The unwanted child: Campaign map

[sunsmountain]

Compare all you Medieval TW fans, the old campaign map with the new campaign map.

Which, do you think is easier to use? Why the old one of course: it was much simpler.

Now pause, and think of the effect this has had on your game. Now you spend much more time than you used on the main map, trying to get everything in your favour, which doesnt really work:
- Traits appear randomly,
- Management has a marginal (and temporary) effect,
- Moving armies around, without action. Usually the action occurs around cities, leading to lots of siege battles. 2 siege battles for every 1 land battle, whereas in medieval it was more like 1 for 1.
- Ships take ages
- Spies have marginal effects
- Total war isnt about diplomacy, so why make it so in-depth. Who wanted this?

What are the advantages of all this?
- you can pick the battle spot, based on the 'real map'.
- command stars, influence, retainers and such give you extra stuff to do, sometimes rewarding, sometimes frustrating.

In conclusion, the good does not outweigh the bad for the campaign map. Add to this the difficulties the AI has with the new degrees of 3 dimensional freedom & path finding, as well as an attempt at a new hierarchy of AI decisions, and you can begin to see why old TW fans do not particularly like Rome TW...

(complaining about interface is a side effect. Rome looks stunning.)

If you know forgiveness, you can enjoy both games (campaign map and battle map) anew. Newbies to TW find this easier.

CA has willingly and knowingly sinned against Sid Meier's advice for game designer, and im paraphrasing (the interview was in 1991, when Sid became famouse with Civilization 1): "If you're going to make an action game, make a good action game. If you're making a strategy game, make a good strategy game.
Trying to make a game that offers both, but excels at neither, can be a good game, but never an all-time great."

Comments welcome.

[Atreides]

I see your problem. But I disagree. First of all; change of food does make you eat.

More in-depth, I disagree with.
· I really like siege battles here. This is one thing I did not have with MTW. Ending up in now playing really assaults.
· Spies are here more useful. They can open those annoying gates.
· Totalwar is about, strategy. Management, economics, diplomacy and WARFARE are the contence for me. Your negative point (diplomacy) is now a little more realistic (GOOD).
· Ships actually are less irritating. Transport and guarding your navy are import. Not to build a very large connection over 100 year.

My interesting points are:
· Moving around take's (more) time (more realism).
· Battles take's place according to the map. This is great! Once I looked a little 'stupid' and I had to fight the 'SPQR' army after crossing a (very tiny) river.
· You can use the map in your favour (mountain pass).
· You can ‘feel’ why nations came into existence.

At the end of the day. I liked both. The realism item with RTW I strongly prefer.

[Simetrical]

Moving around take's (more) time (more realism).The RTW move rates are actually hideously unrealistic. It takes a year to get from the north of Italy to the south, for crying out loud! Even at a highly conservative 10 mi/day (16 km/day) average, that gives you over 1800 miles (3000 km) a turn. In other words, you could get from one end of the map to the other and back in a year, realistically speaking.

-Simetrical

[oompalumpa]

I never played medieval so I dunno if I can compare them, but I can try to rebuke some of your points about the RTW campaign map:

-Management increases tax income. I hardly comsider that a marginal and temporary effect, epsecially in big cities.
-Moving armies around without action. This is becuase of the movement system, IE armies going actual places, not just province to province like in medieval. In other words, in medieval you could get a field battle even if the your amry was at one end of the province and the enemy at the other. The movement system now is more realistic and fun (although, not that realistic, as simmetrical pointed out)
-Ships take ages. This is a very good thing. it discourages you from loading up an army, running into greece, Sacking Athens for like a billion denarri, and running back to your homeland all in one turn like you could in medieval (from what I hear)
-Total war is about diplomacy. If it wasnt they would have just made it all custom battle and not even bothereed with a campaign map. It is about, economics, management, diplomacy, etc.

In conclusion, The RTW campaign map owns. Dunno if medieval was better, but RTW is great.

[Ciciocle]

The RTW move rates are actually hideously unrealistic. It takes a year to get from the north of Italy to the south, for crying out loud! Even at a highly conservative 10 mi/day (16 km/day) average, that gives you over 1800 miles (3000 km) a turn. In other words, you could get from one end of the map to the other and back in a year, realistically speaking
yes, but in MTW it would have taken 4 or 5 years to get from Venice to Sicily.

[Kekvit Irae]

The RTW move rates are actually hideously unrealistic. It takes a year to get from the north of Italy to the south, for crying out loud! Even at a highly conservative 10 mi/day (16 km/day) average, that gives you over 1800 miles (3000 km) a turn. In other words, you could get from one end of the map to the other and back in a year, realistically speaking.

-Simetrical

He didnt say it was totally realistic. He just said there was more realism than MTW, where, as stated above, it takes a good number of years in MTW to get from Venice to Sicily if going via land route.

[The Stranger]

i think the load/save bug is worse, this is nothing. i like the map.

[Red Harvest]

I like the campaign map. The diplomacy actually works a lot better than in MTW, despite remaining quirks. The main problems are with the loadgame bugs. Traits are screwed up, but that is not the fault of the map. Instead, it is the result of ineffectual checking of the trait code to make sure traits are actually assigned properly. CA has been very sloppy about checking to make sure RTW features actually functioned as intended, and it is a real shame.

Linking upgrades to population has some serious drawbacks. AI depopulating low population growth regions is one of these drawbacks. Another is that the tech tree structure is showing its age, and I think it needs to be reworked. (Working more as a support structures to maintain X number of elite units, or determine army compositions etc.) Once you get teched up, you can build all elite forces, and that is a problem. However, you will fight most of the decisive battles with low tech units early on. There is really not much point in the higher end units at the moment.

The naval aspect needs work, mainly because it is not decisive enough, and naval transport is far too easy. There was a reason Hannibal took so long *marching* to Italy. Moving an army with a tiny fleet was not an option... Naval invasions should be a major undertaking as should blockades. Ports should play a bigger part in determining the size of navies, and effectiveness of blockades, etc. Navies were somewhat limited by friendly ports or an army land cooperation force as to how far afield they could operate. Storms should be a much larger factor for navies too far from friendly ports or friendly shore/or nearby friendly armies.

[AntiochusIII]

The map is good as it is and was good as it was.

I love both of them, so different.

However, Rome's superior in potential and depth. Yet, how unfortunate, the map's related functions (in other words, strategic aspects) are often broken or absolutely weak.

I don't blame CA, it's the first map this way for them to release to public. I'm sure they'll do much better next time.

Diplomacy is a huge upgrade from Medieval, but, still, are not in-depth enough. They should be much, much more important, and shouldn't be so broken... Still, I don't blame CA. They must be doing better next time.

Naval aspects are something REALLY cool in concept and upgrade. Medieval's sucks. However, they, how unfortunate ;p , are broken, bad. Also, they're far from perfect, more like "under development." Better luck next time.

Movement style improves greatly, yet, movement rate is annoying. I would've increased them drastically and provide more chokepoints to provide real use of forts. Oh, and no army-stopping diplomats either.

Damn, I have high hopes for the expansion... ~;)

P.S. Oh, and the battle maps related to the campaign's should be MUCH more colorful. May be they'll get in some ideas.

[tai4ji2x]

again, the real problem is the stupid "one-patch" or "two-patch" policy or whatever it is. the RTW campaign map is a big step forward, but as with all such changes, there will be problems early on. a disgrace that CA's support is so pitiful, whoever's fault it may be.

[Shadar]

~D I dunno. I found the campaign map absolutely BRILLIANT. like how you can ambush armies marching past, how you can REALLY take advantage of terrain when considering your defences. At least this way its a lot more realistic compared to MTW. Yes, MTW was good in many ways, but RTW has not only got a lot better graphics but its got a new system of movement, of using ports, an improved diplomacy.. everything.

As some people have said before, new systems have inherently got bugs. and concerning the "two patch" policy, i would say blame Activision for it. After all, CA just wanted to create the game, and these games cost a LOT of money, and without support from larger companies you wouldn't even have had the game to play... Yes. many things can be improved, but some things you CAN fix yourself (yes, thats bad for a commercially released game, BUT at least you can fix it, and mod it to your hearts content up to a limit).

[tai4ji2x]

BUT at least you can fix it, and mod it to your hearts content up to a limit

yes, up to a VERY limited point. the siege-load bug is completely unfixable except by CA. same with the battle difficulty glitch. the infantry acting like cavalry has a workaround, but at the expense of testudo. AI behaviors in general are very limited in how much modders can "fix" them

[Jambo]

There is a workaround for the battle difficulty bug - just posted a separate topic on this.

On-topic though, I think the campaign map is a definite step in the right direction. Previously in STW and MTW, the "Risk" style of movement and conquering meant there was only ever a couple of decisive battles between neighbouring factions before a tedious mopping up process was instigated. The steamrollering effect was far too common and nations could be wiped out long before reaching the Middle period of the campaign. At least now territory takes longer to conquer (particularly in the barbarian lands) and losing a province or two doesn't always mean instant capitulation for the AI.

I don't think it's the map that's bad per sé, more that sometimes the way the AI is programmed to operate on it can be. For instance, leaving cities close to enemies poorly garrisoned. With the move to a more complicated strategy map, the AI also needs to be comparably better, which I don't think it is yet.

[screwtype]

The RTW move rates are actually hideously unrealistic. It takes a year to get from the north of Italy to the south, for crying out loud! Even at a highly conservative 10 mi/day (16 km/day) average, that gives you over 1800 miles (3000 km) a turn. In other words, you could get from one end of the map to the other and back in a year, realistically speaking.

-Simetrical

Yup. I've said numerous times I believe the movement system is in serious need of a complete overhaul. I've argued, for example, for the inclusion of a strategic movement ability, where units can move, say, up to six provinces per turn providing they neither enter or leave a province occupied by enemy forces.

It would even be possible to create a system that didn't use movement points at all, but which allowed you to move your units any distance on the map in a given turn, with movement limited only by the presence of enemy zones of control - or perhaps enemy units in the same province. So you would plot your moves, setting waypoints if required, hit the end turn button and then all factions would move simultaneously. If one of your moving armies collided with the moving army of another faction, that's when a battle would take place.

It would make the game far more dynamic and unpredictable, no province would be safe from attack and it would open the rest of the game up to all kinds of interesting possibilities. For instance, chokepoints and crossroads could become a lot more strategically vital to occupy and defend. You could also accelerate sieges (which are ahistorically long in the vanilla game) so that they would be resolved in weeks and months rather than years, with sieges progressing within a turn (depending on the distance your own units have moved) rather than from one turn to the next. Then if you didn't have a relieving force nearby, you could find yourself in a real race to relieve a siege before the city fell. And so on.

But I think CA is too timid to fiddle much with what they believe is a winning formula. And quite frankly, after seeing RTW I have my doubts that the knowhow for creating a seriously good strategy game is there.

[Turbo]

Shadar,

Blaming Activision for the 2 patch policy is misguided at best. CA could release a 'developer' patch, something commonly used in the industry, to address issues that the publisher didn't want to fund.

CA could step forward and fund a developer patch but they have moved on to other things (Spartan Warrior for console). The people left holding the bag are the customers who bought the game and are now stuck with a game ruining bug.

[drone]

I prefer Rome's campaign map. I just wish the AI knew how to use it properly.

The army speeds should be increased, but not too much. The logistics of moving a large force through possibly hostile territory would slow down the movement. Not sure how difficult it would be to program, but maybe add some stack size changes. The larger the stack, the slower it goes. And the larger the stack, the larger the visibility footprint, for both the stack and anyone searching for the stack.

Ship speed should be increased, but only if troop transport limitations are added.

[Oaty]

Shadar,

Blaming Activision for the 2 patch policy is misguided at best. CA could release a 'developer' patch, something commonly used in the industry, to address issues that the publisher didn't want to fund.

CA could step forward and fund a developer patch but they have moved on to other things (Spartan Warrior for console). The people left holding the bag are the customers who bought the game and are now stuck with a game ruining bug.


Well noone can be correct unless they see the actual contract. A patch is a modification to a game. In the contract it could state all modifications have to be approved by Activision first. So if that is the case CA can't release a developers patch. And now with CA changing affiliates/companies, makes a mess on who supports the patch.

Anyways back on topic:

IT'S A GAME

Armies have limited movement for game balance not for realism. I like the new campaign map much better. For 1 in MTW it was unbalanced I remember a game where Italy deployed 15000 troops early on in the game and abandoning every territory they had only leaving a few troops behind in each. Let me just say I lost the game due to total gayism

As far as movement in friendly territory well maybe a 10-20 percent movement bonus would be nice but nothing extensive

As far as diplomacy goes it works to a degree. If you want to keep good negotiations with a nation you have to have an occasion ceasefire, although ceasefires should have a lasting effect ESPECIALLY when tribute is involved and when the ceasefire is broken all tributes recieved should be cancelled.

What is the most buggering part of the campaign map is it's size but some modders are releasing mini campaigns

[Kekvit Irae]

IT'S A GAME

Armies have limited movement for game balance not for realism.

Exactly. What fun would it be if you could, as Simetrical says, march from Gaul to Parthia in a single turn. It wouldnt. There would be no tactical advantage for the defender. You would not be able to "pick your own fights" like you would in the campaign map. I'd rather have an unrealistic game that's fun than a game built solely on realism. If I wanted realism that wasnt fun, I'd buy the various civil war, napoleon, and (insert wargame genre here) games from those unknown developers.

[Chelifer]

What do you think of a possible not-so-real-time strategy on the campaign map? Say, 12 hours per second. Which makes it a year in about 12 minutes.

[Simetrical]

He didnt say it was totally realistic. He just said there was more realism than MTW, where, as stated above, it takes a good number of years in MTW to get from Venice to Sicily if going via land route.Actually, he said that moving around takes more time, and said that that was more realistic. I don't know about the former, never having played MTW, but the latter is certainly wrong if the former's right. And how on earth would you get from Venice to Sicily by land? That's a two-mile strait in between.

By the way, I entirely agree that in the context of six-month turns, realistic movement rates are inappropriate. RTR could up the movement rate dramatically, but we haven't for good reason. Quite simply, for movement of individual armies on a quasi-tactical scale, turn length should probably be no more than a week or two to allow for realistic response times. In six months, a real ruler would conduct entire campaigns, or even entire wars.

-Simetrical

[Divinus Arma]

I disagree. I believe the essence of Total War rests in the relationship between "action" and strategy.

Only in TW is the player afforded the oportunity to have the best of both without losing the heart of either.

What you, I, and the rest of the TW community dream of is the CA peak of effort; the day that these two concepts ("action" and strategy) can be synchronized perfectly as if each alone were worthy of a title, but the two together make an epic.

With Shogun, they succeeded.

With MTW, they succeeded.

With RTW, they succeeded.

We wait only for perfection.

But gentlemen please remember: Excellence requires the pursuit of perfection. The CA team aspires to perfection, fails, but leaves excellence in the wake for our pleasure.

It can only get better. My hat to CA.

[Atreides]

Actually, he said that moving around takes more time, and said that that was more realistic. I don't know about the former, never having played MTW, but the latter is certainly wrong if the former's right. And how on earth would you get from Venice to Sicily by land? That's a two-mile strait in between.

By the way, I entirely agree that in the context of six-month turns, realistic movement rates are inappropriate. RTR could up the movement rate dramatically, but we haven't for good reason. Quite simply, for movement of individual armies on a quasi-tactical scale, turn length should probably be no more than a week or two to allow for realistic response times. In six months, a real ruler would conduct entire campaigns, or even entire wars.

-Simetrical

Idid played MTW (a lot).

Well actually it's a two edged sword:
- Landings from Asia-Minor into Scandinavia is disabled.
- If you look at Greece in this game it's much much larger then it is in MTW (so more time).
- Roads save time. This is a real realistic thing. In Germany when play with the Germans movement of troops feels like forever.

Anyway. Time based it isn't that accurate. But hey; The game is not only about movement realism. Also other things are taken into account.

[PseRamesses]

The camp map is a masterpiece, although I do feel that it´s to small. If the prov-limit is, what 230? provs, why the h_ll didn´t CA go for the full monty?
I just have to wait for EB I think. ~D
Movement rates is set relative to other feats like build time etc. TW isn´t about Total Realism and the only thing to do to solve this is make the game run as EUII - in real time where you can increase or decrease the games running speed. :book:
What I really miss is attrition and ransoms and that traits should only be based upon what the caracther actually does. Another annoying thing is formations during sieges. Marching down a narrow street with a selected group of units I actually have to place them all individually or order a column formation or they will just move in one big mass. The AI should march them in formation IMO! :furious3:
I´m also annoyed with movement from A to B on the camp map when one of my own, or allied units, are "blocking" the shortest way, like a pass or bridge, and the AI thakes a huge way around them!!! ~:eek:

[screwtype]

IThe army speeds should be increased, but not too much. The logistics of moving a large force through possibly hostile territory would slow down the movement.

Okay, but what about moving through friendly territory? Why should it take literally years of game time to move a couple of friendly provinces?

Like I said you could make it so that you could move, say six provinces a turn provided none of the provinces you entered or left were occupied by an enemy unit. In other words, rapid movement only through territory that is exclusively held by or allied to you. You'd still have to move and deploy normally when entering an enemy occupied or enemy controlled province.

With a bit of tweaking, a system like this could add a lot of dynamism and suprise to the game. As things stand, it's like World War I trench warfare. Your units creep along at a snail's pace and it all becomes very predictable. There must surely be a better way to simulate warfare than this.

[screwtype]

I entirely agree that in the context of six-month turns, realistic movement rates are inappropriate. RTR could up the movement rate dramatically, but we haven't for good reason.

You're probably right that just upping the movement rate would not work, because then of course you'd be able to move and attack any point on the map with your entire armed forces from one turn to the next, which wouldn't be much fun at all.

What I suggested was a strategic movement ability, which is a different thing. If you could only utilize strategic movement in non-contested friendly provinces, then you would still have to move and deploy normally the next turn to mount an attack. Also, you couldn't switch units quickly from one engagement to another. It would take you at least three turns to (turn 1) leave a contested province (turn 2) use strategic movement and (turn 3) enter another contested province. And it might take you an additional turn or three marching out of/into each contested province before you could actually engage the enemy stack. So strategic movement through friendly territory would not just be a matter of instantly switching from one part of the battlefront to another.

It would however make for a more dynamic game, and create a lot of new possibilities. For example, if along with strategic movement you added a feature that each stack you attempted to move had a variable chance of not receiving orders on time, and therefore not moving at all, that would add an element of tension to movement and strategy that is not there now. And it would be totally historical, in the sense that battles are often won and lost because of failure to get the news on time, or getting scrambled orders, or having logistic difficulties etc.

Let's say each stack had a 33% chance of failing to move on orders, perhaps modifiable by the general's command rating, it would mean you could never be sure of getting to a battle in sufficient numbers, or perhaps at all. That would add a much needed element of unpredictability to this game IMO.

Come to think of it, you could simulate this easily enough in the current game. Just roll a six sided die before moving each stack, on a roll of 1 or 2 it can't move for the rest of the turn. There's a little "iron man" rule for ya ~;)

[HarunTaiwan]

The map is excellent. Forts, passes, roads, all good.

Very nice, CA.

I also like loading up a character with Quartermaster, etc. so they can move faster.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I disagree. The R:TW campaign map is the best part of R:TW compared to M:TW. If only the bugs (particularly the siege bug) would be gone, it would be almost perfect. I'd also like narrower passes in some places to make them more important choke points just like rivers, but those are small details.

[drone]

Okay, but what about moving through friendly territory? Why should it take literally years of game time to move a couple of friendly provinces?

Like I said you could make it so that you could move, say six provinces a turn provided none of the provinces you entered or left were occupied by an enemy unit. In other words, rapid movement only through territory that is exclusively held by or allied to you. You'd still have to move and deploy normally when entering an enemy occupied or enemy controlled province.
Maybe implement a zone system. "Friendly" territory would comprise of internal provinces, but once you near neutral/enemy territory, armies would need to worry about ambushes and scout more. Granted, you could ignore those and just take your chances.

It would also be nice if the movement was adjusted for the season/weather. Moving a army through snow and mud during the winter should be slower, even with roads.

Overall though, I like the map. Unfortunately, it presents the AI with too many options.

[screwtype]

It would also be nice if the movement was adjusted for the season/weather. Moving a army through snow and mud during the winter should be slower, even with roads.

That would be fine with me. And while we're at it, I'd prefer seasonal turns rather than biannual, as in Shogun.


Overall though, I like the map. Unfortunately, it presents the AI with too many options.

I *want* to like the map, but since it's made the game less rather than more challenging, I can't like it.

Something needs to be done to revamp the campaign and make it more unpredictable and hard to beat. And I don't mean more frickin' rebel armies popping out of the woods ~:)

[professorspatula]

I think the new campaign map was a good idea - but sadly the AI is intrinsically stupid and really struggles to get to grips with it. All too often it has little armies moving around with little to no cohesion, whilst other armies invade and slaughter the confused critters. With massively improved AI behaviour, I'd probably prefer the new map to the old system, but really it's a draw in its current state.

I'd have preferred to see a compremise until the AI coders have learnt how to improve the AI. Basically the provence/Risk based map, but with 3-4 mini-provences within each one. You'd still have lots more places to move than before (and lots more battlemaps), but it would be more linear and the AI would benefit greatly. Plus you could implement some kind of power-control system, whereby the more of these mini-areas in the provence you control, the more tax/trade and loyalty the current owner of the actual city would lose. You could therefore strangle the lifeline of the provence without having to lay siege to the city until much later. Sieges are so dire and poorly implemented that this would be a good thing in my opinion.

Another thing I'm not convinced about with the current map system is the battlemaps. They are generated and based on the landscape in the current square, giving thousands of individual maps to fight on. Sadly 99% are featureless, being nothing more than open ground with a few thickets of forest here and there, some hills etc, but seldom are the maps in any way interesting. MTW maps seemed to be a little more thought out, and typically the defender could scout for a good defensive position beforehand. The maps in RTW seldom have any natural defensive positions or chokepoints which ultimately makes battles very similiar.

In conclusion: new campaign map style was a nice idea, but needs improving or removing.

[screwtype]

I was just musing for a moment. It occurs to me that the Romans appeared to have a maximum number of legions they could raise at any one time. (This is probably true of other ancient civs as well). At the same time, they eventually found that there was a more or less ideal size of empire, corresponding roughly to Western Europe and the Mediterranean coast.

Now suppose that there was a maximum cap on the number of units you could field at any one time. It would mean that the bigger your empire got, the harder it would be to both conquer more territory AND maintain control of the empire you've already conquered with a sufficient garrison.

This could be a good simple method of halting the "steamroller" effect and prolonging the campaign challenge. In fact with an army cap, the game could actually get *harder* as you expand instead of easier, which is how a good game should really operate.

You could probably link it up with your finance in some way as well. As your empire expands, and your garrisons get diluted, corruption increases, and you begin to get a decreasing amount from each province. This could prevent you accumulating too much gold. At the same time, the wealth stolen through corruption could be used to fuel more rebellion, as the local leaders who stole it become more powerful and self-confident in their own right. So then you would have a mechanism for faction re-emergence, a la MTW.

It could also throw other aspects of the game into greater relief, such as the importance of maintaining good governors in major cities. Heck, you could even have family members defecting and trying to knock you off and become Caesar themselves...

[professorspatula]

Exactly, controlling your ever-expanding empire should become more of a chore as the game progresses. You really should find yourself stretched, up to a point anyway. Sadly you can pretty much leave large regions alone once you've wiped out the opposing neighbours, and then you're free to carry on streamrolling your way across the map until you either win, get bored and start-over, or give your entire empire away to someone else and attempt to take Rome using nothing more than a bunch of pitch-fork wielding peasants and a donkey.

By the way - what type of screw are you? Crosshead?

[Nelson]

God’s teeth, the Rome map is a colossal improvement beyond the earlier area movement!

Let us remember that CA has always maintained that Total War games are not sims. They are games with historic flavor. I’m an old wargamer myself. SPI, Avalon Hill, Origins conventions, all that stuff. I want Rome to be a war game just like I wanted Shogun and Medieval to be war games.

They ain’t war games, folks. They are tantalizingly close in some respects and this fact serves to stoke the grognard desires within some of us. Nevertheless, we can only criticize CA so much for not making exactly the game we want.

[drone]

With Rome, CA decided to make a bold transition with both the strategic and combat engines. Both have a lot of potential, and they are definitely steps in the right direction. But this was also very ambitious, and given the time constraints, a lot of things were forgotten, overlooked, or just patched together. I think I found mention of duct(bodge) tape in the data files. ~;)

My hope is that R:TW was not CA's desired end-result of their efforts. Something has to pay for this vast development effort, and the delivery/sale/GOTY status of Rome should go a long way towards that end. The addition of RTS aspects and ahistorical units leads me to believe that R:TW was a money grab of sorts for ongoing development. I don't mean this in a bad way, it's just the economics of the industry.

With the current engine, SEGA's backing, and the time till the next full release (not the XP), I think CA have a very good base for what could be a brilliant game, well worth the $105 spent (50 for R:TW, probably 55 for the next one). This doesn't do us much good now, and only serves as a tease (the cause of much of the current frustration).

Or maybe I need to put down the crack-pipe...

[sunsmountain]

I am amazed by the many responses to this topic, and glad that most of you disagree with me: All the more interesting.

The main reason i wrote about the campaign map was to give some sympathy to Medieval TW veterans who felt betrayed by Rome:TW. Besides the obvious differences in looks, there were some fundamental changes in gameplay as well.

Now i'm a gamer, not a historian. If a game takes a lot of time before it lets you play, something can probably be cut out to make the whole better. Besides a better AI of course...


about the particulars:


I really like siege battles here. This is one thing I did not have with MTW. Ending up in now playing really assaults.

I agree the extra siege weaponry, and the true difference in walls (and size of city, but sadly no inner walls) really add to the realism effect. But how many times have you cursed the path finding? Ever tried placing troops near all the walls inside a city and then select all and order to town center? You'll laugh at the paths they take... and cry

I have to come back from what i said about spies and management. They can be fun, but the main point i am trying to make is the time they cost.

About diplomacy, there are some extra options. But how much do they add to the pleasure of battle? Can you properly gang up on a strong AI nation (for example, Egypt), or do you just need luck for them to declare war on Egypt as well? Sometimes they just dont trust you anymore, period, with no particular reason, other than a spy of yours roaming their domain. I mean wtf.



-Management increases tax income. I hardly comsider that a marginal and temporary effect, epsecially in big cities.
You need quite a high management (level 9 or 10), and the effect is temporal (i mean, your governors die dont they? especially the good ones, and they tend to be replaced by governors WIHOUT those cool management traits like intelligent, teetotal, spartan, etc.) level 5 academy retainers compensate though.
It does add up to 1000 but since money isnt really a challenge in the game, i slacked on management. Barbarians rarely have the settlements to boost in the first place (you need a big income base to begin with, kind of marginalising management inherently).

The campaign map is realistic, but is it fun? Do you want to play with it again and again? Or do you find your armies yet again roaming around without a battle to fight? How many of those 50 battles in 50 turns did you fight against slaves?


Traits are screwed up, but that is not the fault of the map. Instead, it is the result of ineffectual checking of the trait code to make sure traits are actually assigned properly.
sorry, i can't reproduce this. The only thing i notice when reloading is AI-siege being lifted. Traits changing? how?

I agree with allowing 1 boat to transport only 1 unit. That'll make you think twice before invading over sea.

I also agree the campaign map has potential, and that this is the first try. But i would have loved a somehow quick, responsive, and therefore addictive map like in MTW. This would ameliorate (soften) the pain from the mediocre AI somewhat.


the infantry acting like cavalry has a workaround, but at the expense of testudo
Is this still present in 1.2? how do you notice this? soldiers walking with the speed of horse?


Previously in STW and MTW, the "Risk" style of movement and conquering meant there was only ever a couple of decisive battles between neighbouring factions before a tedious mopping up process was instigated.

I remember those mop-ups. It's a little more difficult in Rome, if you want to remove their family by hand (combat). If you use assassins, however... barbarians have no defense (!)

However, those decisive battles did happen soon and decisively. Also, factions reappeared, and you had glory goals. So you did not need to wipe them out just to get your goal.



With the move to a more complicated strategy map, the AI also needs to be comparably better, which I don't think it is yet.

Very true and well said. This also applies to the battle map i think.


I prefer Rome's campaign map. I just wish the AI knew how to use it properly.

I agree. I gave all the barbarians paved roads (sue me). much more dynamic, a force to be reckoned with, instead of: o, they're miles away.



What is the most buggering part of the campaign map is it's size but some modders are releasing mini campaigns
This is exactly what i mean: The campaign map is cool, but it takes time! Lots of it!



I believe the essence of Total War rests in the relationship between "action" and strategy.
yes Divinus, a true fan. I believe this too, yet i observed a change in Rome:TW. The rules of the game changed...

But things could be better:


With a bit of tweaking, a system like this could add a lot of dynamism and suprise to the game. As things stand, it's like World War I trench warfare. Your units creep along at a snail's pace and it all becomes very predictable. There must surely be a better way to simulate warfare than

This new idea - unlimited movement within your own borders - was achieved in Medieval TW exactly because ships allowed unlimited distance. As soon as ships were opposed however, the chain was broken immediately.

In Rome you can walk through enemy territory and just ignore them. In Medieval that's impossible, leading to more conflict, which is what total war is about.

However:


Let's say each stack had a 33% chance of failing to move on orders, perhaps modifiable by the general's command rating, it would mean you could never be sure of getting to a battle in sufficient numbers, or perhaps at all. That would add a much needed element of unpredictability to this game IMO.


No this is frustrating. It has been tried and tested, gamers hate this sort of thing. They just reload to get rid of the chance effect.

[iostream]

I for one don't like the campaign map. It's just not interesting at all, and an exercise in tedium. The only redeeming part about it is that it provides a context for your battles on the battle map. Though I hate it, I do micromanage each city's construction and recruitment (the game does a good job at automanaging taxes). I'm a sucker like that.

Seige battles are also almost unbearable for one reasona and one reason only - the horrible HORRIBLE pathfinding. I can't stand the clunkyness, unresponsiveness, unpredictability and sheer stupidity exhibited by units ordered to move around in cities. Other minor gripes are:
1. The camera does not navigate epic stone walls well, it is difficult to see the whole picture with epic stone walls in place.
2. Not much opportunity for tactics in street to street fighting, more like a slugfest. That is, when the AI is not running troops madly from one end of the city to the other, making them exhausted and letting your cavalry run them over from the back. But that is hardly considered tactics, but exploiting AI idiocy.
3. The AI fail bigtime in both seiging and beseiging. There are countless horror stories about their inadequecy in this regard.

[screwtype]

I for one don't like the campaign map. It's just not interesting at all, and an exercise in tedium. The only redeeming part about it is that it provides a context for your battles on the battle map. Though I hate it, I do micromanage each city's construction and recruitment (the game does a good job at automanaging taxes). I'm a sucker like that.

Speaking of "exercises in tedium", I have to wonder why the campaign map shudders so much when you scroll it, and why it scrolls so s-l-o-w-l-y. I also find it annoying how when you hit end turn button the AI units jerk around the map in a manner that is both unattractive and hard to follow.

I just can't understand why the addition of a bit of 3D has suddenly made all the action on the campaign map so jerky and unresponsive. Seems to me it's just naff programming.


Seige battles are also almost unbearable for one reasona and one reason only - the horrible HORRIBLE pathfinding. I can't stand the clunkyness, unresponsiveness, unpredictability and sheer stupidity exhibited by units ordered to move around in cities.

Yeah, I hate the sieges too. I dislike the way you can only click on the roads to move units and not the surrounding grass. What I particularly hate about sieges though is the way the camera "bounces" upwards whenever you have to take it over an obstacle like a house, wall or tree. You have to keep re-adjusting the camera height to get back to the height you prefer. Then you move the camera half a centimetre, it finds itself over another obstacle and bounces up again. The result is that it becomes that much harder to position the camera just where you want it in order to control your troops. Also, you end up fighting the battle way above the battleground with your soldiers as small as ants below which I find to be very uninvolving, because it's too much hassle to keep adjusting the camera.

There are two way I can think of that they could fix this: first, by allowing the camera to pass *through* tall objects instead of bouncing over them, based on the last height you selected (some games do this), or else by having the camera automatically return to the last height you manually set for it when it is no longer over an obstacle. Either method would make for much better control and for a more immersive experience IMO.

Oh, and one other thing I hate about sieges is that the dimensions of the buildings and trees all seem to change depending on the camera position. When the camera is low the buildings don't seem very big at all in proportion to your soldiers, and yet if you track over the top of buildings they seem to grow much taller and your soldiers really tiny by comparison. I find that these shifting dimensions really detract from the sense of realism and my immersion in the game. It's like they didn't work out the 3D properly, or that they used an older-style engine for creating the 3D that isn't up with the latest developments.

Oh, and why are the trees so unbelievably tall?


Not much opportunity for tactics in street to street fighting, more like a slugfest. That is, when the AI is not running troops madly from one end of the city to the other, making them exhausted and letting your cavalry run them over from the back.

Yes the street battles are chaotic, and only made worse by the control problems I've already mentioned.


The AI fail bigtime in both sieging and besieging. There are countless horror stories about their inadequecy in this regard.

Yes, definitely not polished enough, with many silly anomalies occurring.

[screwtype]

I agree the extra siege weaponry, and the true difference in walls (and size of city, but sadly no inner walls) really add to the realism effect.

I don't. Siege weaponry is too powerful and knocks walls down too quickly. There isn't much sense of achievement or realism there. And siege towers are clunky, slow, finicky, and bugged.


I have to come back from what i said about spies and management. They can be fun, but the main point i am trying to make is the time they cost.

Yes you should be able to build as many diplomats/spies etc as you want in a city in a given turn, without it affecting your ability to build a military unit at the same time.


About diplomacy, there are some extra options. But how much do they add to the pleasure of battle? Can you properly gang up on a strong AI nation...?

Speaking of ganging up, I think the most serious omission in the diplomacy logic is not to have AI factions ganging up on you when you take the lead in number of provinces. They can do this in Civ3, so there's no reason it can't be done in RTW. This would help a great deal in preventing the "steamroller" effect.


You need quite a high management (level 9 or 10), and the effect is temporal (i mean, your governors die dont they? especially the good ones, and they tend to be replaced by governors WIHOUT those cool management traits

There never seems to be enough family members to go around, does there? I think they should go back to the MTW model, where you could award a governorship to anyone.


I agree with allowing 1 boat to transport only 1 unit. That'll make you think twice before invading over sea.

I agree with the general principle, but one for one might be a bit harsh. Maybe two units per ship. Then you'd need 10 ships for one full 20-stack army - which is a lot more than you need now, but which wouldn't require you to build huge fleets.


However, those decisive battles did happen soon and decisively. Also, factions reappeared, and you had glory goals. So you did not need to wipe them out just to get your goal.

It really hurt to lose a battle in the earlier games. In RTW, it's of no consequence, you just whip the survivors back to the nearest city and rebuild at the rate of 10 units per turn.

I didn't like the faction reappearance in MTW, but mainly because it was totally random (should have been related to happiness and city management) and because they would always appear with units which were impossible to build in the context of the available infrastructure. which is completely silly.


This new idea - unlimited movement within your own borders - was achieved in Medieval TW exactly because ships allowed unlimited distance. As soon as ships were opposed however, the chain was broken immediately.

I never played MTW that much but I liked being able to shift troops around quickly via sea in STW. It made the game more dynamic. But you should also be able to move them more quickly by land IMO.


No this is frustrating. It has been tried and tested, gamers hate this sort of thing. They just reload to get rid of the chance effect.

Perhaps it's a matter of taste. And maybe a one third chance of not moving would be too much. But I like realism in a game, and the fact is that communications in earlier times were often sorely lacking.

You could link your chance of communicating on time to the quality of roads as well as the general's command stats. The point is that it would throw these aspects into greater relief, give them an added dimension. If a general's stars had a lot to do with his ability to get his army moving on time, then they'd become so much more valuable, wouldn't they?

What I'd like to see in the game is a much more comprehensive set of difficulty settings, like in Imperialism II, where you can set just about every feature individually. So if you wanted imperfect communications, you could set it. If you wanted fatigue, you could set it. If you wanted morale, you could set it. And so on. Then you could tailor the game to your exact preference. But you could still have a bunch of preset difficulty setting (Easy, Normal, Hard, Very Hard etc) for those gamers who don't want to bother with any of that.