Number of turns?

[Martok]

Out of curiosity, how many turns (ideally speaking) would you like to see Empire have?


Personally, I'd still prefer to return to four turns per year (ala Shogun), as I feel that 200 turns isn't going to be nearly enough time for me. However, I'm also a big-time turtler, and I know that some players are more aggressive than myself. I'm curious to know what you guys think.

[Fisherking]

I voted four but you know I could do 12 no problem. That would just be a long, long game if you had to play to the bitter end.:laugh4:

[Wishazu]

I voted 4 as like Martok I am also a big-time turtler. Aswel as increasing the overall length of the campaign 4 turns per year would make the game follow seasonal changes which could affect certain decisions you have to make - Do I send a fleet across the stormy Atlantic in winter and risk losing my ships or do let my colonies fall to the French...

[Fisherking]

I said it elsewhere but I think four is minimum for weather at sea IMO. They haven’t seen it that way though.

12 turns would give you much better detail but it would make for a long game as I said.

I have a distinct impression, regardless of what the victory conditions are that you will be hard put to accomplish what may have been done historically.

[Megas Methuselah]

I, also, love to turtle. Although I will expand, it will be over a long period of time and well within reasonable bounds (i.e. not a Napoleon blitz). I love working together with the AI, maintain vassals, and just play it like a political tutorial, not a game.

4 turns. 200 turns is not enough. Hopefully we'll have the option to continue playing past the end date even if we handn't met the victory conditions...

[Dradem]

I would say 6 :idea2: but it's not on there Martok could you ad it?

Reason why is 12 would be to much altough it will give a bigger impact in the game, they could even make it so that certain months would have heavier snow or colder etc.

4 would give you just the seasons, and is defintly better then 2 :2thumbsup:. But then you could say Oh it's december I'wont invade Russia because it's winter a bit to predicatable I think.

That's why I'ld say 6, you could have a winter peak already November, December but less in Jan and Feb. Just to give a example. Or droughts in certain summer months that would give bad crops or shortage of water for troops, and people. and just troop movement will be even more realistic.
It will be less of on impact for a to long gameplay then 12.

But I will be already a realy happy camper with 4 :beam:

[Polemists]

I'd like to see more turns, but inevitably every game seems to have less turns then the last one (or maybe that's jus thow I feel)

4 sounds good cause of seasons. Yes you would have the inevitable, mass attacks in spring and lack of attacks in Winter, but there could still be some surprises.

Though as this game is done, and heading out the door I think this pool is a mute point...maybe in the expansion.

[lenin96]

Someone in another thread said that there would only be 2 turns a year, i hope its 4 or 6, but people can mod it anyway.:yes:

[Joker II]

I'd like to see four, this in combination with having the opportunity to see what the weather will be like on the campaign map when going into the battlemap.

This way, you know what you can expect from the weather conditions before you enter a battle which could lead to fighting or not, what units to use etc...

Would add alot towards gameplay imho.

[Polemists]

Someone in another thread said that there would only be 2 turns a year, i hope its 4 or 6, but people can mod it anyway.

As someone mentioned in another thread. I'm sure someone will mod it, however I personally just prefer the original material.

I save mods for like....crazy stuff...which I can't think of right now....

[Pinxit]

As someone mentioned in another thread. I'm sure someone will mod it, however I personally just prefer the original material.

I save mods for like....crazy stuff...which I can't think of right now....

If it is 2 turns per year... that means that 6 months pass between turns. That would be unplayable, right? Since a ship for example, and an army travelling by horse, would be able to go pretty much anywhere in that time.

How did it work in Rome and Medieval?

[Sir Beane]

I too am a turtle, snd therefore highly evolved and adapted to deal with four turns a year :laugh4:

I want tos see seasons! That way we could have accurate seasonal weather. Rainy in Spring, sunny in Summer, etc.. It would also be nice to see Autumn leaves on the campaign map, as well as Winter snow drifts.

Personally though I really have no problem with even more turns per year, up to around twelve. I play the game for long term vaalue, I hate short campaigns. Even though I could steamroll the map after building up for a bit I never do, mostly because I just can't have fun with that.

From the perspective of roleplay, and 'putting yourself in the game' four turns is ideal.

[andrewt]

2. I'd love to see all 4 seasons but if they did that, I might not see later tech units if only time unlocks them. I just can't play a ton of turns doing nothing but defending and killing brigands. It would bore me to death. Brigands, especially, are usually what persuade me to pick-up another game after playing some Total War.

[Megas Methuselah]

How did it work in Rome and Medieval?

Ugh. Rome had two turns per year, and Medieval 2 had two years per turn. The best approach to these was, "Don't think about it." :no:


I want tos see seasons! That way we could have accurate seasonal weather. Rainy in Spring, sunny in Summer, etc.. It would also be nice to see Autumn leaves on the campaign map, as well as Winter snow drifts.

Personally though I really have no problem with even more turns per year, up to around twelve. I play the game for long term vaalue, I hate short campaigns. Even though I could steamroll the map after building up for a bit I never do, mostly because I just can't have fun with that.

From the perspective of roleplay, and 'putting yourself in the game' four turns is ideal.

A big, bold YES to everything written here.

[Rick]

Why wouldn't the game come with the option of choosing yearly, seasonally, or monthly turns. A player should have that option.

[TevashSzat]

Why wouldn't the game come with the option of choosing yearly, seasonally, or monthly turns. A player should have that option.

Well, then game balance would be off. Think about it, more turns means lower army movement and tax income and longer build times. Else, it might only pass for 5 in game years, but you conquered half the world already

[Polemists]

I do see the need not to mainstream it. Aka: Don't make the game just 4 turns per year. Yes you are right that would upset the people who like to rush and feel like time is against them.


However, Rick had the right idea, if there was a option to choose turns to be seasonal, montly, or bi yearly I think everyone would get what they want.

Would it be that hard for CA to implement? If a building took 2 years, and you choose seasonal, then yes it now takes 24 turns to complete. Then again some people just like looking at the map, relaxing , and sending out agents and doing little things, rather then big sweeping conquests.

[Martok]

Hopefully we'll have the option to continue playing past the end date even if we handn't met the victory conditions...

I believe we will be able to, yes. However, there will be no more in-game events after 1800.

[BeeSting]

Four turns per year for me.

[gollum]

Hi,
4 per year for me too, they'll never do it though, and perhaps rightly; the game is now huge in scope and abstraction than the Feudal Japan scenario, that had the harvest and seasonal weather. It will be very detailed f they did it that way and very hard to even deliver vanilla campaign balance.

The way things are 2 per year is the best middle ground.

Anyway, after BI they aim generally at about 200 - 250 turns limit, which is again a middle ground between SP hardcores that roleplay their characters as if they were alive in real time and the said casual gamer that serves as the TW compass eversince RTW.

!it burnsus!

[General SupaCrunk]

4 Turns

[Thermal]

6, but said 12 cause it wasnt there, if a hundred year perios that would be 600 turns, and i like to go slow-ish myslef, my dad wouldnt finish if there were 100000 turns though, he takes one settlement every 50 turns

[Roka]

I do see the need not to mainstream it. Aka: Don't make the game just 4 turns per year. Yes you are right that would upset the people who like to rush and feel like time is against them.


However, Rick had the right idea, if there was a option to choose turns to be seasonal, montly, or bi yearly I think everyone would get what they want.

Would it be that hard for CA to implement? If a building took 2 years, and you choose seasonal, then yes it now takes 24 turns to complete. Then again some people just like looking at the map, relaxing , and sending out agents and doing little things, rather then big sweeping conquests.

I think someone has miscalculated :laugh4: :clown:

[Lord Nelson]

While I never played shogun, I Would be happy with either 12 or four. But for me it all depends on how long it takes to build stuff and how movement cost will work. As long as its all balanced out, and it doesnt take 6 years to get to the Americas.(I was being sarcastic before you all jump in screaming your history facts) For me ,when I played Medieval, the worst feeling was that of feeling rushed, knowing that I only had a short time. And the sluggish movement of troops.

I personally feel they should increase the momvemt rate. This would help to keep the game moving,

On a side note: I would like to apologise to anybody I may have offended during my previous posts. I Should not have reacted the way I did. I was wrong to critisize CA and to break the rules so openly.

[Sir Beane]

While I never played shogun, I Would be happy with either 12 or four. But for me it all depends on how long it takes to build stuff and how movement cost will work. As long as its all balanced out, and it doesnt take 6 years to get to the Americas.(I was being sarcastic before you all jump in screaming your history facts) For me ,when I played Medieval, the worst feeling was that of feeling rushed, knowing that I only had a short time. And the sluggish movement of troops.

I personally feel they should increase the momvemt rate. This would help to keep the game moving,

On a side note: I would like to apologise to anybody I may have offended during my previous posts. I Should not have reacted the way I did. I was wrong to critisize CA and to break the rules so openly.

Hey, no problem! :laugh4: An apology is enough for me to forgive you. Also don't worry about critiscising CA, we all do it :P We just tend to be a little nicer about it (some of us anyway).

I also hated the feeling of being rushed that was around in Medieval 2. I like to have a lot of time to build up a nice infrastructure and military force before I begin my invasions. Recent Total War games have favoured a much more blitz-happy style (just look at Askthepizzaguy, though he would probably blitz even if the game favoured turtles.)

[YouHaveRecieved]

I would love to see an eight years per turn campaign. I'm sure the. 'Fight for Independace' or whatever tutorial will have more turns per years because it happened over a shorter scale. Eight turns would give two turns a season and more variety to seasons.

[Megas Methuselah]

With eight years, though, time will pass ridiculously slow... And people will, as previously stated, conquer the world in a matter of a few years.

[YouHaveRecieved]

Well, I believe we are obviously not going to get 4/6/8/12 turns per year are we? I'm saying in my ideal world eight would be perfect.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

With eight years, though, time will pass ridiculously slow... And people will, as previously stated, conquer the world in a matter of a few years.

If the new AI is as good as CA wants us to think then I doubt it.

And.. I voted for 4 turns per year. If I get seasons then I'm happy.
The perfect solution is off course if we could choose between fast paced game with 2tpy and some lower paced games with 4tpy(or even 12 tpy).

[YouHaveRecieved]

People would, but I wouldn't. A lot of people would build up slowly or over time, in an ideal world there would be a choice, with unit recruitment and build times changed with each. I would say 2/4/8/12 tpy options.

[Owen Glyndwr]

I think it would be pretty neat to see 12 tpy. If snow made a drastic effect on warfare (like Valley Forge/Invasion of Russia level, not like it was in RTW, and M2TW), then I'd love big long numbers of turns as then you'd really have to plan your wars accordingly, and I don't think 4 tpy would really take advantage of that to the level I would want. I think it would be pretty interesting if it got to the point where you'd have to set timetables to finish a war before winter hits (or perhaps hold on until that point). Because if I recall correctly, Napoleon actually had a specific timetable for his army in taking Russia. I just think from a role-playing or history buff's standpoint, seeing that kind of stuff played out to that degree would be truly awesome.

[Rick]

It seems CA has already made up its mind, although I hope not. I would really like to see 4 tpy. However, for future release I have a suggestion to CA for future releases.

About 10 years ago I played with a miniature Napoleonic rules set called Empire authored by Scotty Bowden. Althought tactical, it did have an interesting concept. Bowden called it "Telescoping" where each turn was one hour, but when units came within a certain distance from one another the combat was fought out in 15 minute increments.

CA already uses this concept; in a battle if players select to personaly command their troops in battle it's fought out. I believe that CA could take this a bit further by having a separate military campaign movement function. Building and deplomacy would be played on the usual one/two turn a year basis, but military movement would be a separate function that would allow players to move their military forces within a four (or more) turn sequence. Similar to a battle, a player would select the campaign mode and either have it play out autmatically or command it personaly. When armies meet it's fought out in the old style.

Now, I'm not a programer, but I know the technology is there and the only limitation to programers is their imagination.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'd point out that the number of turns wouldn't effect the pace of the game all that much. You'd still mostly do the same thing you normally would in a single turn. It's just that it's in a time-scale more conducive to immersion.

Ofcourse, if winter would've modelled with it's full effects, it'll be fun to get your armies back to their barracks before they suffer too much. Get stopped shot of your invasion goals when winter sets in adds the player with a whole new set of decision to make. March home or suffer the terrible toll of General Winter in an effort to land the decisive blow on the enemy? The strategy games made by AGEOD have this working nicely and I rather enjoy this aspect, much more then I thought I would.

Ofcourse, there'd be the downside, that some players would get bored during winters. Frankly, apart from the most diehard twitch players, I reckon most might not be all too bothered about it. Besides, seeing as ETW is in large part about building an empire overseas, there's bound to be a place in the tropics where one so easily bored could get up to no good while the home nation is snowed in. :beam:

[Hosakawa Tito]

I'd like to see 4 turns per year just like in Shogun. Weather effects on travel, supply logistics, food production on the mostly agrarian cultures of the time period was probably the most dominate factor in determining the fate of Empires.

[Lord Nelson]

I know its gonna be moddable anyways, but they should give you a choice like they did in Rome. A long campaign gives you four turns a year and a short gives you two.

[Megas Methuselah]

...but they should give you a choice like they did in Rome-

They didn't give us a choice in Rome. They backed us into a corner and forced us to play 2tpy. :laugh4:

I think you're talking about the long and short campaign choice. They're both 2tpy anyways...

[Lord Nelson]

I have to say they are rather slow on letting the information flow, I expected a bit more to come out of the old website. I cant help feeling they are enjoying our suffering and speculation a bit too much :furious3:

[Megas Methuselah]

I am inclined to agree. Moreover, I believe they are running behind schedule and don't have time to give us our rightfully-earned salt's worth of information. That, or they could just be whipping together a demo. Come what may, this lack of information is killin' me.

:no:

[Oleander Ardens]

4 turns would fit very well the limited timeframe in the game and make most sense gameplay wise, being intuitive, allowing for greater variability in the weather and climate and makes a campaign not overly long.

I would also like the ability to use 2 and 6 turns, if possible.

[Papewaio]

I wouldn't mind either a 4 turn seasonal campaign as per Shogun. Terrifying Monks in Fog or Rain.

Or one that has more turns in the 'nicer seasons'
Winter 1 turn.
Autumn & Spring 2 turns.
Summer 3 turns.
For 8 turns in total.

=][=
Food and logistics would be nice to have, after all winter had as much to do with defeating Napoleon as strategic decisions.

[IsItStillThere]

Since ETW will be covering a much shorter timespan than M2TW (only 100 years apparently), it only seems to make senese to have more than 2 turns a year in ETW so the game will last an appropriate number of turns. Four seems good.

[Fisherking]

Tada!

At this moment in time 2 turns and 12 turns are tied in the poll with 6 votes each!

And 4 turns per year only has 39 votes!

What ever are we to make of that? Hummmmmm!?:whip:

[Sir Beane]

Well I'm no proffesional election analyst but:

It looks like 4 turns is going to be elected the fan favourite with an ovewhelming majority. 4 turns per year seems to have attracted voters with its blend of charisma, smart policies and strong family values.

2 turns and 12 turns represent the extreme far right and left of the turns per year spectrum and the remaining votes seem to be equally divided between them.

Sadly this time the ever popular Gah! has recieved no votes whatsoever. Maybe it's time for this paticular option to retir and reflect on a long and succesful career?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

A clear indication that 4.706 turns per year is called for.

[Megas Methuselah]

Well I'm no proffesional election analyst but:

It looks like 4 turns is going to be elected the fan favourite with an ovewhelming majority. 4 turns per year seems to have attracted voters with its blend of charisma, smart policies and strong family values.

2 turns and 12 turns represent the extreme far right and left of the turns per year spectrum and the remaining votes seem to be equally divided between them.

Sadly this time the ever popular Gah! has recieved no votes whatsoever. Maybe it's time for this paticular option to retir and reflect on a long and succesful career?

:laugh4: I hope CA listens to us. It's probably too late, though.

[Sir Beane]

:laugh4: I hope CA listens to us. It's probably too late, though.

Maybe they might listen for the next game? Whatever that may be. It is almost certainly to late for Empire.

I'm still holding out hope that there will be a mod within a few weeks of release that will give us a 4tpy campaign.

[magnum]

What I found to be true for me in RTW, and help up in M2TW, was not the number of turns, but the number of battles fought. If there are several battles a turn, then I'd only be willing to play about 200-300 turns. Divide that by the number of years the game covers and you have the number of turns per year.

On the other hand, if you fought a battle only once every few turns, then you could have 12 turns a year. So to me, its not the number of turns a year, but the number of battles a turn, that ultimately defines turns/year.

[ConnMon]

If I could vote in the poll, I'd definetely say 4 turns, because 200 turns is too few for a big enough group that it would be a bad thing for the game.

I'd definetely not say 12 turns, because the casual gamer isn't going to want to play 1200 turns for a full campaign. It's the ugly, but true scenario. Maybe modders can change the turns AND make seasons for them, but I would have no idea how that stuff works. :dizzy2:

I just wish CA would give us more info. Or if Jack Lusted voted on this poll, that'd be cool too. :yes:

[Sir Beane]

If I could vote in the poll, I'd definetely say 4 turns, because 200 turns is too few for a big enough group that it would be a bad thing for the game.

I'd definetely not say 12 turns, because the casual gamer isn't going to want to play 1200 turns for a full campaign. It's the ugly, but true scenario. Maybe modders can change the turns AND make seasons for them, but I would have no idea how that stuff works. :dizzy2:

I just wish CA would give us more info. Or if Jack Lusted voted on this poll, that'd be cool too. :yes:

Sadly I think the final word from CA is two turns per year.

Since Jack is probably like the rest of us here at the Org I imagine he would vote for 4 turns per year, if company policy allowed him to. :laugh4:

[Polemists]

I think it will be 4 turns as people want, but just not this game. I think this game got so focused on politics, ai and graphics that by time they got to added mini bonuses (aka more turns, newer events, etc, ) things just stayed same from last game.




am inclined to agree. Moreover, I believe they are running behind schedule and don't have time to give us our rightfully-earned salt's worth of information. That, or they could just be whipping together a demo. Come what may, this lack of information is killin' me.

That seems pretty doubtful. Last time CA didn't want to release a demo until a week before the game or so, unfortunately for CA (fortunate for us) the demo was leaked early, it became so wide spread CA ended up releasing it's demo just it could stem the tide of the leaked demo. A similiar thing may happen this time but no guarentee's.

I hope CA would be smart enough to realize with a one month delay, a demo to fool around with in feburary would be nice, but CA does not seem to up on the press department these days?

How about those newsletters? Lol :laugh4:

[Fondor_Yards]

Maybe we'll get lucky again and only need to edit the descr_strat again in order to change the turns per year.

[Fisherking]

Unfortunately, the last game (M2TW) had one turn for 2 years, with summer and winter alternating. A hold over from RTW, obviously.

This game most likely goes back to the turn pattern of RTW.

I think the way some of the moders got around the summer winter default was to have three summers before a winter, which is when character ageing takes place.

If someone plans on moding for four turns, this is what they will need to look at. However, I seriously doubt that this or the next game will have a 4 turn per year sequence.

More likely, they may, if they think it is what the fans really want, try to integrate it into the next engine, when and if work starts on that.

I don’t mean to sound pessimistic but a game with 400 turns is something I think they are more likely to leave to mods.

[Sol Invictus]

Yeah, it seems that CA has settled on around 200 turns as the limit that most of the ADD adled younger set that they are going after can handle.:jumping: It should be rather easy to double the turns and make a seasonal progression for us older types, so no worries.:2thumbsup:

[Sir Beane]

It's a shame CA feels it has to try and make a smaller, more compact campaign to cater to more casual gamers. It would be nice if veteran and hardcore gamers like those of us on the Org (I asume most of us count as non-casual gamers) got an option to extend the campaign.

It can sometimes feel a little annoying that the long term fans (who bought every game and sank hours into the series) don't get the game we want because CA has to worry about little things like 'the general public' and 'actually making money and selling more than a couple hundred games'. :laugh4:

[Mikhal]

It's a shame CA feels it has to try and make a smaller, more compact campaign to cater to more casual gamers. It would be nice if veteran and hardcore gamers like those of us on the Org (I asume most of us count as non-casual gamers) got an option to extend the campaign.

It can sometimes feel a little annoying that the long term fans (who bought every game and sank hours into the series) don't get the game we want because CA has to worry about little things like 'the general public' and 'actually making money and selling more than a couple hundred games'. :laugh4:

Actually, I would say that a game spanning over a shorter period of time (like the 100 years in ETW) with shorter turns is the more hardcore as opposed to a game like M2TW with a long campaign including loads of different content which I think feels as if they are just trying to attract the casual mainstreamers with catch phrases like "In our game you can use knights in full plate AND gunpowder muskeeters AND colonize the Americas!"

I consider myself hardcore and I look forward to the 100-year Empires campaign which will allow the devs to be more elaborate on the 18th century as a historic period and not just cram 500 years of history into one game like in M2TW.

[Sol Invictus]

Actually, I would say that a game spanning over a shorter period of time (like the 100 years in ETW) with shorter turns is the more hardcore as opposed to a game like M2TW with a long campaign including loads of different content which I think feels as if they are just trying to attract the casual mainstreamers with catch phrases like "In our game you can use knights in full plate AND gunpowder muskeeters AND colonize the Americas!"

I consider myself hardcore and I look forward to the 100-year Empires campaign which will allow the devs to be more elaborate on the 18th century as a historic period and not just cram 500 years of history into one game like in M2TW.




I agree. I am hoping that in the future, CA will tackle smaller timespans while decreasing the length of turns and thus we could have monthly turns. My ideal TW game would be a Thirty Years War or Seven Years War game with monthly turns. I realize that CA wants to cover a long timespan in order to allow Tech progression, but I would gladly give up that mechanic in order to gain a deeper game overall.

[Sir Beane]

Actually, I would say that a game spanning over a shorter period of time (like the 100 years in ETW) with shorter turns is the more hardcore as opposed to a game like M2TW with a long campaign including loads of different content which I think feels as if they are just trying to attract the casual mainstreamers with catch phrases like "In our game you can use knights in full plate AND gunpowder muskeeters AND colonize the Americas!"

I consider myself hardcore and I look forward to the 100-year Empires campaign which will allow the devs to be more elaborate on the 18th century as a historic period and not just cram 500 years of history into one game like in M2TW.

I'm all for shorter, more focused timescales, so long as they extend the number of turns per year. I agree that the curent games have a lot of things which have clearly been added so they can be mentioned on the box and in game previews.

I want a campaign that has at least four seasons a year, and if they include fancy features, I would like them to be fleshed out and properly balanced.

But I do also think it would be possible to make a hardcore game which has a long timespan. CA just need to focus on polish and balance. There's nothing wron gwith ahving fancy knights and gunpowder, so long as the two work well within the frame of the game.

@Sol Invictus

I think tech progression is a very good way of making the game deeper without making it overly complex. It also has the bonus of being something that appeals to the casual games market as well as hardcore fans.

[Fisherking]

I agree. I am hoping that in the future, CA will tackle smaller timespans while decreasing the length of turns and thus we could have monthly turns. My ideal TW game would be a Thirty Years War or Seven Years War game with monthly turns. I realize that CA wants to cover a long timespan in order to allow Tech progression, but I would gladly give up that mechanic in order to gain a deeper game overall.


:laugh4:When they get down to just a few years I will want weekly turns!
ROFLOL

[Sir Beane]

:laugh4:When they get down to just a few years I will want weekly turns!
ROFLOL

The next game, set over the course of a one week border skirmish between two tiny german states, features 24 turns a day. Both factions get the same units, no units are unlockable, and no buildings can be built.

How's that for a balanced, focused game? :laugh4: (This might actually be a fun idea for a unique mini-campaign, maybe a mod or something)