View Full Version : Campaign Map (STW/MTW Provinces or RTW ones?)
Voigtkampf
01-22-2006, 19:15
I was wondering whether the majority of TW players would prefer Medieval 2 to have provinces like there were in M:TW, or should the army movement be handled as it was in Rome, i.e. the armies and agents would move in regards to the specifics of the terrain?
Although I appreciate the exact art of moving over landscapes, tactical possibilities coming from the ability to build a fort on a mountain pass to secure a possible approach line from certain direction, I have loved the provinces and chess-like system of movement of the old M:TW and would prefer it over the system Rome has utilized.
What are your respective opinions?
use Romes i like it and its much more detailed
I say Rome.
It will be a great system if CA manage to get the AI to use it properly.
The_Doctor
01-22-2006, 19:30
I would like an improved version of the RTW. eg no right-angles on river.
Templar Knight
01-22-2006, 19:37
I would prefer Romes dynamic map only a lot darker, with trade routes, areas of political influence, the building of strategic castles and the such. It would also allow you to out maneuver your enemy.
IrishMike
01-22-2006, 19:42
I prefer the MTW style system. It allowed larger battles than the maneuvering of the RTW system.
I also would choose for a more province like gameplay, which in my opinion would allow a more smooth gampeplay wich I like. Diplomats and other agents in RTW were just too much work, i'm too lazy to direct them every turn. And like coldnight said it allows bigger battles!!
I would prefer a combination. Use the far superior RTW campaign map system, but allow friendly armies for both sides to join in the battles from much farther away. In MTW, you would often find yourself fighting with an ally or against an alliance of multiple enemies or even in a three sided battle. This is almost totally missing in RTW and it is a major loss.
ShadesWolf
01-22-2006, 20:11
A way to answer the question is. How many will be possible, we know that Rome has 90+, so if we used that as a starting position and expect the map to cover the same area + Central and South America, How many could we have ?
A Province map with MUCH more provinces than in M:TW, like Paradox Entertainment kind of maps.
A province type of map with enough provinces would allow for supply issues, if your army gets cut off from friendly provinces you run out of supply, then you have X number of turns before your supply runs out, if the province your army is in can't supply all your troops they will start deserting and starving to death.
Of course, maybe this would be too complicated for the AI, so I guess I just want the type of map that allows for the best strategic AI.
I'm more for the RTW style. Hopefully the A.I. will be revamped to handle this type map for MTW2.
Come Together
01-22-2006, 21:00
Well, personally, I prefered that in MTW. It was much more AI-friendly, and it allowed for larger battles/A LOT LESS SIEGES. If they are going to continue the system from RTW, it should be revamped a bit. Perhaps having a larger zone to intercept enemies, and if your soldiers are in your own province, it should count as garrison or something, just to discourage sieges and encourage larger battles.
Steppe Merc
01-22-2006, 21:21
There should be even more seiges than in RTW, since Medeival warfare was far more focused on castles.
I want the same sort of thing that RTW, but allow armies from farther away to participate.
King Ragnar
01-22-2006, 21:30
MTW style, i want to get back the fighting along side your ally, and fighting against 2 enemy armies, they rocked.
NodachiSam
01-22-2006, 22:04
Sieges, sieges, sieges! I prefer field battles.
doc_bean
01-22-2006, 22:59
Like I mentioned in another thread, a combination of both.
-Keep RTWs basic system
-Make borders, crossing borders means declaring war (a better diplomacy model is needed to implent this and make it an actual bad thing) unless you can negotiate a right of passage
-Several small towns and castles per province to raid, something like the Civ4 cottage/village system for the towns and the keeps should be like upgradable forts
-Give armies and castles a radius of control, if another army comes within range you get the option of either attacking or letting them pass
-If you click on a destination several routes should become available: the most direct one, the one that passes the least enemy armies, the one that crosses the least borders, etc., you should be able to select the one your prefer, or just choose another destination.
-Armies should be able to move faster within your realm because supplying them would be easier (and it sucks to have to micromanage your defenses)
-some fast and easy menus for scrolling through agents and armies, so we don't have to go looking for each one, I'm thinking two small arrows on screen somewhere, if you click on an army they allow you to cycle through armies, if you click an assassin you could cycle through assassins, etc. a button so you can easily switch between armies/agents would also be appreciated :balloon2:
I have given this game way too much thought already :help:
Mount Suribachi
01-22-2006, 23:52
Shoulda made a poll Voigtkampf ~;)
Anyway I really, really like the RTW map. So that, with some improvements, like Doc Bean suggested.
KukriKhan
01-23-2006, 01:13
Old Fogey here; provinces, please, Sir. :)
Lord Armbandit
01-23-2006, 01:16
Perhaps having a larger zone to intercept enemies, and if your soldiers are in your own province, it should count as garrison or something, just to discourage sieges and encourage larger battles.
Hit the nail on the head, Come together. A large ZOC, with the immediate surrounds of your army (e.g. one 'space' on the Rome map) stopping enemy movement, a further space around representing scouted areas where you have the option to meet enemy threats by moving towards them, or aid your allies if they are attacked, (plus the option of whether to aid or not- always the best time to leave an alliance, when your ally is about to get slaughtered and you want to run away!).
If you are going to get battles alongside allies, you will need better AI and the option to have your armies march alongside them (e.g. your AI ally lets you know it is going to attack 'x' region or city, and you can have one of your armies follow to join in)
Maybe thats more revolution than evolution though....
When it came to battles, mtws system was actually more interesting, because you almost always had a field battle, and then normally a longer siege, as assaulting a castle was much too costly.
Of course, strategically, rtws system is a lot better.
Nooo... who can be so cruel to ask such a question?!?!?!
I loved to have battles against several enemy factions, perhaps with an ally of my own. Eventhough the ally often sucked it was great fun.
I loved the predictability of the buildup (not the battles themselves). I loved the tenseness you could get along the border where a small garrison was able to repel several factions from invading in a few turns.
In RTW I loved the ability to move about as I liked. Hide and wait, or attack. Seek out the enemy, or retreat and harry. The potential was superior... But the AI often failed to grasp the chances.
I simply don't know what I want, but if the AI was to become able to use the map, then I would have to say the RTW map would be better.
In RTW I loved the ability to move about as I liked. Hide and wait, or attack. Seek out the enemy, or retreat and harry. The potential was superior... But the AI often failed to grasp the chances.
I simply don't know what I want, but if the AI was to become able to use the map, then I would have to say the RTW map would be better.
I second this. The only thing I can think of to add to all that is the ability to fight alongside my allies as we did in original Medieval. I rather like Lord Armbandit's idea in regards to this.
Yes, it would be real nice to be able to coordinate assaults on enemies. But that also demands that the alliances are actually kept sane. No more one province factions backstabbing a 20 province faction while it's armies are sitting next door.
I would prefer Romes dynamic map only a lot darker, with trade routes, areas of political influence, the building of strategic castles and the such. It would also allow you to out maneuver your enemy.
When it came to battles, mtws system was actually more interesting, because you almost always had a field battle, and then normally a longer siege, as assaulting a castle was much too costly.
Of course, strategically, rtws system is a lot better.
Perhaps using rome's system for movement, but having much harsher destruction penalties (when an enemy army is in your province) in order to force field battles?
Claudius the God
01-23-2006, 03:45
I was wondering whether the majority of TW players would prefer Medieval 2 to have provinces like there were in M:TW, or should the army movement be handled as it was in Rome, i.e. the armies and agents would move in regards to the specifics of the terrain?
Although I appreciate the exact art of moving over landscapes, tactical possibilities coming from the ability to build a fort on a mountain pass to secure a possible approach line from certain direction, I have loved the provinces and chess-like system of movement of the old M:TW and would prefer it over the system Rome has utilized.
What are your respective opinions?
I would love to see it similar to RTW world map, but without it looking like squares on a chessboard with the right-angle river directions, there should be diagonal river points at the very least.
a more three-dimensional map with higher areas leading up to mountains and mountain ranges, and movement points reflecting that as well as the landscape (snow and swampland should be more difficult to travel across, marching uphill should be more difficult than marching downhill)
one personal thing I would absolutely LOVE to see would be more than one settlement in a province, I would love to see the development of minor villages (and coastal seaports areas) within a province as well as the province capital. So when an enemy army moves into the province, it can raid minor villages, seaports, and maybe even other resources (like mines or trade routes) than are not located in the capital city. This would also be great to see these sort of areas having their own minor garrison areas and minor defences.
for example... it would be wonderful to see viking raiders attacking coastal towns and pillaging them without going into siege warfare (and river-raiding using viking boats on major inland rivers would be a dream come true... it could also be something nice for moving armies over rivers using river-boats (slowly though...)
I would love to see it similar to RTW world map, but without it looking like squares on a chessboard with the right-angle river directions, there should be diagonal river points at the very least.
a more three-dimensional map with higher areas leading up to mountains and mountain ranges, and movement points reflecting that as well as the landscape (snow and swampland should be more difficult to travel across, marching uphill should be more difficult than marching downhill)
one personal thing I would absolutely LOVE to see would be more than one settlement in a province, I would love to see the development of minor villages (and coastal seaports areas) within a province as well as the province capital. So when an enemy army moves into the province, it can raid minor villages, seaports, and maybe even other resources (like mines or trade routes) than are not located in the capital city. This would also be great to see these sort of areas having their own minor garrison areas and minor defences.
for example... it would be wonderful to see viking raiders attacking coastal towns and pillaging them without going into siege warfare (and river-raiding using viking boats on major inland rivers would be a dream come true... it could also be something nice for moving armies over rivers using river-boats (slowly though...)
I agree.
one personal thing I would absolutely LOVE to see would be more than one settlement in a province, I would love to see the development of minor villages (and coastal seaports areas) within a province as well as the province capital. So when an enemy army moves into the province, it can raid minor villages, seaports, and maybe even other resources (like mines or trade routes) than are not located in the capital city. This would also be great to see these sort of areas having their own minor garrison areas and minor defences.
for example... it would be wonderful to see viking raiders attacking coastal towns and pillaging them without going into siege warfare (and river-raiding using viking boats on major inland rivers would be a dream come true... it could also be something nice for moving armies over rivers using river-boats (slowly though...)
I really like this idea as well. It kind of goes with my idea of building castles anywhere in a province (other than just the provincial catpital), and having small towns grow up around them....
I think using minor settlements that can be built up in provinces would be a revolution in TW. I would love to see it implemented. I also think the current AI would explode trying to deal with it.
Antiochius
01-23-2006, 13:25
i`m for the Rome system
Geoffrey S
01-23-2006, 16:36
I'd love to support the RTW option, as long as the AI is up to utilizing the unique options this presents.
Rodion Romanovich
01-23-2006, 16:54
RTW style, but with AI handling it properly. I'd LOVE to see the AI fall back, regroup and send large 2 stack armies after me at the same time instead of four half stacks one in each turn. Then you'd really need to use your forts and other things to slow the enemy down, manouver, harass and cut supply routes, and then face the enemy after a while. It would be fun if diplomacy could make it possible for you to borrow troops from another faction, for a while being attached to your army, moving with you on the strat map, but fighting under their own command for the period they go with you, as a means of arranging larger battles with allies.
Big_John
01-23-2006, 18:57
make the camp map real-time, like knights of honor. :sweatdrop:
make the camp map real-time, like knights of honor. :sweatdrop:
Agh, no!! Don't even kid about that, man! The campaign being turn-based is a big part of its appeal, especially for us gamers over the age of 25. I realize Knights of Honor isn't as much of a click-fest as other RTS's, but it still doesn't fit with the Total War series.
Hit the nail on the head, Come together. A large ZOC, with the immediate surrounds of your army (e.g. one 'space' on the Rome map) stopping enemy movement, a further space around representing scouted areas where you have the option to meet enemy threats by moving towards them, or aid your allies if they are attacked, (plus the option of whether to aid or not- always the best time to leave an alliance, when your ally is about to get slaughtered and you want to run away!).
If you are going to get battles alongside allies, you will need better AI and the option to have your armies march alongside them (e.g. your AI ally lets you know it is going to attack 'x' region or city, and you can have one of your armies follow to join in)
This idea has been proposed before, and I like it. Off course, it does need some work to make it logical, and I would actually prefer a return to the M:TW systems where all armies moved at the same time, but a ZOC might be a good middle way.
Mouzafphaerre
01-24-2006, 02:59
.
make the camp map real-time, like knights of honor. :sweatdrop:
Nöouw! :san_angry:
.
SirGrotius
01-24-2006, 04:13
I would prefer a combination. Use the far superior RTW campaign map system, but allow friendly armies for both sides to join in the battles from much farther away. In MTW, you would often find yourself fighting with an ally or against an alliance of multiple enemies or even in a three sided battle. This is almost totally missing in RTW and it is a major loss.
Seconded--the dynamic map is better, but needs to offer more gameplay flexibility.
Seconded--the dynamic map is better, but needs to offer more gameplay flexibility.
Agreed, perhaps something like i said earlier,
Perhaps using rome's system for movement, but having much harsher destruction penalties (when an enemy army is in your province) in order to force field battles?but with MUCH larger reinforcement areas - i want big battles!
Leonin Khan
01-24-2006, 10:47
i think for an entirely differefent aproach. regions are now th reach of your cities and armies. it might be tricky but i can be done right. when an enemy army invades he can choose to pass or anexate a piece of the region and leave. maybe by installing boarding towers and forts and such. the map must be RTW like but i think the provinces dont really work there. atleast the affect of an aproaching or present enemy army must have a greater affect on the income and security and happines of the region
I like RTW ways (Hannibal wouldn't be able to evade the Romans if he was on MTW map). However, the AI must better at intercepting the invading army or event be able to lure the invading army into a death trap (surround the enemy or force them into disadvantage terrain).
Perhaps they will finally make it so that an army that is causing devastation in enemy lands will have less costs (pillaging and scavenging for food). Added to the much more costly devastation it should become quite interesting.
Then a wartorn country would really suffer, not like now when even a halfblack province still churns out plenty gold.
Agh, no!! Don't even kid about that, man! The campaign being turn-based is a big part of its appeal, especially for us gamers over the age of 25. I realize Knights of Honor isn't as much of a click-fest as other RTS's, but it still doesn't fit with the Total War series.
Well, I am over 25, and I like the Knights of Honor map system, especially with foraging food and plundering settlements. That plus the fact that the numer of armies is limited to the number of generals makes battles way more decisive than Rome with its thousands of one-unit armies.
By the way, why are realtime battles acceptable but not a "continous time" campaign map ~:confused:
I really like the MTW map with provinces, but it will be the RTW style map. I hope they increase the ZOC, or add in a reinforcement zone so that we can have real battles. The idea of having to have a general for an army is good, it would force the AI to come up with larger armies. Maybe allow units within towns without generals, but require generals for armies in the field.
I hope that supply lines and desertion could be included for armies in the field.
mfberg
Rodion Romanovich
01-24-2006, 19:47
Perhaps they will finally make it so that an army that is causing devastation in enemy lands will have less costs (pillaging and scavenging for food). Added to the much more costly devastation it should become quite interesting.
Then a wartorn country would really suffer, not like now when even a halfblack province still churns out plenty gold.
Yeah, it would totally rock with proper handling of supply needs! :idea2: I'd be overjoyed if I'd play a western faction, create a huge army and be absolutely dominant in my neighborhood in all aspects - militarily, economically, diplomatically etc. Then assemble almost all my troops and march into modern Russia in the winter and see my army being dissolved by disease, cold, desertion, lack of food supplies etc. :2thumbsup: A schorched earth policy option should be added too... *drools*
The Stranger
01-24-2006, 20:18
Well, I am over 25, and I like the Knights of Honor map system, especially with foraging food and plundering settlements. That plus the fact that the numer of armies is limited to the number of generals makes battles way more decisive than Rome with its thousands of one-unit armies.
By the way, why are realtime battles acceptable but not a "continous time" campaign map ~:confused:
cuz you cant handle/conquer large areas like the roman empire with that :idea2:
Marshal Murat
01-24-2006, 23:00
I think that there should be something of a mix.
There should be provinces, a larger strategic map, hand drawn, like the MTW maps. If your invaded, you are notified, and either "hand-off" to the local governor to deal with it (improved AI, something) If you want to fight it, then your zoom in.
The map is darker, with the borders clearly outlined in color, and then scattered towns, and the castle. Roads, more trees, etc. Then you can march your men across the map, and finally meet the enemy.
Another thing with RTW, that I found peeving, is the reinforcement movement.
I would have three stacks of men, advancing down a road. Then, the leader is attacked. The nearby army moves forward. What if I want all 3? Then I should have the last move up more slowly.
cuz you cant handle/conquer large areas like the roman empire with that :idea2:
Been there, done it. It all depends on the time accelleration balance, including a speed-up/slowdown and pause function. But it´s idle speculation anyways, if CA´s doing a public announcement most of the gmeplay will be done already, since the game development started probably shortly after RTW (not BI) was published.
Powermonger
01-25-2006, 13:51
I would hope a reversion back to provinces and something similar to the original MTW campaign map. The MTW campaign map gave the game a more military feel, RTW felt more like a game.
How about no provinces if you leave an army or build a castle just passed your border, after a couple of turns the border moves to where the army of castle is because you have a stronger presence there.
(NO fixed borders)
King Henry V
01-25-2006, 19:52
I want to see a RTW campaign map (doubt they're going to change that) with ZOCs and supply lines. If an army crosses a border into enemy territory then a screen pops up and say that you have now entered another faction's territory. You will then have the option of either being supplied from friendly land, which will cost so much per turn depending on the size of the army, how far you travel into enemy country and if you are at war with the country. Unless both countries are allied, you will have to attach a force of soldiers to escort the supplies. You should also have the option of buying food from the populace, but that will be expensive.
The enemy can however send troops into the supply line area to cut them off, after which famine will set in and the army numbers will dwindle, forcing them either to re-establish the routs, force battle, rush to capture the nearest town where there may be food or live off the land.
Unless both countries are at war or you have military access (which should be far easier to obtain than it it atm, especially if you are allies) a strain will develop on your countries relations.
However, instead of choosing to be supplied and choose to live off the land, then a state of war will automatically exist between the two countries. A certain radius of land (corresponfdng to the ZOC) around the army would be devasted and this would be much cheaper, or even profitable, you could then send parties of cavalry to burn yet more land. An army living off the land would also be able to move faster. However, the enemy can also practice scorched earth, (see above for consequences).
A wise defender, particularly if he is outnumbered greatly, will destroy his enemy's possibilities of supply and either force him to rashly assault the nearest city without the proper siege equipment (ladders should take 0 turns to build) and thus lose many men or fail or to retreat to safe lands. However, for a truly successful tactic the defender will have to be ruthless in destroying his own land and thus empoverishing his realm.
Similarly, there should also be a ZOR or Zone of Reinforcement. I personally do not like big battles, however I have found a good compromise, IMO. Depending how far they are from the battle field, Reinforcements will begin to arrive after a certain time. However, if you can beat the main force before reinforcements begin to trickle onto the battlefield, then the day is won and the enemy reinforcements, seeing their comrades beaten will not turn up. However, if you want a mega battle, you could always wait until enough of the enemy arrive before you actually attack. You could also see the "Waterloo effect" where a numerically inferior army attempts to hold on for as long as possible, waiting for reinforcements to arrive to change the tide of battle. Good compromise, no?
A.Saturnus
01-25-2006, 20:04
I also favour an improved RTW style map. I doubt that they'll go back to the MTW style entirely. However, maybe it's quite different this time:
Or build cities to develop a wealthy urban society, and battle your foes with diplomacy, bribery, assassination and armies of mercenaries.
Does "build cities" mean that you develop already existing ones or can you create new ones?
caio giulio
01-25-2006, 20:28
I also favour an improved RTW style map. I doubt that they'll go back to the MTW style entirely. However, maybe it's quite different this time:
Does "build cities" mean that you develop already existing ones or can you create new ones?
I think "develop".
make the camp map real-time, like knights of honor.
By the way, why are realtime battles acceptable but not a "continous time" campaign map
Because TotalWar campaign map IS turn based.
And if it'll become real time it'll be TotalWar no more.
Knight Templar
01-25-2006, 20:43
I prefer RTW style with cities to MTW provinces. It's somehow more realistic and allows, for example, crossing across the allied territory while still remaining allied.
I think "develop".
Because TotalWar campaign map IS turn based.
And if it'll become real time it'll be TotalWar no more.
By the same argument RTW isn´t a Total War game because it doesn´t have the boardgame style campaign map of STW and MTW.
Powermonger
01-26-2006, 10:55
By the way, why are realtime battles acceptable but not a "continous time" campaign map ~:confused:
Because then it would just be another RTS game and would lose it's appeal, let alone the legion of fans that CA have acquired over the years since Shogun was released.
So, all you want is more of the same?
Don´t get me wrong, I like the previous TW titles, but I would most certainly not pay full-price for a polished-up and medieval-setting RTW remake. I´m not saying I won´t buy it if it doesn´t have a continous-time startegy part, either (because that´s what I´ll be accused of next), but a new game, in my opinion at least, should have more than just another background setting and new graphics.
And I bet CA lost a couple of MTW/STW fans as well due to their new map layout and more extensive diplomacy. So what, they got new ones. And if they get ten new customers for every old-timer lost, they´ll consider themselves more than happy. It´s their decision, it´s been made long ago and no amount of discussion and ranting on our part will change that, now less than ever.
caio giulio
01-26-2006, 12:38
By the same argument RTW isn´t a Total War game because it doesn´t have the boardgame style campaign map of STW and MTW.
Well.... in this case you can be right and wrong at the same time... I do not agree with you.. but you are not totally wrong..
But turning the turn-based system in a full real time one... it's a suicide.. It'll make total war link AoE!!
So, all you want is more of the same?
Don´t get me wrong, I like the previous TW titles, but I would most certainly not pay full-price for a polished-up and medieval-setting RTW remake. I´m not saying I won´t buy it if it doesn´t have a continous-time startegy part, either (because that´s what I´ll be accused of next), but a new game, in my opinion at least, should have more than just another background setting and new graphics.
Then I think you are going to wait some time... For this is their policy.
Revolution and evolution. Shogun was revolution, Medieval was evolution of said revolution, Rome was revolution and Med2 is going to be evolution of that revolution.
Ans honestly, that can't be better. First you try, then you perfect.
Voigtkampf
01-26-2006, 16:09
Shoulda made a poll Voigtkampf ~;)
Hush, don’t tell anyone, Suribachi-sama, but I tried and couldn’t remember how. No more “make new poll” option. Doh! :wall:
Do not brand mark me a traitor to TW, but KoH movement system has its benefits, especially the fact that it has several speeds forward and the ability to pause game and still issue orders. Hence, I could live with such a system too, provided it works at least as good the one from KoH worked. Alas, we are discussing province versus live map issue.
Hush, don’t tell anyone, Suribachi-sama, but I tried and couldn’t remember how. No more “make new poll” option. Doh! :wall:
I think a poll can still be added, what should the question and options be?
Please, not Risk-type campaign.
Then I think you are going to wait some time... For this is their policy.
Revolution and evolution. Shogun was revolution, Medieval was evolution of said revolution, Rome was revolution and Med2 is going to be evolution of that revolution.
Ans honestly, that can't be better. First you try, then you perfect.
Even evolution means varying things. I haven´t played Shogun, but from what I´ve read there are considerable differences between Shogun and Medieval, but correct me if I´m wrong. I suppose, wait and see is the best we can do, and that´s precisely what I´m going to do.
Leonin Khan
01-27-2006, 12:29
yeah many things changed with shogun to medI... and i liked MTW better...i think shogun [moderator edit]: was not good...but i think its becuz i cant play that game
Moderator comment: language; and let's not bite the hand that feeds us (ie CA).
Rodion Romanovich
01-27-2006, 13:37
Hush, don’t tell anyone, Suribachi-sama, but I tried and couldn’t remember how. No more “make new poll” option. Doh! :wall:
Do not brand mark me a traitor to TW, but KoH movement system has its benefits, especially the fact that it has several speeds forward and the ability to pause game and still issue orders. Hence, I could live with such a system too, provided it works at least as good the one from KoH worked. Alas, we are discussing province versus live map issue.
This might be off-topic, but where can I get a demo of KoH? I've looked everywhere but can't even find screenshots of that game...
doc_bean
01-27-2006, 17:45
http://www.knights-of-honor.net/jump.php?go=en|5|downloads%2Fdemo.php
just use Google...
Rodion Romanovich
01-27-2006, 18:16
Edit: entire content removed because with half of it removed it didn't make sense
mattholomew
01-27-2006, 21:47
i prefer the rtw style just because in mtw you had to take the provinces around you to expand, which was good but there was minimal interaction with allied ai, no military access or anything of that sort. That made coming to the aid of an ally very difficult. Also, If you wanted to go on a crusade you had to fight across the byzantine empire, sometimes all of europe depending on who you were playing as. Also it made for inconsistent travel rates. To move an army from scotland to normandy would take many turns, while traveling from turkey to israel took only a few. On the other hand, the ai was better.
Either way, i dont think that CA will go back to a system that didnt look as good, they are more about eye candy because that's what sells. Maybe they'll get the ai right this time though...
Cesare diBorja
01-27-2006, 22:17
I prefer the MTW style system. It allowed larger battles than the maneuvering of the RTW system.
It's OK, put the pipe down and back away from it........................:2thumbsup:
haha kidding
No backsteps, no more MTW1, just its best parts(diplomacy, prisoners, princesses, etc.)
diBorgia
Apologies for the thread necromancy here, resurrecting an old thread. It's probably too late, but I've added a poll. I hope voigtkampf does not mind.
ajaxfetish
01-28-2006, 22:18
I want to vote, but having only played MTW I can't really compare it to the other options. I'm a fan of both Risk and the risk-style map, but if done well, I'm sure the other option could be just as good, so I'll abstain.
Ajax
Craterus
01-28-2006, 23:24
Choosing your battlefield was quite important in the middle ages, so I voted for the RTW map.
Hopefully, the AI will be able to cope with it and choose a battlefield that would be to their advantage most of the time too.
Powermonger
01-28-2006, 23:36
I voted for 'Risk' style as I liked the simplicity of it for the strategic side of the game. Keep all the complex and glittsy stuff for the tactical battlefields.
A good compromise would be perhaps to split the provinces up even more into 'counties' but which only come into play when choosing a place to attack or defend.
Cowhead418
01-29-2006, 00:23
I have only played MTW but I rather like the Risk-style map. There are a lot of great ideas on here like the ZOC and implementing a "Scorched Earth" tactic with disease, living off the land, etc. but I see a huge flaw in each of these ideas - the AI. I don't think the AI would be able to handle and cleverly use these tactics, especially the "supply-lines" idea. It would be great in an all-human game but I think it would be death to the AI because it would have absolutely no clue on how to use it properly and human players could just easily manipulate the AI.
alman7272
01-29-2006, 07:48
MTW map, but where you place your army corresponds roughly to the terrain in that area, not just the province in general. Also, limited movement so you can't invade Finland from Egypt.:sweatdrop:
MTW map, but where you place your army corresponds roughly to the terrain in that area, not just the province in general. Also, limited movement so you can't invade Finland from Egypt.:sweatdrop:I'm pretty sure they're using the rtw sea transport system so that's not an issue.
Hôjô Ujimara
01-29-2006, 13:06
Wow, this is a very interesting thing. I loved MTW's ability to provide large battles with more than one faction, about three times or more a turn. However, I like the strategy in place in the RTW system, but it seemed slow and only provided small skirmishes and few epic battles from what I experienced.
An improved RTW system would be the best in my opinion, as long as it provides 1v1v1 or more combat on a regular basis.
Craterus
01-29-2006, 14:22
I'm pretty sure they're using the rtw sea transport system so that's not an issue.
The RTW travel system was a bit slow. On land and sea. It took a year to get from one end of Italy to the other...:no:
Leonin Khan
01-29-2006, 19:34
huhuh they could speed that up :) waaaaay more
Antiochius
01-29-2006, 20:13
The RTW travel system was a bit slow. On land and sea. It took a year to get from one end of Italy to the other...:no:
Because of that 4 turn per year would be much better
Leonin Khan
01-30-2006, 12:49
it still didnt took an army a half year 2 cross italy.
I prefer the old STW/MTW strategy map.
King Yngvar
01-31-2006, 12:29
They will most likely make that particular feature the same way as in Rome, which by my opinion is far better than the old "risk" style provinces.
Hambut_bulge
01-31-2006, 13:31
Another vote for the RTW style map. The old MTW style was good, but I always hated those huge multi-stack battles that used to eventually happen; because of the reinforcements system. More often than not I'd just auto-resolve those.
Well, if the AI isn't a million times better than it was in RTW (where it was frankly terrible) then I would say give us back the province system, because at least the AI could handle that. I don't want them to muck this one up like RTW.
Total War Merc
02-09-2006, 18:06
Does any1 know wat the mtw2 map campaign map will be like? I loved the map in mtw and stw but absoutly HATED the rtw map, so much that i have rtw and bi lying under my bed used once -.-
Since its MTW 2 i thought it might be like the MTW campaign map (obvious i thought) but ive heard some people saying thats its a rewrite of rtw, any1 know?
Dutch_guy
02-09-2006, 18:34
I don't think they'll go back to the province based map that MTW and STW had, I think they're going to stay with the fluid map they introduced with Rome total war and hopefully make it better and better with each new game they produce.
There was a thread a while back which raised the question how you would like to see the map built, I'll dig up the link for you.
Moderator's edit: well spotted, Dutch Guy. Threads merged.
Total War Merc
02-09-2006, 21:13
MTW!! FTW!!
I find MTW alot more fun, instead of "How long will it take to go around the forest?" (as in RTW) its more "Can i take on the 5000 men with my 5000 men?"
I find that RTW was more confusing than fun, it was more focued on the economy (Trade routes, Upgrading cities) than the fighting (Which is the main part of Total WAR), instead of "Im going to destroy the French because I can!" as it is in MTW, its more ":O Nice trade roads, prepare yourself Roman Scum!".
+ Bacteria cells are smarter than the AI in RTW! :)
+ RTW was way too easy, and the way you unlocked factions was just bad (Although they did fix this in the BI expansion pack)
All in all, MTW was focused on battles as the Total WAR series should be!
(Note: This is just the Campaign map, i never play the Battle maps so i wuldn't know about them)
(Also Note: MTW: VI was the best expansion pack ever!!!)
HalfThere
02-09-2006, 23:18
MTW!! FTW!!
I find MTW alot more fun, instead of "How long will it take to go around the forest?" (as in RTW) its more "Can i take on the 5000 men with my 5000 men?"
I find that RTW was more confusing than fun, it was more focued on the economy (Trade routes, Upgrading cities) than the fighting (Which is the main part of Total WAR), instead of "Im going to destroy the French because I can!" as it is in MTW, its more ":O Nice trade roads, prepare yourself Roman Scum!".
+ Bacteria cells are smarter than the AI in RTW! :)
+ RTW was way too easy, and the way you unlocked factions was just bad (Although they did fix this in the BI expansion pack)
All in all, MTW was focused on battles as the Total WAR series should be!
(Note: This is just the Campaign map, i never play the Battle maps so i wuldn't know about them)
(Also Note: MTW: VI was the best expansion pack ever!!!)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it'll almost certainly not be risk-style.
And, having played both MTW and RTW, I think RTW is a lot better (though the AI couldn't be accused of that) in general.
I chose MTW. It was much cleaner. RTW's strategic map is just a mess.
If the strategic AI is fixed, RTW's map might be okay, but I wasn't really that impressed with it, and I much preferred MTW's 'total-ownership-or-no-ownership' of a province.
As far as RTW's linkage of the strategic to the tactical maps, I think the idea was good, and still is, but RTW's tactical maps were awful.
Cowhead418
02-10-2006, 04:57
I've played both RTW and MTW, and I have to say I prefer the MTW map a whole lot more. I personally think the RTW map wasn't done well, and you could exploit the AI a hell of a lot more easily in RTW's system than in MTW. The RTW AI was just clueless with its army stacks. I also like the "total ownership or no ownership" of a province, the bigger battles, and how it didn't take 30 turns for your emissary/diplomat to meet with a distant faction. If they vastly improve the AI (and I mean a HUGE leap) then I might like the RTW style better, but as of now I would love to have the old style back. But alas, this will not be so.:wall: :gah2: :shame:
Cesare diBorja
02-10-2006, 07:40
MTW maps are out..............sack em.
RTW is ok
As with this new game I'd like to see an improvement on past games from CA. I am not nostalgic, because things in the past are now obselete. So get over this obsession with older games and look to the future and for things to be different/better. OK!
diBorgia
Silver Rusher
02-10-2006, 21:14
I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out, (haven't been bothered to read the thread) but CA have already confirmed that they will be using the RTW map.
Whether I like this or note I do not know, although as it has been said quite a few times before, the RTW map would be much better if the AI was fixed.
screwtype
02-20-2006, 18:03
Perhaps using rome's system for movement, but having much harsher destruction penalties (when an enemy army is in your province) in order to force field battles?
Yes, I'd be very much in agreement with that. As things stand, there are almost no effects at all in a province with an enemy army in it, which is just ridiculous. The presence of the enemy should be devastating to your economy and population, forcing you to try and defeat the enemy quickly before the province is ruined.
And it should work the same way when you are on the offensive. There should be a big incentive to take a city or castle at the earliest possible moment because the province population should be plummeting from famine just by your army's presence. In that way you would want to move quickly before all the wealth and population of the province you're trying to capture is wasted.
And BTW, when you think about it, a mechanic like this would also slow down the rate of conquest and minimize the "steamroller" factor. Because many provinces, especially on faction borders, would be getting smashed back to nothing by constant warfare and would not be very useful to you for quite some time after capturing them. Also, the AI could if necessary be given a much quicker recovery rate for captured provinces, to help it out and make your own expansion a lot more difficult, especially at the harder difficulty levels.
screwtype
02-20-2006, 18:22
one personal thing I would absolutely LOVE to see would be more than one settlement in a province, I would love to see the development of minor villages (and coastal seaports areas) within a province as well as the province capital. So when an enemy army moves into the province, it can raid minor villages, seaports, and maybe even other resources (like mines or trade routes) than are not located in the capital city. This would also be great to see these sort of areas having their own minor garrison areas and minor defences.
Yes, I made much the same comment on another thread. The RTW campaign map just isn't interactive enough. There isn't really anything you can do on it except march back and forth and siege cities. It would be more fun and more challenging if you could, for example, raid a grain hex and steal its grain for your own faction, or just burn the thing to the ground. Or alternatively, capture stuff like mines and resources and either destroy them or pillage them for goodies.
Alternatively, it would be good if you had to actually develop resources instead of just getting a graphic of a pot somewhere to indicate this province has a pottery resource. So you'd have to actually build a pottery on the resource and build a road to it before you can benefit from it.
That way you'd want to defend your carefully built up and expensive infrastructure from the enemy. It's the kind of thing that would add a lot of interest to the strategy side of things, which in my opinion is just what the TW series most needs at the moment (apart from a better the AI, that is).
I voted M:TW map because I think it worked better than the R:TW map. Don't ask me why, I don't know either. The R:TW map is beautiful and has far more potential than M:TW, but I don't like the way the armies interact with it. If this could be improved, I would vote R:TW.
Sykotyk Rampage
02-22-2006, 16:57
The RTW/mtw2 campaign map should be a changing earth just like the real thing.
Rivers flood and affect the terrain, crop lands brown in drought conditions, sea coasts flood in storms, lakes swell making land impassable, avalanches block passes, weather, -when you zoom out of the map to fly like an eagle, birds eye view, clouds stroll by, rain and snow storms, and lightning. Weather affects movement on the map. Forest fires. Villages and farms appear and disappear over time. Small towns grow in the countryside dependent on your main capitol, faction and provinces’ growth. The weather and invading armies, spies and diplomats can affect these towns, things, and places on the map.
Like others have said, an army can raze farms, destroy villages, towns, roads, mines, ports, fishing villages, forts, bridges, and buildings, and watch towers should be destroyable. What was with a faction building an icon for a watchtower that can never be removed.
The campaign map as it is now is not a part of the game but only a picture that is a means to the end – battles. Attacking Cities are the only way to affect a faction; the “land” is just eye candy. CA needs to innovate a world map that immerses the player as a living breathing environment, one where battles/armies, changes in terrain, real earth weather and nature effects, landscape and campaign economics are effected by the other.
SKR
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.