PDA

View Full Version : RTW : Strategic Movement



Galestrum
03-12-2003, 22:37
OK, while the things sound like they may have been drastically changed, this is one thing that really should be changed.

Suppossedly the 3D map is revolutionary and it does not have provincial boundaries, so as of yet i do not know what constrains movement on the strat map.

But whatever it is, it shouldnt be as limiting as it was in MTW, I will detail this below, with some ideas on improvement.

Land Movement.

(1) as we all know, in MTW, we were limited to moving our troops by land to either (a) 1 adjacent province (b) 1 battle or ( c) 1 province moved followed by a battle.

as we saw, this "theory" of movement meant that without a ship network (which the AI is very poor at creating, leaving you to do it) it could take anywhere from 7-10 years to launch a crusade from england and have it get to its destination in Jerusalem or the surrounding area. That is just simply ridiculous, even if you did walk from normandy to jerusalem it wouldnt take 10 years.

Improvements:

(1) Land untis should be allowed to move the distance that they would have been able to historically. No more 1 province moves or the new engines equivalent of 1 province moves

(2) Allow armies to fight more than (1) battle per year. Caesar's camapign against the gauls lasted approx. 2 years if i recall, if we did that in MTW/RTW equivalent, it would probably take anywhere 10-20 years, between sieges, battles, garrisoning, reinforcements, etc.

Spartacus destroyed around 5 legions in 2 years and marched all over Italy, this again would take far more than 2 years in MTW under the best of circumstances.

This needs to be improved, and would add to strategic game as well as adding historical accurracy.

(3) In other game types which are turn based, units often have a certain amount of "movement points" where they can move or fight or any combination thereof. I understand that this is not the same kind of game, but the concept is sound, and could be modified to allow greater movement and more battles during a game turn.

(4) if you invade a province and they give battle or are defeated, you should be given the option to assault the castle/fort/city automatically, and not waste a year sitting around doing nothing.

Water Movement

This is pretty simple, it doesnt take 15-20 years to sail a ship from denmark to jerusalem Ships should be able to sail anywhere on the map to any other point within historical bounds - no more chain of ships garbage, no more taking 2-3 years to sail from denmark to ireland.

Improvements:

(1) troop transports - each ship has a capacity to carry a certain number of troops nad the ship can move anywhere within the year and have the troops fight that turn (if its still one year turns)
(2) trade ships should just be built and the auto sail and trade, and your warships guard certain bodies of water, protecting the trade routes.

Heraclius
03-13-2003, 00:07
I'm back Galestrum, if only temporarily This thread remnds me of an interesting moment in the the history of the Byza.....Just kidding. I won't hijack this thread too, well maybe if Elwe finds his way here..... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
But seriously I do agree with you on all points especially about the ships. In MTW I couldn't help shake the feeling that ships were nothing but an afterthought and while I know it would've been impossible to have 3D battles etc I feel there should have been another way to handle this. I think that the whole "line of ships" method for trade and transport should be abandoned and I also believe that the way units move and how long it takes them to do that should be reconsidered. As you said a crusade marching from France to Jerusalem did not take 10 years ad I doubt if it took 1.
I agree that ships should become transports and I think the whole issue of taking a year to get from one province to another could be dealt with by bringing back season turns, which I missed in MTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
See I can respond to your posts in a meaningful fashion Just no one bring up history that doesn't relate to this thread or football and I'll be fine http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Galestrum
03-13-2003, 01:24
noooooo

OMG i saw that you respnded and said to myself "not again"

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

hehe i thought i was safe for a few days, it was just a ruse, isnt there a saying about not trusting greeks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Heraclius
03-13-2003, 04:52
Quote[/b] (Galestrum @ Mar. 12 2003,18:24)]noooooo

OMG i saw that you respnded and said to myself "not again"

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

hehe i thought i was safe for a few days, it was just a ruse, isnt there a saying about not trusting greeks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
This is your own fault Galestrum. You made me go off topic wiht your query about anti-greek sayings. The two best in my opinion come from Albania, a country long "abused" by us Greeks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. One is "If a Greek shakes your hand count your fingers" while the other is "If a Greek kisses you count your teeth" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Yes my friend I was determined to lull you into a false sense of security but I have changed. No more hijacking (at least for a little while) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I really think the solution to changing movement/time issues would just be to go back to seasons instead of years, thus Caesar's actual 2 year campaign could take 2 years in game time but would be divided into eight different turns. (hope I did my math right, always failed that class http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Hakonarson
03-13-2003, 05:09
I thought RTW was going to use seasons, which would instantly achieve all that you ask - as well as making the march times from England to the Holy Land realistic at about 2-3 years.

Heraclius
03-13-2003, 05:13
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Mar. 12 2003,22:09)]I thought RTW was going to use seasons, which would instantly achieve all that you ask - as well as making the march times from England to the Holy Land realistic at about 2-3 years.
HIP HIP HURRAH Bravo CA.

Spino
03-13-2003, 06:36
Quote[/b] ]I agree that ships should become transports and I think the whole issue of taking a year to get from one province to another could be dealt with by bringing back season turns, which I missed in MTW

I believe they are implementing seasonal turns for RTW. The new strategic map and its unique system of movement will feel sorely out of place if yearly turns are used. While the regionalized maps of STW and MTW can allow for that sort of thing people will really question the logic of using yearly turns in RTW when it takes their little army icon an entire year to march from Rome to the Alps.

Elwe
03-13-2003, 07:01
Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ Mar. 12 2003,17:07)]I'm back Galestrum, if only temporarily This thread remnds me of an interesting moment in the the history of the Byza.....Just kidding. I won't hijack this thread too, well maybe if Elwe finds his way here.....
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif I'm here, Heraclius.. and we have another one of Galestrum's threads to Hijack... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But seriously. Yes, I too hope for a return to the four seasons of gaming. The timespan has been shortened from the 400-odd years of MTW to a mere 250+ (?) years for RTW, so we should at the very least get turns broken down to summer/winter

A couple of points about MTW.. didn't you notice that deep sea vessels could move three sea provinces a turn? Made getting from England to Palestine only take about.. 4 years.. (yeah, I agree, still too long).

I wasn't too keen on the navy system regarding naval military actions, but I was happy with the utilisation of 'chains' of ships to represent trade routes. Maybe we should get a combination of the two in RTW? Keep the ship chains for trade, but have troop transport and naval manouvreing happen in a different way... just a thought.

Moving several 'provinces' a turn would be useful as well... but thenm you get the sticky situation of trying to intercept the enemy... how would you suggest resolving that, if an enemy can just move around you and keep going into your un(der)-defended heartlands?

(O.k. Heraclius... now we get him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif )

Cheers.

Galestrum
03-13-2003, 09:42
*locks elwe and heraclius back in the dungeon* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

well, RTW already said there wont be a "province" based map anyways, so surely they have figured some sort of movement that i am speaking of i think.

I am guessing the way to do this would have a certain area around which one army can intercept another on the strat map, and you should always leave garrisons in your important places likes cities/forts, this will actually make a garrison worthwhile instead of those provinces 20 provinces behind the front that cannot be attacked.

spmetla
03-13-2003, 09:47
I'm all for those ideas. I really really hope the devs look in this forum.


Quote[/b] ]hehe i thought i was safe for a few days, it was just a ruse, isnt there a saying about not trusting greeks

The saying is " Don't trust Greeks bearing gifts."

It was about the Trogan Horse.

Siena
04-01-2003, 00:36
I would guess, that the army movement will be like in game "Legion". So - a "tile" based map with army being able to move up to certain number of "tiles".
If you want to intercept enemy, you have to simply "put" your army on enemy's and battle occurs.

Heraclius
04-01-2003, 03:12
what is this whole "tile-based map" I've been haering about anyway? It won't be a cheesy grid like those old Civil War games, will it? anyone know anything?

spmetla
04-01-2003, 07:25
It'll probably be like Lord of the Realm 2. Where your're army can move a certain amount of spaces in once season.

Nowake
04-01-2003, 11:59
but then how about marches and countermarches?

Siena
04-02-2003, 20:04
"tile" based map is a map that is made up not of provinces, but of (square?) "tiles". You move armies not from province to province, but from tile to tile. "Tiles" will not have visible borders (at least I cannot imagine that anybody would want map divided in visible squares), so you will move several "spaces", when you move the army.
Check out "Legion" for a living and breathing sample http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Stormer
04-02-2003, 21:51
Hmm intresting http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Nowake
04-03-2003, 16:54
Quote[/b] (Siena @ April 02 2003,13:04)]"tile" based map is a map that is made up not of provinces, but of (square?) "tiles". You move armies not from province to province, but from tile to tile. "Tiles" will not have visible borders (at least I cannot imagine that anybody would want map divided in visible squares), so you will move several "spaces", when you move the army.
Check out "Legion" for a living and breathing sample http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Oh, Siena, you didn't understood ... I played Lord of the Realm II to exhaustion, I know what the "tile based map" term means ... It's just that I don't think that having such a system will allow you to realize complex strategic movements on the campaign map ... On the other hand, with some major enhancements, a feature like that could have a real future ...

Siena
04-03-2003, 17:44
pr Fire, I was answering to Heraclius.
I have never played "Risk" or "Lord of the Realm II"...
What do you mean by "complex strategic movement" and "marches and countermarches"?

I liked how "Legion" had strategic movement implemented. With little improvement (letting adjacent forces to participate in battle too) it would be quite good strategic model, IMO.

Nowake
04-03-2003, 18:02
Then i guess I'm the confused one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif By complex strategic movement I understand atemps to outmaneuvre the other, like Hannibal did when he crossed the Alps ... I didn't played Legion, sorry, so I don't have a clue about that system http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Siena
04-03-2003, 18:33
yeah, you can maneuver playing "Legion". It is important where and what armies you place to protect cities and to try to intercept enemy armies or take enemy cities...
I have no idea how RTW will imiplement it, but I have a hunch it will be similar...

Nowake
04-03-2003, 18:43
Hope someone will read this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

1dread1lahll
04-04-2003, 00:50
Tactical movement(battle map), if the map is the revolution we are hoping for, roads.....not the cosmetic ones we see in game now; but ones that give a marching (speed) bonus to the army using it, its been done in older games (Sid Meyers Gettysburg)so its CAN be done, if someone thought to include it. I am hopeful because Medieval has a column formation that seems useless.... prehaps the devs started to work on it but deemed the maps to small for it to be put to use, or managers just said 'times up' and it was left unfinished.....

Nowake
04-04-2003, 18:05
the problem is that only the romans made roads back then ...

spmetla
04-04-2003, 20:12
THe romans weren't the only ones with roads. THey might have been the only ones with good roads but certainly not the only ones with roads.

Hell even a frequently used path can be considered a road at this point in history.

1dread1lahll
04-06-2003, 03:02
and not the only ones to walk on them....

some_totalwar_dude
04-06-2003, 12:46
If they gonne have roads I supose you can chose to march in the fields to enemy territory, where you could make it difficult for the enemy to see you comming. Or march over the roads where you could march a longer distance per turn but the enemy can easily see you comming.

A.Saturnus
04-23-2003, 15:24
I guess this won`t happen but I would like it if they would throuw the whole turn-based system overboard. It`s not that I want a "classical" RPG, but the rather continous "zoom-in" from strategic to battlemap could be combined with a continous time change. It works like this: time on the strategic map goes with a custom speed (varying from zero over a day per second to months per second). If you have to make difficult decisions you stop the time or you set it on fast while your armies are moving to other countries. If an army reaches a point were it has to do a certain action - say a battle - time stops and the map zooms in on the battlefield. Everyone who played Imperium Galactica II knows what I`m speaking of.

Heraclius
04-24-2003, 02:30
acutally I like the turn based system. In my opinion the game would be kind of disorganized that way. i think it would be complicated and require micromanaging but I haven't played the game you recommended so you might be right.

A.Saturnus
04-24-2003, 11:24
I don`t think it`s complicated. You can do all you want in time stop, so it`s no disadvantage to turn based. It`s like as in Baldur`s Gate except that it`s less hectical when starting time again because things happen at a slowed rate (as long as you don`t put the time on very fast).

Michael the Great
04-30-2003, 14:46
in the FAQ they said that they're gonna keep the TBS aspect of thy game.

Nowake
04-30-2003, 15:02
At the begining I would have voted for the TBS system, but know I don't know anymore ... Maybe if the Ai's movements would coroborate in another way with yours, because this I think is a weak point of MTW ...

rory_20_uk
04-30-2003, 16:18
I like the game as turn based, but would it not be possible to have the two systems side by side? The game Xcom Apocalypse did this remarkably well.
Concerning the roads, it should be possible for other races to adapt to a degree if you as the player want to - just because the celts did not make great roads does not mean that you as the player might decide to cut down on the sacrifices and build those highways it may not be as easy as it would be for Romans to do so, but if you are willing, why not?

Knight_Yellow
04-30-2003, 18:04
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ April 23 2003,15:24)]I guess this won`t happen but I would like it if they would throuw the whole turn-based system overboard. It`s not that I want a "classical" RPG, but the rather continous "zoom-in" from strategic to battlemap could be combined with a continous time change. It works like this: time on the strategic map goes with a custom speed (varying from zero over a day per second to months per second). If you have to make difficult decisions you stop the time or you set it on fast while your armies are moving to other countries. If an army reaches a point were it has to do a certain action - say a battle - time stops and the map zooms in on the battlefield. Everyone who played Imperium Galactica II knows what I`m speaking of.
thats the 1 for me.

not so mutch real time but not so mutch turn based either.