Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Let us discuss the battlefield maps

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    EBII Bricklayer Member V.T. Marvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Directing the defence of Boiotergion
    Posts
    3,361

    Default Let us discuss the battlefield maps

    Hello friends,

    I am starting this thread with the intent to scratch a particular itch I am having all those years I am playing EB, that is the, in my opinion, over-abundance of trees on many battlefields and over-exaggerated slopes.

    I mean, what are EB battles supposed to represent? Mostly major battles with big armies of large empires clashing over control of vast swathes of land; not day-to-day skirmishes and low-level violence. What are the battle maps supposed to represent? Not the whole territory of an in-game tile, which would be some 50 times 50 kilometers big, but rather a particular spot within this larger area that the commanders have chosen to do battle on. Now, in real life, most of big military encounters were not done in the middle of a dense forest nor on a rugged mountainside with 60° steep slopes and deep gorges. Rather in order to exert at least some control over the army, the commanders tried hard to chose some level or slightly rolling terrain that could be conveniently over-viewed to maintain awareness of position and situation of both own and the enemy forces. Thence the word "battlefield".

    So my concern and question is - how will the majority of prospective battlefields look like in EBII? Will those be "field-like" or "rugged wildernes-like" as we know them from current EB?

    Sure, I am not arguing for all-out level grassy plain, that would be boring as hell. I would rather like to see mostly some rolling or slightly sloping clear terrain with additional features allowing for some tactical creativity, e.g. if the battle is done if "woody" game tile, the forest would mostly along the margins with big clearance in the middle and perhaps some small groves scattered here and there, a foothill might dominate the center to provide a focal spot the armies are trying to take, and so on, you have got the idea...

    The Getai vs. Boii preview video, that is apparently happening in a Central Europe area appear to have precisely such terrain I am having in mind.

    Now, will that be the general rule (of course, some exceptions are necessary where appropriate) or rather an exception that was chosen just to show-off the new beautiful units that are otherwise simply impossible to notice in regular battlewoods and battlegorges?

  2. #2

    Default Re: Let us discuss the battlefield maps

    Now, in real life, most of big military encounters were not done in the middle of a dense forest nor on a rugged mountainside with 60° steep slopes and deep gorges. Rather in order to exert at least some control over the army, the commanders tried hard to chose some level or slightly rolling terrain that could be conveniently over-viewed to maintain awareness of position and situation of both own and the enemy forces. Thence the word "battlefield".
    Well, this is actually not very true. To take one example, the battle of Philippi was fought on a huge slope, with marshes to the south.

    Example from the battle of Mutina: "Antony had disdained to occupy the defile as it served no other purpose than to hinder the enemy; but, eager to fight, and having no chance to win distinction with his cavalry, because the ground was marshy and cut by ditches, he placed his two best legions in ambush in the marsh, where they were concealed by the reeds and where the road, which had been thrown up artificially, was narrow." (App., BC, 3.66)
    "The other troops divided themselves into two parts and advanced into the marsh on either side, the one commanded by Pansa and the other by Carsuleius. Thus there were two battles in two marshes, and neither division could see the other by reason of the elevated road, while along the road itself the praetorian cohorts fought another battle of their own." (App., BC, 3.67)

    To have a reasonably flat terrain was something rare, and with the battle of Orchomenus Plutarch specifically notes the flatness of the terrain: "Nevertheless, Archelaüs was much encouraged by the nature of the country about Orchomenus, where they were encamped, since it was most favourable as a battle-field for an army superior in cavalry. For of all the plains of Boeotia this is the largest and fairest, and beginning from the city of Orchomenus, it spreads out smooth and treeless as far as the marshes in which the river Melas loses itself." (Plut., Sull., 20.3-4)
    But in Medieval II the terrain was much better than in Rome, so we can suspect the battle maps in EBII will be of better quality as well.
    Last edited by Ailfertes; 11-28-2012 at 12:01.

    Member thankful for this post:



  3. #3
    amrtaka Member machinor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Austria 'n Italy
    Posts
    464

    Default Re: Let us discuss the battlefield maps

    As V.T. Marvin stated, it's not about having a flat grassy plain all the time. But the battlemap in EB oftentimes had steep terrain as if fighting in the High Alps. And no commander up until World War 1 would fight in that terrain. Especially Greece and Anatolia are a pain in that regard.

    I'm rather optimistic in that regard though as MedievalII-battlemaps usually are bigger and less slopey than RTW, at least that has been my experience most of the times.
    Quote Originally Posted by NickTheGreek View Post
    "Dahae always ride single file to hid their numbers, these tracks are side by side. And these arrow wounds, too accurate for Dahae, only Pahlavi Zradha Shivatir are so precise..."
    <-- My "From Basileion to Arche - A Makedonian AAR" Memorial Balloon.

  4. #4
    mostly harmless Member B-Wing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    on the Streets of Rage!
    Posts
    1,070

    Default Re: Let us discuss the battlefield maps

    I tend to agree with the OP's sentiments. I have no idea to what degree battlemap generation is customizable, but I think it would be nice if battles prompted by ambush on the campaign map tended to feature less idealist settings like woods and mountains, while most regular battles took place on more suitable terrain.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Let us discuss the battlefield maps

    impossible : the battlemap is linked to a campaign map tile. this is why if you always fight at the same place on the campaign map, you will have the same battlemap appearance. The only thing that can change that is a custom tile (limited by the engine).

    To make sure all campaign tiles are tactically "viable" it takes hours of testing on different sensitive spots (such as the alpine passes).

  6. #6
    Arrogant Ashigaru Moderator Ludens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    9,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Let us discuss the battlefield maps

    True, and I am afraid it would take too much time (if it's even possible) to create unique battlemaps for every campaign tile. However, in my limited experience with M2:TW the battlemaps are much better than in R:TW. R:TW's battlemaps are practically always dominated by a single feature (forest, slope, river) and that makes them bland. M2:TW maps offer more variety.
    Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO