The end of unexpected rushes

[Balamir]

As we all know, in the MP the players are given circular aread to deploy their armies in. These areas have a part where the limits meet eachother. Many a rusher benefited this and deployed right at the edge of this area so they could charge without suffering too much from shooting units. If we take this realistically, it is impossible for 2 armies to get so close to eachother without noticing. This is absurd and moreover takes the fun out of the game. Strategically, the players should be able to see their enemies coming much earlier than the meeting point was met. When the rusher deploys so close to the other player, it takes the chance of the anti-rusher prepare for the fight properly, or as a matter of fact, like they would have if they saw the rush coming earlier.

My suggestion is to leave a gap between the opposing sides' deployment zones. This neutral zone would both add reality to the game and also make rushing something to think about instead of a primitive head on bash. Please put your opinion in since this issue is fatal IMO for the development of multiplayer gaming on RTW. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Kongamato]

I've thought of other ways to handle deployment as well. I think that it would be nice to have the deployment process begin by having the defenders drop their deployment zone center flags anywhere they'd like on the map. Then, the attackers, able to see the defense's deployment zone placements, would choose points on the red zone where their armies would march into the map like reinforcements. Any point on the redzone that is within a certain proximity to a defender's deployment zone would be off limits to attackers in order to prevent rushing.

This would create some new deployment issues, but I think that having some larger maps, different types of forces, and proper balance would make for a very interesting, varied game.

[Nigel]

Good point, Balamir.

in my (relatively small) experience on MP, these rush situations can happen involuntarily if the two deployment zones touch each other on a hill or other advantageous position and both players try to take advantage of this.

Personally, I don't find it all too annoying (and actually quite challanging) if this happens just now and then. It results in a very different game where your carefully designed marching order suddenly goes out of the window and you have to act fast to adjust to the new situation. I guess the general who can adjust his tactics faster will usually win.

But yes, it is a different matter if one player deliberately generates a rush situation http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif. Or if you really wanted to try out that new tactic you spent all night thinking about and now it is spoiled for you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif. I guess all you can do is deploy your own army in the middle of your red zone and perhaps ask the same of your opponent before the game starts, hoping that your whish for a "no rush" game will be respected.

Not sure if it is not too late to address this in the coding of RTW (or perhaps the Modders will know how to adjust the radius of the deployment zones). But we should definitely pay attention as to how rushing tactics develop in the community and make sure we dont end up with lots of annoyingly repetitive rush games.

edit
Kongamato, your post appeared while I was typing my reponse. But yours is a great idea. Nice, if this could work.

[CBR]

If deploy zones are in one line and with some space between the 2 sides Im happy. Maybe even let you intermingle with your allies from the start (all have one big zone)


CBR

[Brutal DLX]

Excellent idea, Kongamato. And probably easy to implement too, although the attackers must have time to set their formation too before marching in, so they don't have to arrange it on the fly.
I hope the devs read this, it could be doable for Rome

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

A no mans land (deployment) is very useful. As well as having a (partial) team deploymentzone. Siege battles offer the latter for the attackers. So, both seem very possible to make. I would certainly enjoy having them.

[Balamir]

That sounds very logical, I mean the defender would nearly always be able to pick where they wanted to defend on, and it is absurd when the biggest hill in the field is excluded from the defender's zone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flat.gif The notion of creating a tema zone, I had thought of that too and it seems to make team playing much more vivid. I will post a poll about these topics soon so we can get more attention from CA and hopefully manage to make them included in our beloved RTW. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif But first of all, please do continue posting your ideas, we need all the sharing and support, if not critism for these ideas so we know which way to head for http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Dionysus9]

I like all these ideas and I think they could be combined;

1) Defender picks deployment zone, then attacker
2) A neutral buffer exists around defender's zone;
3) Allies can deploy anywhere within their collective zone.

Why not just combine all these great ideas into a new deployment system?

[CBR]

Hmm one potiential problem is that if the defender can pick where ever he/they want to deploy then every map with a hill will be a camper map.

Right now a mapmaker can design it so a hill can be contested but that wont be possible with this type of deployment.


CBR

[Orda Khan]

Exactly, CBR
We need three areas....

Attackers area
No man's land
Defenders area

Let's not forget, defenders did not always have the liberty of choosing their spot, sometimes they were surprised

.......Orda

[Kongamato]

Many times the problem with hills is that they are on the edge of the map when they should be in the center. This is what will give a hill camper power. A hill to be contested over should be the centerpiece of a map. That way, the attackers can surround the hill, which can help them win.

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Kongamato @ Dec. 17 2003,03:05)]Many times the problem with hills is that they are on the edge of the map when they should be in the center.
Isnt that also a question of mapdesign?. We have several default maps that have that annoying corner hill but lots of custom maps which are much better.

I dont know how maps are going to be in RTW as it might be a different.

It is an interesting idea and maybe doing as a host map option would be nice. I just think it might turn into massive camping as defenders always can take the same big hill no matter if its in a corner or not.


But fluid deployment zones or not its really the maps we have to make sure are made good. I love terrain but hate the typical corner hill.


CBR

[TosaInu]

One of the first things I noticed, is that MTW maps offer more variation than STW maps in terms of who gets the hill. There are default MTW maps where the attacker starts on the big hill. I can't think of any default STW map that offers that.

Pure speculation: but I guess that the looks of maps are, at least also, responsible for high edges in STW maps. STW offers only one type of backdrop: sky. It doesn't look so good for flat maps. MTW has hilly backdrops, which removes some need to make high edges to make it look right.

There are some First Person Shooters that offer enourmous maps, but 'only' a part of that can be used. There are natural obstacles like deep ravincs, steep mountains or wild rivers to border the playmap. This offers some real terrain. It's a very nice effect.

[Balamir]

Yes the defender may not always be able to pick his defending point. So I suggest this. We can include the 3 features Bachus summed up for us and adding a small limit:

Clause 1 sub-clause A :

The defender(s) will be limited with the area he can put his deployment zone on, thus, some hills will have to be excluded from defending zone in certain maps.

That would add the affect that Orda Khan wants and we still get a lot more freedom in picking where the battle is going to take place. We must remember that picking the right place to defend on carried many commanders to success, and I want to see that in RTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Orda Khan]

Hmmm nice suggestion Balamir...How about this as an idea?

We go into battle as we do now but the pre deploy time, when you get to survey the surrounding area, has messages ( like we see on units ) with information.....

..'Unable to deploy here due to enemy reconnaisance'..

or something similar. Obviously the attacking team and the defending team are getting different information and use this to decide deployment. One huge benefit I can see from this, as a frustrated map maker, is that maps will not all be attacked from top to bottom ( on the radar map ) and we will find that a map we know can become very different http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
( And all that wasted ground behind us that we never see will finally have more than routing troops on it. )

All I hope is that we don't get the multitude of 'samey' maps that MTW introduced, we lost something special when we moved from STW/MI....all those Classic Maps

......Orda

[Dionysus9]

another option is to allow the mapmapker to designate some area(s) of the map as "no mans land." No deployment of any kind would be allowed in the no mans land zone.

So the mapmaker himself would have some control over where the defender could camp and where he couldnt-- and what hills would be contested and which hills would be fair game for camping.

This could be as simple as "painting" a nomans land zone on the map in the editor. Simple to us at least http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

Also, to avoid silly maps, perhaps there is a limit on how much no mans land a map could have-- say a limit of 30% of the map area.

I am looking forward to map editing in RTW to see what can be done. It would be really nice if they added a random map option with some adjustable parameters (e.g. maximum height from 1-10, amount of water from 1-10, amount of trees from 1-10, etc.).

[Balamir]

Quote[/b] ]I am looking forward to map editing in RTW to see what can be done. It would be really nice if they added a random map option with some adjustable parameters (e.g. maximum height from 1-10, amount of water from 1-10, amount of trees from 1-10, etc.).

LOL Someone played Simcity http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Guys please add your vote in the thread in the Colosseum, we need to draw CA's attention and nobody seems to be very enthusiastic about that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flat.gif

[Skomatth]

How about the attackers starting from edge and defenders from middle. (sorry if been said didn't read topic)

[baz]

thats not very nice Sko http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif imo the surprise element at the end of deployment is a part of the game and if someone deploys in a position where they can get rushed that is down to them .. when playing some 3v3 in the CWB the deployment and tactics needed, have to be thought about and if someone does not deploy where you thought they would it can change the whole battle, which is good because it brings along the element of surprise which every human is gripped by. In reality an army obviously cant get that close without being noticed but this is a game after all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I dont think the deployment zones are great at present, esp in 2v2s, but i like the idea that you can set up a potential attack by the way you deploy, as you get more experienced these attacks wont work but they give you a chance to do some important manouvouring before ppl start dieing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif