between A Short Campaign (1 Turn Per Year), An Medium Campaign (2 Turns Per Year), and a Grand Campaign (4 Turns Per Year), that way it will appeal to the people that want a really quick game, or the people that want a reeeeaaaalllllyyy long game.

[Shottie]

I like 2 turns because they made it 4 turns in STW because you were just conquering Japan. Japan is really really small compared to EUROPE. Why not make take the best of two worlds and make it your choice? You can choose either 2 turns or 4. :2thumbsup:

[sapi]

I like 2 turns because they made it 4 turns in STW because you were just conquering Japan. Japan is really really small compared to EUROPE. Why not make take the best of two worlds and make it your choice? You can choose either 2 turns or 4. :2thumbsup:
That's a possibility, but i'd go for 4 as a default over 2, just because i can :idea2:

[Weebeast]

I would suggest a compromise (yes, another one). Like the original MTW, it should be split up into three different starting dates (say 1080, 1228 and 1378). There should be four different campaigns: 1080-1228, 1228-1378 and 1378-1530 and one grand campaign from 1080 to 1530. The three shorter campagins should all be 4 turns per year with limited movement in winter. The grand campaign should only be one turn per year.
That sounds very good. All different people get to play the way the like it.

[sapi]

That sounds very good. All different people get to play the way the like it.
2 turns/year grand campaign?

But i'm sure that i read that there is only going to be one campaign in mtw2...

[Antiochius]

I prefer four turns per year.
Soe perople say that it would be so long, because the game ist about 500 years, but i think that if there were three different campaigns, the campins wouldn`t probably 500 years long, only til the next campagin.
First campaign: 1080 ->1270
second campagin 1270 ->...

[Monarch]

Maybe the player should get the option of choosing between A Short Campaign (1 Turn Per Year), An Medium Campaign (2 Turns Per Year), and a Grand Campaign (4 Turns Per Year), that way it will appeal to the people that want a really quick game, or the people that want a reeeeaaaalllllyyy long game.

A nice suggestion, but it appears to me that the driving force between people wanting multiple TPY is the things like hunting bonuses, troops movements etc etc. It would be very hard to make a game with all that, then provide a game without any of that stuff for a shorter game.

[Dooz]

I would suggest a compromise (yes, another one). Like the original MTW, it should be split up into three different starting dates (say 1080, 1228 and 1378). There should be four different campaigns: 1080-1228, 1228-1378 and 1378-1530 and one grand campaign from 1080 to 1530. The three shorter campagins should all be 4 turns per year with limited movement in winter. The grand campaign should only be one turn per year.

Exactly.

The actual game probably isn't going to be like that, but if there is any way to mod it to manually divide up the campaigns, perhaps the community can make this happen in the future.

[x-dANGEr]

A nice suggestion, but it appears to me that the driving force between people wanting multiple TPY is the things like hunting bonuses, troops movements etc etc. It would be very hard to make a game with all that, then provide a game without any of that stuff for a shorter game.
Agreed. I think the winter/summer difference would take too much effort for too little resuly. 1 year a turn is fine for me.

[hellenes]

Exactly.

The actual game probably isn't going to be like that, but if there is any way to mod it to manually divide up the campaigns, perhaps the community can make this happen in the future.

I cant see a single campaign running from 1080 to 1530, I think people whouldnt base their expectation on RTW too much its almost certain that there will be periods, 4 of them actually now that the time is extended to 1530.
For myself I hope that they make it moddable so people that want 4 tpy and the rainy Autumn and Spring with the harvests influencing income have what they want.

Hellenes

[Dooz]

I cant see a single campaign running from 1080 to 1530, I think people whouldnt base their expectation on RTW too much its almost certain that there will be periods, 4 of them actually now that the time is extended to 1530.
For myself I hope that they make it moddable so people that want 4 tpy and the rainy Autumn and Spring with the harvests influencing income have what they want.

Hellenes

I wouldn't have even assumed it would be one campaign, but the statements are based on an interview where the CA guy said there will be one campaign. I'm pretty sure this is the case, at least that's what was stated. I do hope it's not the case.

[Orda Khan]

I voted 4. The 1 in MTW and 2 in RTW have not impressed. Each season would add so much IMO....and I would prefer to see a longer, more immersive campaign too

......Orda

[SirGrotius]

I would like 1.5 turns per year, i.e., 1 Spring/Summer turn, and then one Autumn/Winter turn, where campaign map movement for armies would be severely limited. I think it's a little corny that armies are able to move so much during the Winter as in RTW. But I do like to see the snow, so maybe an abbreviated Winter turn is in order.

To simulate exceptional circumstances, perhaps a trait can be added for certain leaders which would allow increased winter movement and troop performance.

So army movement limited to about one turn per year, but agent movement two per year. If this is too confusing, then one turn per year is best.

[Antiochius]

I prefer 4 turns per year because if you want to go with your army from, i.e. spain ti the HRE you General becomes 2 years older. but with 4 turns, only the halt of it. I don`twant that my general needs the most of his time for goingthrogh the provinces

[Geoffrey S]

I rather liked the EB system. There were more turns per year, armies moved at a more realistic pace, but crucially it was quite possible due to the large number of turns to finish a turn very quickly since the 'end turn' button was hit more frequently; or at least, I did this. To achieve this, there should be fewer battles but when they do occur more crucial, with larger armies rather than the incessant skirmishing of large portions of the original RTW campaign.

[Dooz]

I rather liked the EB system. There were more turns per year, armies moved at a more realistic pace, but crucially it was quite possible due to the large number of turns to finish a turn very quickly since the 'end turn' button was hit more frequently; or at least, I did this. To achieve this, there should be fewer battles but when they do occur more crucial, with larger armies rather than the incessant skirmishing of large portions of the original RTW campaign.

Well... yeah... if we lived in Perfectland...

[Cesare diBorja]

I currently play a game that is twelve turns per year. It's great. I actually get to know and have some(duh) affection towards my family members. When one dies I am actually kinda sad(meef). In twenty-two years, I have had almost 175 battles. As the Dacians, I have conquered most of the Slavic lands I hace Germania, the Romans, the Greeks, and the Sarmations/Scythians as enemies and my other allies have abandoned me. I hold the line with veteran units as my income is way down. It's like, yeah man, survive or die. Most generals have been with me from the beginning but they are getting up there and new blood is arriving. I have two really remarkable young generals and they whip on everyone. My game rocks socks and if you feel my game is too long(270B.C.E. to 366C.E.) you know what to do.

Don't knock it 'til you try it.

A game without season's is dumb.

diBorgia

[Gen_Lee]

I dont have any pbls in playing with Mtw 1ty.
But being playing Rtr with 4ty and I must say it makes a lot more sence that way.
At least I dont feel the need for rush as I did with Mtw or Ntw.

[Orda Khan]

I currently play a game that is twelve turns per year. It's great. I actually get to know and have some(duh) affection towards my family members. When one dies I am actually kinda sad(meef). In twenty-two years, I have had almost 175 battles. As the Dacians, I have conquered most of the Slavic lands I hace Germania, the Romans, the Greeks, and the Sarmations/Scythians as enemies and my other allies have abandoned me. I hold the line with veteran units as my income is way down. It's like, yeah man, survive or die. Most generals have been with me from the beginning but they are getting up there and new blood is arriving. I have two really remarkable young generals and they whip on everyone. My game rocks socks and if you feel my game is too long(270B.C.E. to 366C.E.) you know what to do.

Don't knock it 'til you try it.

A game without season's is dumb.

diBorgia
I would have no problem with this at all. The seasonal turns of STW have been the best IMO so far. One turn each year sees the game fly along at too great a speed to form any 'relationship' or become really immersive. RTW and two turns each year was a little better but still the years can fly and every decision feels like cramming. By ending each month as you suggest it becomes very realistic and I am all for realism. I doubt this will be the case, most gamers are impatient, but at least with four seasonal turns you get greater control and of course, your best generals and family members do not come and go in the blink of an eye

.......Orda

[ivoignob]

Seasonal effects on army movement (slowing down, desease etc) could be implemented in a two seasons turn game too. I think that therefore a four seasons turn game isn't needed for that. Though I never played STW with the four seasons I voted for two seasons. I think thats the optimal solution. If there was a much shorter timespan than they may put 12 turns per year, thats fine with me but please not, when a campaign lasts 500 years :-)

[mfberg]

4/year, there were reasons such as harvest, road conditions, weather, that there was a campaigning season.

In a perfect world I would like 1 turn per year, AI based movement with paths. You would put in the moves of all your troops, and the AI would move your troops and everyone elses at the seasonal rate. You would have interruptions during the move when two armies got close enough; to call for reinfocements (and run or fortify), or to start a chase, or start a battle.

mfberg

[Zatoichi]

I voted for 1 turn per year a la MTW - but only because it seems from the interviews/info I've read they're sticking with one grand campaign starting in 1080 and ending in 1530. I'd rather have 4 seperate campaigns split into Early, Late, High and Reneissance and have 2 turns per year, incorporating winter travel penalties and the coldness/snow affecting all but those troops who are used to such conditions (in the same way they treat heat for troops raised in arid climates). But it seems that won't happen - so with any luck they'll implement some kind of random weather generator like in MTW to give us some different effects on the battlefield.

450 turns is a fair old number to contend with. I just hope they can pace things right - no discovering gunpowder in 1105 just because you've built the highest level of barracks or somesuch thing.

[Sjakihata]

We need to go back to our roots, mahn. 4 turns à year. It's silly that it takes a year to go from London to east england and other sillyness. This should of course be reflected in building time and so on, so it is going to be a longer and more strategic game.

[LorDBulA]

1 turn per year? You must be kidding right?
I for once would like to make crusade playing as for example England.
With 1 turn per year this would mean one of two things:
1) My king would spend half of his life traveling to holy land and no hope for him to ever coming back to England with glory.
2)Armies will be speeding from Spain to Poland in one turn bypasing 10 armies on its way.

4 turn per year is very good compromise betwean unit movment rate and game lenght. I hope that MTW2 will be divided by periods.
If it plays like RTW then you will be done afther 200-300 years anyway eaven with 1 turn per year.

And this simple consequence of 1 turn per year its just a tip of iceberg of problems that 1 turn per year presents.

Others simple consequences: Siges that last up to 2 turns. 3 at most (its streeching). Who wants to assoult cities?
Total lost of Roleplaye layer of game. You want eaven be able to know you characters before they are dead.

Moderator comment: edited out bad language.

[A.Saturnus]

I'm not sure I understand Saturnus's point about more turns for the RPG elements. I would have thought a faster turnover of kings and generals will allow for more variety of characters and thus more RPG elements. I find the quality of kings and generals seems to matter more in 1 turn per year MTW than 2 turn RTW and least in 4 turn STW (where you were only the shogun and maybe one heir).



Characters need time to develope. What I meant with RPG elements is the fact that characters change due to game events. Ancilliaries and V&Vs introduce an element of character developement. If a character appears for about 40 turns, it's not easy to get V&V's that are actually meaningful (reflecting actual game events). This RPG element was hardly present in MTW 1 and somewhat more emphasist in RTW. With the ability to start night battles linked to character trait, BI increased it a little more. I expect that MTW 2 will increase it further (especially since they will (re)introduce new character variables as chivalry and dread). If the lifetime of personage is too short (in playtime) this feature would be wasted.

[gunslinger]

4 turns a year wouldn't necessarily make the game 4 times longer. If it sitll takes 4 years to build a port, for example, and one year to train some knights, then you aren't going to be spending any more time managing your provinces than you did before. What you get is added flexibilitiy and strategy with unit movements, which is what I think everyone who wants 4 turns is looking for. You could even have one turn per year where you can make economic and business decisions and 4 turns where all you're allowed to do is move units.

None of this matters though, because surely the game is already completed, an they are just working out the bugs at this point.

[TB666]

I found the 2 turns per year in RTW ok and I think it would be alright in MTW2 as well.
4 years wouldn't hurt if the AI can provide a challenge.

[Zain]

I think 4 years per turn is more realistic because the weather can hurt or help the movement of units. It will also make the game longer.

-ZainDustin

[Cesare diBorja]

Yeah, at twelve turns per year, you might have a good year or two of mad progression and take 4 or 5 territories and make bank, then for five years you might contend with a larger foe who has more allies than you and has them also attack you, disrupting your trade, causing your allies to abandon you. Your fleet get destroyrd in two major battles and you lose three generals, two of which were real superstars and won a dozen victories each. Now you aren't making so much money and the rebels are depleting your armies, say this lasts ten years(120 turns). Imagine the pressure you feel when you need something to happen. A miracle and then it happens. Your big foe meets another big foe and his alliance defaults and he is the persecuted for a while allowing you to find allies, strengthen your position, build trade, build forts and refine your defense force. Then, with subterfuge after a twenty year period the big foe comes back and he has spies and assasins and diplomats which cause havoc to the stability of your cause(whether it be to conquer or maintain the state) and you have to contend with this problem as the rebels come back and civil war breaks out. Then he invades with armies with great experience(some silver and few gold) and then you must call out your veteran generals now in their fifties to hold the line. You also have some younger generals who need experience and from their traits are just spoiling for a fight or want to cower behind the walls. That's a real story, gentlemen, and you can't get that kind of detail from a 1,2,3, or a 4 turn game. I am fifty years into my game and it's the greatest game I have ever played in life. Sometimes you win sometimes you lose but you don't get to play it all in a weekend. this game has been going since Xmas. I could go on and on about battles that would seem epic. Four faction battles, Diplomacy gets better albeit in the same guise by the level of complexity the game is allowed to develop. If you manage to get rich your allies will ask for aid, you may give them money. They are more willing to give in to letting you march across their territories. The game fleshes out and I cannot explain it anymore than to say you'll have to try it out for yourself. BAAAM!

diBorgia

[King Yngvar]

Hopefully it'll be 4,
Yes, please!


What would be even cooler would be if there'd be desertion and disease for armies on the march, with those factors increased dramatically in the winter turn. Has there been any information on the number of turns per year yet?

Hopefully not... Have you ever tried playing Europa Universalis? How annoying that atrittion is!

[Rodion Romanovich]

Hopefully not... Have you ever tried playing Europa Universalis? How annoying that atrittion is!

Nope, but I've been looking for a demo like crazy. Well, not like crazy, then I'd probably have found it. As I learnt recently, google is the place to find it... Anyway I know it's annoying and all that, but that's the very point of it! It would add more depth to the game. Plus they could make it so that the desertion etc. work like this:
- in province you own - o%
- in province you don't own, not winter - 3% (or 5% on higher difficulties)
- in province you don't own, winter - 10% (or 15% on higher difficulties)

I'd like it a lot! Then you'd never launch a new offensive in the autumn unless you have a strong superiority in numbers and troop quality and would try to besiege only cities/castles you could assault early unless you have open supply routes for reinforcing your troops. Would also make the keeping open supply routes more important and make for more realistic strategy.

Now I'm off to see if I can find a demo of Europa Universalis. I've been curious for a long period about that game.

[City walls]

Im more of a hardcore TW player. If it was possible i would rather have a dynamic weather/season/day night cycle/realtimeworking clock system

and every battlefiled would be different depending on season,weather

Rather then next turn,next turn,next turn etc until its 300bc or so

[Cesare diBorja]

Right on(recht gut)!, City Walls!

diBorgia

[King Yngvar]

- in province you own - o%
- in province you don't own, not winter - 3% (or 5% on higher difficulties)
- in province you don't own, winter - 10% (or 15% on higher difficulties)


If there were ever to be included atrittion in TW, I would prefer they do it more like Knights of Honor than Europa Universalis. Where each your armies have a stack of food they need to resupply in cities, if they run out of food they start starving, but not before.


And back to the turns... If there is supposed to be 4 turns a year, they should perhaps add much more provinces, so it will be harder to conquer the whole map within a few years, the more provinces, the more to defend...

[Taurus]

It seems as though I agree with the majority here in hoping it will return to it's roots with 4 turns per year.

Or what would be even better would to have an option when starting a campaign to choose how many turns per year you would like, 1, 2, 3, or 4. ~:)

[Antiochius]

If there were ever to be included atrittion in TW, I would prefer they do it more like Knights of Honor than Europa Universalis. Where each your armies have a stack of food they need to resupply in cities, if they run out of food they start starving, but not before.


And back to the turns... If there is supposed to be 4 turns a year, they should perhaps add much more provinces, so it will be harder to conquer the whole map within a few years, the more provinces, the more to defend...
Yeah, that`s right, but i think Ca won`t make so much provinces. Perhabs the modder community will help here

[TosaInu]

4 turns a year and preferably even 12. More turns give more depth. 1 turn a year is something I don't like at all, may sound silly, but it's the main reason I never completed any campaign in MTW or VI.

RTW added a new layer to this game that had originally two layers: real time battles and season turnbased strategy. It's the movement point thingy. Very interesting as this allows for manoeuvring with armies in the province to fight battles. This creates the illusion (I'm guillable) of week/month turns.

I read in a review that M2TW would be one campaign spanning some 500 years. I fear the worst for even 2 turns a year. I hope the player will at least be given the option to say how he wants to play his campaign: the whole 500 years in one go or cut it in three parts? Continue part 2 where part 1 stopped or start fresh? One turn a year, two or four turns a year (dare I say twelve)?

It shouldn't be a problem for recruiting and constrution times: just use values in months and have the program 'ceil' those to the tpy used.
Examples recruiting

2^=Peasant|stat|4tpy|2tpy|1tpy
4^=months|2|3|6|12
4^=turns|-|1|1|1
2^=Urban Militia|stat|4tpy|2tpy|1tpy
4^=months|5|6|6|12
4^=turns|-|2|1|1
2^=Knight|stat|4tpy|2tpy|1tpy
4^=months|30|30|30|36
4^=turns|-|10|5|3

[Orda Khan]

Yeah, at twelve turns per year, you might have a good year or two of mad progression and take 4 or 5 territories and make bank, then for five years you might contend with a larger foe who has more allies than you and has them also attack you, disrupting your trade, causing your allies to abandon you. Your fleet get destroyrd in two major battles and you lose three generals, two of which were real superstars and won a dozen victories each. Now you aren't making so much money and the rebels are depleting your armies, say this lasts ten years(120 turns). Imagine the pressure you feel when you need something to happen. A miracle and then it happens. Your big foe meets another big foe and his alliance defaults and he is the persecuted for a while allowing you to find allies, strengthen your position, build trade, build forts and refine your defense force. Then, with subterfuge after a twenty year period the big foe comes back and he has spies and assasins and diplomats which cause havoc to the stability of your cause(whether it be to conquer or maintain the state) and you have to contend with this problem as the rebels come back and civil war breaks out. Then he invades with armies with great experience(some silver and few gold) and then you must call out your veteran generals now in their fifties to hold the line. You also have some younger generals who need experience and from their traits are just spoiling for a fight or want to cower behind the walls. That's a real story, gentlemen, and you can't get that kind of detail from a 1,2,3, or a 4 turn game. I am fifty years into my game and it's the greatest game I have ever played in life. Sometimes you win sometimes you lose but you don't get to play it all in a weekend. this game has been going since Xmas. I could go on and on about battles that would seem epic. Four faction battles, Diplomacy gets better albeit in the same guise by the level of complexity the game is allowed to develop. If you manage to get rich your allies will ask for aid, you may give them money. They are more willing to give in to letting you march across their territories. The game fleshes out and I cannot explain it anymore than to say you'll have to try it out for yourself. BAAAM!

diBorgia

Now THIS sounds like a truly immersive game. 4 seasonal turns were good but this is even better and I agree with the point about finishing a campaign over the weekend. Add better diplomacy, realistic allegiances (allies that will assist in real time battles etc) The more realistic the better IMO

.......Orda

[Akka]

Four turns per year is far too much.
I like two turns per year, allows for seasonal changes, but I admit that it could be really annoying on a 500 years era.
One turn seems the most likely, just because of the span of time, but I do prefer the two-turns principle.

[Voigtkampf]

I could go for two turns a year tops, but would still prefer to have only one turn per year, as in Medieval.

Some respective members seem to forget the time span of Shogun and Medieval. While latter is being far longer, it is also one that spans over a bigger map with far more armies, provinces and opportunities and dangers. Just remind yourself, while the turns go fast in the beginning of the game, later on you may as well play for several hours to make one turn.

[Hobgoblin]

Hello all, I would really like to see 4tpy because of the winter factor, I havent played rome, only vanilla MTW & shogun and i really miss those winter fights. also I hope when you take over a province it isnt so destructive to the buildings in it, 1 or 2 being destroyed is fine but 7 or 8 is too much.

with all due respect to the 1 and 2 turn folks , whats your hurry ? if you beat the game in 100 turns thats great and all, but Myself I like to take my time and build up really spiffy units, in a Mtw Byzantine campaign I got into a very defensible position even though I could probably could have won after about 1250 A.D. I used the cheat (blasphemy I know) to see all the rest of the map. and I just sat there for about 100+ turns watching the other factions dukeing it out. Except when I had wars declared on me.(crusades were bouncing of me like hail on a roof.) AND I Loved it ! I'd still be playing it but someone told me the game ends in 1430 or something

MtW has eras maybe you could just pick your starting year, so the folks who like working under the time crunch could make it as tough as they want, but the players who like to savor the flavor could take year 1

Btw if I could give allies money troops mercs or even turn over provinces to them for free or in exchange for money troops mercs ect. that would rock.
I own a electronic monopoly game where you can wheel and deal and I love it.

[Divinus Arma]

4 Turns a year with:

Seasonal campaigning restrictions depending on climate.

Very slow development.

Very expensive units and a very slow economic build system.


But I think they already said 1 turn a year, didn't they?

[Ironside]

BS: The grand campaign will span four and a half centuries of history, from the year 1080 to 1530. These years are significant because it was a particularly turbulent period and because of the milestones that took place. It begins with the golden age of chivalry and the crusades, spans the Mongol invasion and the invention of gunpowder, and finally ends with gun-toting professional armies, the renaissance, and the discovery of America.

The campaign will feature summer and winter turns as in Rome, but we're trying to get away from the idea that a turn represents a specific amount of time, since it's impossible to reconcile the scale you need for army maneuvers with the scale you need to cover a decent slice of history. The history of the period will unfold in around 225 turns.

Well the most complete answer yet.

Although is the 225 turns for a minor period or for the hole campaign? :juggle2:

[econ21]

I should have put in an option in the poll for one turn per two years. My reading of the article is that there are 225 turns for the whole period - around one turn per two years.

Personally, I'm happy with that. I never played a MTW campaign from beginning of the early period to the end of the late period - it's just too long - but I think it would be more fun than being always stuck in the early/high periods as I ended up being.

[TosaInu]

1 turn for 2 years? gasp.

That will work (for me) when the moving points intermediary layer is largely expanded.
-Economy - 2 years turn.
-Diplomacy and army manoeuvring across the whole of Europe within 1 turn.
-Real time battles.

[JR-]

what can i say, 1800 turns split into seasons would be a dream come true for me.

4 gets my vote.

[Quietus]

I don't know can they pull a '1 turn per 2 years' campaign :inquisitive: . The movement range is going to be huge for two years, allowing the players multiple battles, multiple units to train and even multiple sieges.

Pro:
- The Campaign will be a less predictable.
- With a good AI, enemies can string up a decent campaign (strike multiple times least a player can do about it nor know where to expect it).
- Large Buildings can finally be built in ~10 year durations.

Con:
- The AI can only make moves within the turn. This gives the player more advantages. :dizzy2:
- With a weak AI, the Campaign can turn chaotic, with AI armies running all over the place.
- Supposed for 100 provinces (not that it was announced), you can take 1 or 2 provinces per turn. That's a bare minimum of 50 to 100 turns. :no:

The game should have been divided in eras with 4 turns per year. :sweatdrop:

[Dead Moroz]

So who is the winner in this poll?

[Divinus Arma]

1 turn for 2 years? gasp.

That will work (for me) when the moving points intermediary layer is largely expanded.
-Economy - 2 years turn.
-Diplomacy and army manoeuvring across the whole of Europe within 1 turn.
-Real time battles.

I don't see how moving a diplomatic piece across the entire map helps gameplay. In fact, it makes diplomatic pieces irrelevent. Why send a piece halfway across the map in one turn when you can have a static diplomatic simulation?

So, the major problem with 1 turn per 2 years, or even 1 turn per year, is one of movement. With the new engine's dynamic interaction, movement and turn time are closely linked.

[Divinus Arma]

So who is the winner in this poll?

Vote and it will show you. Right now 4 turns per year has a significant lead.

[TosaInu]

I don't see how moving a diplomatic piece across the entire map helps gameplay. In fact, it makes diplomatic pieces irrelevent. Why send a piece halfway across the map in one turn when you can have a static diplomatic simulation?

The same is not true for armies. It could take me 4 years, or more, to move a reinforcement army from the south of my regions to the north army and launch and attack there.

Diplomats in France may go to Russia to forge an alliance, that's a long walk, but nowhere near 2 years. With a movement point system, they'll have to deal with the dangers (?) along the road.


So, the major problem with 1 turn per 2 years, or even 1 turn per year, is one of movement. With the new engine's dynamic interaction, movement and turn time are closely linked.

Oh, I agree. I don't like 1 tpy and wouldn't like 1tp2y either. But something nifty may be done with splitting things more. Will make things complicated and I rather see a 4tpy with movement point and real time battles. The huge era should be split in 3-4 parts.

Other people prefer other things, and that's their right: they have to play it. Ideally the game should have mechanisms to make the player decide how to play, without the need to do 'difficult' modding things.

[A.Saturnus]

BS: The grand campaign will span four and a half centuries of history, from the year 1080 to 1530. These years are significant because it was a particularly turbulent period and because of the milestones that took place. It begins with the golden age of chivalry and the crusades, spans the Mongol invasion and the invention of gunpowder, and finally ends with gun-toting professional armies, the renaissance, and the discovery of America.

The campaign will feature summer and winter turns as in Rome, but we're trying to get away from the idea that a turn represents a specific amount of time, since it's impossible to reconcile the scale you need for army maneuvers with the scale you need to cover a decent slice of history. The history of the period will unfold in around 225 turns.


That means that building up traits and ancilliaries will become irrelevant. You either have them or you don't.

[Martok]

As I put it over in the .com forums, I suspect Bob Smith might have gotten his math turned around when he said 225 turns. Since he specifically said winter and summer turns, I suspect it will be more like 900 total. I can't imagine it would be the other way around, as 1 turn being equal to 2 years is quite frankly pretty absurd (at least for a Total War game).

[cannon_fodder]

I don't know can they pull a '1 turn per 2 years' campaign :inquisitive: . The movement range is going to be huge for two years, allowing the players multiple battles, multiple units to train and even multiple sieges.
I doubt the movement speed will change much from Rome's. The movement speed in TW games has always been screwed up- in Shogun it took 3 months for an army to march about 50km. Though the movement speeds varied throughout the series, they were always unrealistically low.

Anyway, as was said in that interview, CA are trying to move away from the idea of a turn representing a certain amount of time. It was said that it'll take a few turns to cross the Atlantic- probably around 6 years then, if you take the time per turn to be actual.

Anyway, I'd like 1 tpy with 2 alternating seasons. A 225 turn campaign sounds a bit short, and a 900 turn campaign sounds a bit long.

[Quietus]

I doubt the movement speed will change much from Rome's. The movement speed in TW games has always been screwed up- in Shogun it took 3 months for an army to march about 50km. Though the movement speeds varied throughout the series, they were always unrealistically low. I see what you mean. In MTW, any unit can go to any beach so long as there is a clean sea link. In STW, all it requires is a port.

I'm just wondering what's maximum movement one can do per turn.


Anyway, as was said in that interview, CA are trying to move away from the idea of a turn representing a certain amount of time. It was said that it'll take a few turns to cross the Atlantic- probably around 6 years then, if you take the time per turn to be actual. Quite a weird concept then of a 'my turn, your turn' chess game. Unless, the campaign map has a real-time element in it, I can't see how they can make a turn not a constant.:inquisitive:

Perhaps the turn time will be proportional to how much 'Activity points' is used (for a lack of a term). IE. if a player only moved for a short distance, then that distance will have an equivalent 'campaign time' and will be charged against the total campaign duration.

That's the only logical implemention of the calibrated 'turns' that I can see. :)

[Gustav II Adolf]

I think this will make the hole game evolve more quicker. Units will soon be out of date. The transition from mostly melee to some gunpowder will be a standard game experience. Compared to MTW you will get through the whole game. I would have liked to have more turns and an early and a late period were you could choose the latter for more gunpowder experience right away. This would please melee lovers and gunpowder lovers.:idea2:

[A.Saturnus]

Well, I for one did get through the whole game in MTW.
Gunpowder played only a role during the last 100 years of the covered period, that would only be 50 turns with 0.5tpy. Also, consider that the whole conquering of America would have to happen in about 20 turns.

[screwtype]

I don't care how many turns per year the vanilla game has, but what I would like them to do is include the option for four turns per year, with differing graphic, weather and combat effects for each season, so that those effects can utilized in mods.

[Divinus Arma]

Unless, the campaign map has a real-time element in it, I can't see how they can make a turn not a constant.

Actually, this is a very good idea. The question would be on how to implement it. And I think I have just the thing:

(1) The campaign map as it is now need not change in appearance whatsoever. The dynamic interaction and fluidity of the board is a necessity to implement the following:

(2) Eliminate turns entirely. Make the campaign map real-time, with a sliding scale of speed. In this way, army and diplomat movement can be realistically linked to time AND the player retains control over how fast he or she wants events to unfold. Months, seasons, and years all pass at a speed designated by the player. So, the time it takes to train a unit or build a structure all remain. In fact, very little of the constant campaing map need change. Only the campaing engine msut change, but it is entirely doable!


So, consider this example from an RTW perspective: You start the game as the Julii. You move the time control all the way to very very slow, a speed at which a year takes maybe twenty minutes or so. With the campaign speed this slow, you see minor changes in the movement of your allies and enemies. You set which units you want to train and which structures to build. You also decide to set your army North for a nearby barbarian settlement. Finished with decision making, you set the speed to slightly faster then before- a speed where you can watch all map pieces move and still have time to react. On your way north, you see a barbarian army moving to intercept you. Deciding that you cannot fight both the settlement garrison and the field army, you direct your army south.

Do you see? How can this not be possible?!?!? CA where are you now?!?!?! STEAL MY IDEA PLEASE!!!!!!

[econ21]

I don't really want an EU real-time type campaign map, but making turns "fuzzy" as regards years makes some sense. In real life, many years would be relatively inactive for a faction but then specific campaigns would see armies covering large distances in short periods of time. Breaking a tight link between turns and years might help represent this.

At one stage I thought TW should have an intermediate level between the strategic and the battle - call it an operational level. At the grand strategic level, you would invest, recruit, build etc. But when war is declared, you zoom into an operational map and maneouvre armies. When they meet you zoom to the battle map.

[cannon_fodder]

(2) Eliminate turns entirely. Make the campaign map real-time, with a sliding scale of speed.
Just wondering, have you played Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds? It was very similar to the Total War games, and must've been an inspiration for CA with STW. Anyway, it was split into campaign and battle maps. Unlike the TW games however, the campaign map was set in real-time with a sliding scale of speed as you describe.

One large problem with a real-time campaign map is that there needs to be ways that the player can easily see what's happening, at all times, and at all corners of their empire. Certainly not an easy task, but it's possible.

[Divinus Arma]

One large problem with a real-time campaign map is that there needs to be ways that the player can easily see what's happening, at all times, and at all corners of their empire. Certainly not an easy task, but it's possible.

I think this can be solved by slowing things down to a degree where everything is manageable. Of course, their would be a learngin curve here, but this could be done without difficulty. Even the "building complete" alerts would work inmuch the same way to your benefit...

[screwtype]

I'm absolutely against a "real time" map. There are too many games like that out there already, and I don't like any of them.

There's a crap old game called Theocracy which has a kind of interesting system. You can give all sorts of orders to your units with time stopped and then you can drag a time slider out to your desired level to let time run until the next significant event occurs, in which case time stops again and you are informed of the event.

A system somewhat along those lines might work...

[A.Saturnus]

There's a crap old game called Theocracy which has a kind of interesting system. You can give all sorts of orders to your units with time stopped and then you can drag a time slider out to your desired level to let time run until the next significant event occurs, in which case time stops again and you are informed of the event.


That's pretty much how a real time scenario would work. But I consider it hopeless. The idea was brought up several times after Medieval and maybe even before. The fact that they haven't implemented it yet means for me they won't.

[dagiz]

wouldn't mind either 1,2 or 4tpy. As long as certain things are taken care of, like everyone else here, the AI.

I actually enjoyed starting in early in MTW and going through to the end. and with RTW right now, it took a little while to get used to the 2tpy (I rushed a lot for the first few years, forgetting that it was 2tpy) but once I did, I've had a really nice game going.

4tpy would be great as far as extending the game paly - however, I can see how it could be too long. There would have to be a lot more going on on the campaign map as I think battles would be far and few between in terms of time between turns. unless of course you attack everything in sight...

[Dragon20]

If it is 2 years per turn, I will have serious doubts if wether I am going to buy it.
I don't think I could stand it that my king lives for just 10 turns and then dies:dizzy2:
And developing your generals is not doable anymore too then.

[TosaInu]

If it is 2 years per turn, I will have serious doubts if wether I am going to buy it.
I don't think I could stand it that my king lives for just 10 turns and then dies:dizzy2:
And developing your generals is not doable anymore too then.

That's something that hurts me too (even 1tpy is too little for me).

However, RTW introduced a 3rd time layer (STW and MTW had only two: real time battles and another for everything else). This 3rd layer is really neat and M2TW may do more with it. How I don't know, but it's quite possible that I won't miss the 4tpy for emotional/gameplay/realism reasons. (I'm using Myrddraals turn per year script now to play 12 tpy Julii on hard :2thumbsup:).

Regardless of how splendid this 3rd layer may become (or whatever else it will be), I hope for user and mod flexibility. 0.5 tpy and even 4 tpy will be a pain for Holland:Total War mod, the interesting 2004-2004.2 era where Duke Tosa marched from Zeeland to Groningen.

[mfberg]

Medieval had the periods as well as the years, so you could start in the Early, High, or Late. RTW has the Marius event to divide the game, but it is only in game, not two seperate periods. If the new Medieval has periods it would make games started in the later periods shorter than full games.

Of course I have only played one game to the end of years in MTW, all my other games I got bored and bum-rushed to victory.

mfberg

[Trithemius]

I'd like four seasons per year, with some incentives (or disincentives) to campaign based on the particular season.

I think that this approach simply has more benefits than the others offered, and is certainly superior to the two years a turn that some people seem to think we'll be getting.

[Martok]

I cannot of course verify if the poster is actually someone from CA, but the following was posted in one of the threads over at the .com:


Hey guys, thought I'd clarify Bob's comments for you.

Medieval 2 no longer tracks years, it tracks turns. The turns alternate between winter and summer, so we are definitely keeping the seasons in there.

From a practical point of view it means that we've abstracted the passage of time so it's no longer linear - although the amount that gets done each turn stays constant, the amount of time that passes does not.

As far as actual gameplay goes it's merely a cosmetic change so rather than seeing the year displayed in the UI you see a turn number.

Prasant Moorthy
Associate Producer
The Creative Assembly Australia


If this is in fact true, then the implications are worrisome, to say the least....

[Zenicetus]

I cannot of course verify if the poster is actually someone from CA, but the following was posted in one of the threads over at the .com:


"As far as actual gameplay goes it's merely a cosmetic change so rather than seeing the year displayed in the UI you see a turn number.

Prasant Moorthy
Associate Producer
The Creative Assembly Australia"

If this is in fact true, then the implications are worrisome, to say the least....

No year display at all? That's nuts. It doesn't let you put anything that's happening in a game into a historical context. I don't want to have to drag out a calculator or a chart and figure out that Turn #43 is more-or-less-kinda-like 1166. I want to know if the date is 1166.

Maybe I'm misreading what he's saying.

[Quietus]

Hey guys, thought I'd clarify Bob's comments for you.

Medieval 2 no longer tracks years, it tracks turns. The turns alternate between winter and summer, so we are definitely keeping the seasons in there.

From a practical point of view it means that we've abstracted the passage of time so it's no longer linear - although the amount that gets done each turn stays constant, the amount of time that passes does not.

As far as actual gameplay goes it's merely a cosmetic change so rather than seeing the year displayed in the UI you see a turn number.

Prasant Moorthy
Associate Producer
The Creative Assembly Australia

Cosmetic? Unless it is for balancing purpose not for further simplification of the game.

How does one know people's ages? How will one know the events? :no: :inquisitive:

[Furious Mental]

I don't know about the rest of you but if I start in 1080 I do not want to take ~ 1200 effing turns to get to the late Middle Ages.

[Gustav II Adolf]

I don't know about the rest of you but if I start in 1080 I do not want to take ~ 1200 effing turns to get to the late Middle Ages.

I agree no game needs to be that massive. I still vote fore a one turn per year with two startingpoints. One early and one mid/high. this would give those who enjoy gunpowder the possibility to their end too. You will still have the possibility to play a whole epic game through the different time periods.

Anyway, i hope my fear of this game turning into a strat game for the adhd crowd is´nt warranted.

[ShadowMagnet]

I voted 4 tpy myself but after the official annoucement I'm not that sure anymore. I mean, seriously - 1800 turns per campaign? I won't last 500, nevermind the whole damn thing.
Phwoar! I simply cannot wait to see how CA approach the subject of splitting 550 years into 225 turns. I really don't think CA are consciously planning to snub all the fans posting on this forum. They MUST be aware of our high expectations and there is simply no way they want to make a lousy product only for console fans to enjoy. Think outside the box gals and lads! No one trusts such radical changes in they beloved game but this actually means we could get so much more from it when it's finished!

[King Yngvar]

What would really be so wrong with 4 years per turn? If there were three different eras, f ex: 1080, 1220 and 1400, you could play with whatever medieval tech you like. I for one would hate having to use 50 years crossing Europe, or having my characters die out on me once they are starting to get some good traits.

[A.Saturnus]

I guess you mean 4 turns per year.

I'm trying to figure out how that is meant with the "tracking turns". I think this offers some opportunities (please read on before outrage). Instead of a set period of time a turn could represent an amount of action. I for one often have in my campaigns times at which few things happen. Then, turns rush by without me doing much. For example because I have to wait for a structure to be build. At other times, say I'm involved in a campaign against a neighbour or defending a city, lots of things happen each turn. It sometimes takes hours just to complete one turn. What I'm suspecting is that CA wants to change that.
In calm periods, turns represent more time since few decisions have to be made over several years. But when the action starts, each turn might only represent a fraction of a year, so that you can control every step of the campaign.
If my interpretation is right, 225 turns might actually be fine, even for me, because, actually, several years in which nothing happens could be put into one turn, leaving more turns for the interesting action.

Obviously, there are some difficulties. How are they going to do this? Years still have to be represented some way because the life of people cannot be counted in turns and I expect historical events to play a role. But that's not really a problem. That a turn can represent various amounts of time doesn't mean the game can't keep track of years as well (and show you). It only means that a year, or half a year, isn't an instance that offers you a set amount of decisions to make.
What I'm more curious about is how the game will be able decide how much action there is and how much turns you're offered for that action. In what way will the player be able to decide how much action he's going to start.
I'm sceptical whether CA can implement this right, but I still see the opportunities.

[Divinus Arma]

MAYBEEEEEE..... CA is taking a Civilization approach. Where the early game is more years per turn and the late game is less time per turn.

Soooo, 1080 in turn 1, 1085 in turn 2. Or something like that.

And turn whatever hundred in summer 1500, then winter 1500, then summer 1501, then winter 1501, etc....

'Tis a possibility.

[Incongruous]

What the heck?! BASICALLY, is all I can say...
What the heck?!








edited for language

[A.Saturnus]

MAYBEEEEEE..... CA is taking a Civilization approach. Where the early game is more years per turn and the late game is less time per turn.

Soooo, 1080 in turn 1, 1085 in turn 2. Or something like that.

And turn whatever hundred in summer 1500, then winter 1500, then summer 1501, then winter 1501, etc....

'Tis a possibility.

Maybe, but I think if it were that easy, the devs would already have explained it.

[Bob the Insane]

Turns not associated with years!?!?

Even the variable rate of Civ is based on a number of years... And how can it be based on seasons but not years!?!?

I mean I understand the dilema of tying the movement rates to the amount of time in a given turn is awkard to say the least... Even if they went seasonal with 4 turns a year one turn would still be long enough or a unit to walk the length of Britain and then fight a battle (on foot)! While this could be represented on the map the campaign would be as previously mentioned over 2000 turns... So this means you need to make it shorter which then really throws the movement rates for a loop...

I guess we will have to wait and see exactly what they introduce... :inquisitive:

[Kraxis]

Maybe, but I think if it were that easy, the devs would already have explained it.
Do you really think that?

To be honest, most devs hate bringing in other games to explain their own features (which might very well not be their own, but that is another story). And in interviews it doesn't ring very nice if he goes on to talk like Divinus did (no offense buddy), it would not be very PR'ish if he talked in numbers.

So I think it is fair to hope in this case.

[Ultras DVSC]

It would not be very PR'ish if he talked in numbers.


Official statements always speak in the language of flowers. If they gave some concrete things away, then they wouldn't be official statements... ;)

[A.Saturnus]

Do you really think that?

To be honest, most devs hate bringing in other games to explain their own features (which might very well not be their own, but that is another story). And in interviews it doesn't ring very nice if he goes on to talk like Divinus did (no offense buddy), it would not be very PR'ish if he talked in numbers.

So I think it is fair to hope in this case.

Of course he would have explained it differently. He certainly wouldn't have said "it's like in Civ". But still, if you look at what he said, it goes in another direction. This model wouldn't really be an "abstraction". It may still be possible, but it doesn't seem to me like that.

[The_Doctor]

Maybe it will be a random number generator. Loads of fun. 1 year could pass or 50.:laugh4:

[TosaInu]

Maybe it will be a random number generator. Loads of fun. 1 year could pass or 50.:laugh4:

Heh. Hope the modders will save us then.

[Avicenna]

Four is too many turns as everyone's said, and one is too short: your assassins would die of old age before getting 10 subterfuge..

[A.Saturnus]

Maybe it will be a random number generator. Loads of fun. 1 year could pass or 50.:laugh4:

I'd say that's the least sensible solution. But is it the least likely??

[Ultras DVSC]

Four is too many turns as everyone's said, and one is too short: your assassins would die of old age before getting 10 subterfuge..

I don't think, that assassins and their "subterfuges" would decide the length of the turns. It will be one, cause 900 turns are also too many. If you think about it in this developed (?) system each turn could be 15-20 minutes, which multiplied with that number is about 15.000 min, so 250 hours without battles! And that's only one campaign with one nation.

Maybe ca's gonna put in an option, that can change the turnlengths or in a late period campaign it will automatically switch to two-turn counting.

[magnum]

In RTW my average turn is about 1 minute. 2 minutes is a long turn because I'm moving;/building a lot. What takes a lot of time is the battles and I probably fight 2 of those a turn on average. The average of those depends on whether or not I fight the battles myself or if I auto-calc them. I tend to auto-calc most rebel battles and fight most non-rebel battles. Auto-calc takes seconds to do, but fighting a battle could be anywhere from 15 minutes to 1 hour. Average is probably closer to 20 minutes as most battles tend to be the little 400 vs 800 size battles.

That puts turn length at about 22 minutes. In the 225 turn campaign that they are talking about that puts a campaign at a little over 80 hours to play. That is assuming that it takes you the full 225 turns to complete the game. Rome, if I wasn’t turtling, I generally won in about 150 turns.

80 hours is a long campaign but at the top end of acceptable to me. If they work at the game play and pace it better than they did in Rome, than that will work ok. Not that I’m thrilled about it. I’d still prefer to have 3 eras/periods and 4 turns a year. Cut down on the number of battles a turn (since they are seasons) and a Era campaign would be near the 80 hours that CAs current 225 turn game is heading for. It’s the battles that take the time and there’s really no way around fighting many/most of them. Reducing the number of battles fought, and hopefully making the battles fought more significant, would reduce the campaign length noticeably.

Bottom line: Depending on game play balance, 225 turns could very well be acceptable, its just not what I’d prefer (4 tpy with 1 or 2 battles a year and 3 era’s with the option of continuing at the end of the era.) So I guess at this juncture I’ll have to wait and see how it plays.

[econ21]

It’s the battles that take the time and there’s really no way around fighting many/most of them.

I agree with your analysis, except that in RTW you could avoid fighting many battles if you had a more adjustable autocalc. I don't autocalc because I suffer much higher losses than if I fight manually. If CA allowed you to adjust the bias in autocalc (including to be heavily in your favour), then I would use it. I hate fighting small groups of rebels and even after a while pitiful enemy AI armies. Full stack battles are great, but walkovers (including many of the sieges) just get old real quick.

[Kraxis]

I don't mind the 225 turn length. It fits me well enough as I seldomly used more than 130-150 turns at the very most.

But I don't like that the ingame time has then been expanded. From the 365 years of MTW to the 450 years in M2. If time is then going to pass that fast, then how am I going to get an attachment to my kings and pricnes and whatnot? Also there is the problem of units getting outdated almost as soon as you can train them.

Who managed to get to play with Triarii or Feudal Knights in any numbers before they got outdated?
If M2 is going to half-copy MTW in regard to units then I can see a problem with this. I just hope that the 225 turn comment was wrong, and that it was just 225 turns for the first Age (and then another 225 turns for the second Age), or something like that.
The Ages of MTW were really good. They threw you into different situations with different units and that. I didn't mind that I often didn't get into High before restarting. But I do not want to get forced into playing the entire timeperiod.

[Dead Moroz]

Who managed to get to play with Triarii or Feudal Knights in any numbers before they got outdated?
That harass me too.

But I guess if CA still didn't comment this question, so they really gonna make just 225 turns in MTW2.

[TosaInu]

Civ2 memories: a caveman driving a tank using 19th century railroad tracks.

[Orda Khan]

Judging by the poll it would seem that most here will not be happy, me included. I prefer long campaigns, winning in fewer turns does not feel right

........Orda

[Ignoramus]

The last thing I want is one turn every 2 years. Which, if you do some simple calculations, is what will happen. (1080 - 1530 = 450 years. 450 divided by 225 = 2 years per turn) It doesn't look very good.

[Hobgoblin]

4 tpy with era choices , should make every one happy, heck I might even like to see the option of a month to month 12 tpy. however long it takes you you it just takes you. Maybe they could throw in some role playing questions. like some people in blah blah blah province think the the think the the people from the bleh bleh bleh province are stealing water from their wells , ruler of these provinces will you

A. send ministers to investigate the veracity of these claims
B. Restrict travel between these provinces
C. Assert your authority by having the Plaintiffs flogged for water hording
D. have new wells dug in the bleh bleh bleh province
E. Ignore the problem

Choices could lead to new choices like you choose C ( its good to be the king) and one man whose wife was killed by your troops is trying to raise a rebellion against you in the mountains. Do you
A. send your armies to find him immediatly
B. wait to see if the province respects your authority
C. Send assassins to find this man
D. place a bounty on his head
E. Ignore the problem

This would all be non animated text based stuff and would be real easy and cheap to add because it would nt require alot of a programmers time to make but would add alot to the feeling of the game. Poor domestic policy could ruin your empire even though your a kick butt general.

Not to mention, crushing a rebellion that has names faces and a history to it would be infinitly more satisfying than than the generic whilte bannered rebellions.

And for those who just want to fight and not deal with domestic issues they could just click Domestic ajudication off.

[Puzz3D]

I don't mind the 225 turn length. It fits me well enough as I seldomly used more than 130-150 turns at the very most.

But I don't like that the ingame time has then been expanded. From the 365 years of MTW to the 450 years in M2. If time is then going to pass that fast, then how am I going to get an attachment to my kings and pricnes and whatnot? Also there is the problem of units getting outdated almost as soon as you can train them.

Who managed to get to play with Triarii or Feudal Knights in any numbers before they got outdated?
If M2 is going to half-copy MTW in regard to units then I can see a problem with this. I just hope that the 225 turn comment was wrong, and that it was just 225 turns for the first Age (and then another 225 turns for the second Age), or something like that.
The Ages of MTW were really good. They threw you into different situations with different units and that. I didn't mind that I often didn't get into High before restarting. But I do not want to get forced into playing the entire timeperiod.
I've been playing Master of Orion 2 for the past week since it's apparently considered to be one of the better strategy games ever designed. I never played it before, but it has become apparent that climbing the tech tree is very important. The AI is good at climbing the tech tree, and, if you reseach advanced tech and don't trade it with the AI factions, they will steal it from you soon after that. So, there's no way to get ahead of the AI in tech, and tech is very powerful. For instance, a single upgraded AI cruiser ship destroyed my fleet of 9 battleships which were not uphgraded as much, and a cruiser is one class below a battleship. I'm auto-resolving the battles so there is no chance to use tactics to overcome this deficiency, and, given what looks to me to be limited tactics in the battles, I doubt it would be possible to overcome it. This type of gameplay also means that defense is basically hopeless. If the AI attacks, you have to be in a position of enough military strength to attack the enemy's best planets in order to damage the economy which supports his military.

Total War is different in that the tactics used in battle make a big difference in how well you do in the strategic game. You can win in 150 turns in a game where it takes 450 turns to fully climb the tech tree. This means less emphasis on the tech tree, and more battles within a particular tech level. This also means that you can defend successfully along the way since the AI won't get a big jump in tech. This is consistent with the history of the period where defense was a good strategy. The game gives the AI an advantage in auto-resolved battles to encourage the human to play the battles on the tactical map since that's supposed to be the strength of the game.

MTW2 moves to a 225 turn campaign incorporating a 450 turn tech tree. I would expect that it will still take at least 150 turns to win. (It wouldn't make sense to set up the campaign so you could win in 75 turns.) I think this will move the strategic gameplay towards Master of Orion 2 gameplay, and have an adverse effect on the tactical battles. It could also make defense a less viable strategy.

[Voigtkampf]

I've been playing Master of Orion 2 for the past week since it's apparently considered to be one of the better strategy games ever designed. I never played it before, but it has become apparent that climbing the tech tree is very important. The AI is good at climbing the tech tree, and, if you reseach advanced tech and don't trade it with the AI factions, they will steal it from you soon after that. So, there's no way to get ahead of the AI in tech, and tech is very powerful. For instance, a single upgraded AI cruiser ship destroyed my fleet of 9 battleships which were not uphgraded as much, and a cruiser is one class below a battleship. I'm auto-resolving the battles so there is no chance to use tactics to overcome this deficiency, and, given what looks to me to be limited tactics in the battles, I doubt it would be possible to overcome it. This type of gameplay also means that defense is basically hopeless. If the AI attacks, you have to be in a position of enough military strength to attack the enemy's best planets in order to damage the economy which supports his military.

I have played MoO2 extensively, and hope to get some time to replay it in the following days.

What you describe has actually never happened to me, the AI rarely ever stole my secrets. Depends on which race you play, since they all have different strengths. If I my give you an off topic advice, create a custom race, take some negative stances like minus spaceship defense, money, poor planet or something, and add to your race the attributes lithovore and creative; first enables them to go on without food, and the second one will enable them to research all three items from the research branch.