Battlefields&Distances

[Little Legioner]

Ave :bow:

Fellas, i think larger battlefields and far distances between armies which in STW and MTW were better than RTW. Why? Coz distances gives many tactical opportunities to the player.

I think RTW battlefields too flat. When you fight huge unit option you will never make a proper manouver! Armies very close to each other. Its make me crazy.

Why red lines? Why are you limiting playground? Where is positioning, hiding the troops, surprise element? STW-MTW battlefields had great potential for tactical operations...

Our primary point is: :help:
1- distances between armies.

2- weak foliage and geographical elements of battlefields.
* just compare historical battles and campaign battles. first cleverly reflected and enriched with many forests (gergovia), heights (trasimene), river passings and hills . Just remember Telamon, Trasimene and Trebia nearly all of them was really perfect and wisely designed...

3- small battlefields for huge/big sized armies. no proper maneuvering. you could just ramming to your opponent. clash of the titans nothing more!

So, if the designers made ordinary campaign maps like historic battlefields... We don't need to write such as this topic...

TW Fan Cloudnine wrote that message as a Reply


In this relevant old thread - forums.totalwar.org/vb/sh...ge=1&pp=30
Jerome Grasdyke of CA claimed the battlefields were twice the size of those in MTW. This is simply not true for normal battles - the usable area is in fact smaller. I`ve measured them at 1KM square, with a deployment zone only 800 metres wide.
(Jerome Grasdyke of CA)

"The viewable area is a actually a little larger than 9 battlemaps though - it's actually a grid of 17x17, with the playable area at the center, and the battlefield size is currently 2km x 2km... make 'em much bigger and it just gets too hard chasing down the enemy, make 'em smaller and the larger cities don't fit"

"As with many other things about games prior to release we're still experimenting with this, so take it all with a grain of salt, but right now the playable area is a little less than double Medieval's size - 2 x 2 km rather than 1.2 x 1.2 km.

The battlefield size is a pretty important gameplay balancing thing - smaller battlefield = quicker, more intense battles, larger battlefield = more realistic, but slower paced, and occasionally annoying when enemies go missing. It's a question of tweak, tweak, tweak until it's right"

The problem is with a battlefield only 800 metres wide, and the enemy about 300 metres away from you at the start, there`s simply no room to manoevre larger armies on Huge unit size.
When I saw Time Commanders I was really impressed by the large battlefields, troops marching up and deploying into position before engaging etc. The retail game bears little resemblance to what I hoped I`d be getting - hope falsely boosted by the programme and Jerome`s claim that battlefields would be twice the size of Medieval TW. They are in fact 1/4 the area claimed (1 square Km not 4 square Kms)

The crazy thing is that for seiges, Tuetoburg Forest and multiplayer(?) we can have the large 2Km square battlefield. So why not for normal campaign battles? It doesn`t make any sense that they are deliberately limited, although Jerome`s comment on "smaller battlefield = quicker, more intense battles" is an indication.

Small battlefieds + fast moving units + fast kill rates & routs = battle over in a couple of minutes, which is what CA seem to think we want.

lt1956 form TOTALWAR.COM

I agree Larger maps are needed, I always play Huge settings and in SPQR HUGE is the optimized setting for the game. I too noticed lack of room for movement, unless you are righti n the middle of a forest there usually isnt anywhere to hide forces etc, because the maps are very small for 6000+ men even 4000. It would be nice to see in the expansion the following.

I could say one thing many of fans especially who plays TW series since STW they don't like RTW battle system. I'm one of them.

So, mates what do you think. Especially i will be happy if i get a official satement from CA staff. ~:grouphug:

Sincerely

[[DnC]]

I too was disappointed in the rather boring terrains and small size of the battlefields, especially the terrains. The armies could indeed be a bit further from eachother. The rebels seem to place them farther away in certain battles, but I can't recall any "factions" doing that. Either change the last part or make them start a bit more in the back, but then the battlefields need to be a bit bigger. Anyways, many terrains are usually one big slope or such and not very interesting for exciting battles. They should have more diversity in landscape for more tactical deployment and maneuver. They way it is now is just that they are tad dull and makes playing battles somewhat repetitive.

[The Stranger]

true, but bridge battles are awesome

[_Aetius_]

The small size of the battlefields, severely reduces the potential tactics of your army or the enemy army, you can see the enemy army straight ahead of you so anything they do you can see so battles usually end up in being boring slogging matches that because of the crap AI and the fact battles last about 30 seconds makes me feel like throwing RTW out the window or wasting my time.

If maps were larger, thered be not as much need for ambushes on the world map, as you could set up your own (assuming the AI doesnt see ambushes even when they are apparently hidden abit like in MTW) itd just make the battle more interesting. Aside from map size maps need detail badly, not just a basic hill bang smack in the middle, but proper geography, gorges, valleys, marshland, passes through woodland.

I think also at some points if an enemy is nearby but not quite close enough to engage your army in pitched battle that you abit like in Teutoburg forest have to march your army to the other end of the map to carry on the march, your enemy can harrass your army or race after you and attack you on the march.

The ambushes on RTW now are so daft and basic that in reality very basic recon would have foiled them.

Theres alot of work that can be done with the battlefield and world map in general, coupled with improved performance of the AI and battles and campaigns could be much more interesting.

[Colovion]

So far I've only seen the "rolling hills" and "flat land" and "forest" battlefields. THere aren't really any "broken land" or jutting rocks which form a ridge or well - it all seems very mutes and smoothed off into a hill that is easily traversed aside from a few rocks or trees here and there.

Though the maps look amazing, they could be improved upon. Do I expect they will before the XP? No. But they should be before the next 'Evolutionary' release.

[bubbanator]

You have to take into account the fact that, with the large fatigue penalties, very large maps would give an advantage to the player who wasn't moving. Also, large "civilized" battles in Roman days were usualy set up in a clearing where armies could move around without rocks and trees messing up formations, movement, or communication. Unless it was an ambush, the battles were fought in a clear, fairly flat spot of land, granted there were usualy nearby forests and the such for concealing archers or calvalry, but the bulk of the infantry fighting was usualy fought in open ground. Another thing, the phalanx would lose much of its value with trees and hills and gorges all over the landscape because of the disrupted formations. I do think that the maps need a bit of work, but making them massive areas with many terrain features is impractical without modding the game to decrease the penalties for fatigue and broken formation. However, that would cause an imbalance in flatland battles. The battle maps aren't perfect, but they are very good concidering all of the factors that you have to take into account.

[pezhetairoi]

In real historical battles the armies would draw up facing one another only several hundred metres away, which is approximately the distance we see in the game (alright, maybe less.) However, counterbalancing that, we see that the battle lines in the past were way longer than what you see in RTW (nearly a mile long for big armies, the equivalent of full-stacks) so no matter how far you put them there was no space for tactics except on the flanks. Since the armies in RTW are smaller, it only stands to reason that the battlefields are smaller. There is still enough space on the flanks to manoeuvre, so in that respect they aren't all that different from the way the battles were fought in the past. The distances between the armies is right, in the game, it's just that you don't see it because the behaviour of the AI makes it look like the distance is too close, since they come at you at a run, and do not advance in a line as armies in the past did but every unit for itself. I've tested the ranges between armies using Scythian HA with 120m range, and I've found that the distance between armies on an unbiased battlefield tends to be between 200 and 300 metres, which is only slightly shorter a distance than in history. After all, we can assume the battles we play in RTW is just the part where the armies come within engaging distance, so we can ignore the long-distance march from the camp that must've come before the actual battle itself.

Just my two cents' worth.

[Nelson]

Overall I am very pleased with the battlefields generated in a Rome campaign. If they were too busy it would be tough to deploy and maneuver.

There are times when I would like to cross the red lines but if there were no borders the game would reach a limit that it could not sustain as it would try to draw more terrain.

[pezhetairoi]

I totally agree with that. The red lines are there to prevent the computer for overloading. Also, it's a haven for routing soldiers. Even in historical battles the pursuit had to stop sometime, and ingame that limit of time is represented by the red line. Without it all victories would be massacres whereas in reality portions of the enemy army managed to escape because the cavalry gave up pursuing, either due to time cosntraints, or due to exhaustion.

[Oaty]

The only thing I hate about that redline is when skirmishers get trapped there, and when you hit the withdraw button they go to where they came from and not for the closest redline.

Allowing them to withdraw across the line would add a bit of accuracy as quite often outclassed units were usually routed beyond the point of return and this would represent that

[sapi]

true, but bridge battles are awesome

Seconds - but one depleted unit breaking often triggers mass rout and the enemy rout to YOUR side of the bridge :duel:


So far I've only seen the "rolling hills" and "flat land" and "forest" battlefields. THere aren't really any "broken land" or jutting rocks which form a ridge or well - it all seems very mutes and smoothed off into a hill that is easily traversed aside from a few rocks or trees here and there.

I got 4 in a row last night (two sets of two battles on the same ground), allowing me to just defend one area with my flanks covered by a ridge - it was great and should happen more often, the only problem being the ridge wasn't in my deployment area so i had to run to it once the battle started ~;)


The only thing I hate about that redline is when skirmishers get trapped there, and when you hit the withdraw button they go to where they came from and not for the closest redline.
My general tried that through the entire enemy army!
I'm no programmer, just a player, but could this be the cause of the enemy routing to your side of the bridge on a bridge battle? Just a thought, it's probably wrong :)

[Marcus Maxentius]

I think the battle maps are pretty detailed for being auto-generated. It'd be nice if every square of the map was pre-rendered, but I can understand why they couldn't take the time from the scale of the game. The historical battles are self-contained "levels" and they can put in as much detail as they want. There are ways they could have done it better, but the maps seem big enough for me.

[Colovion]

I'd rather have better AI and other features being fully fleshed out and FIXED rather than have them dally on the battlemap.

[pezhetairoi]

correcto. My sentiments exactly.

[Aegisthis The Infantryman]

I think the terrain in some places in rome total war is very interesting and adds slight tactical advantage but it would be good if there was more.

[HarunTaiwan]

I think some of the Alpine battles I have played have overly steep mountains.

C'mon, we aren't billy goats in armor.

[pezhetairoi]

It's also annoying when I don't know how to incline the camera enough to actually see the opposing army on a high ridge. Alpine battles are nuts. We're fighting in the passes and valleys, not on the peaks.

[professorspatula]

The featureless terrain is certainly a disappointment in RTW. There's a few slopes here and there, a few thickets of trees and the odd rock outcrop, but generally every battle plays out much the same regardless - like it's one big open flat landscape. Even with massive mountain slopes, you can still attack from all directions (unless the red line prevents you), and there's barely a natural barrier in sight. In MTW I was forever trying to gain the high-ground or stationing my force near some buildings or forest for some cover. With the fast battles of RTW, terrain is often a minor consideration. For example: cavalry may be inferior in wooded areas, but you can charge them so quickly into the rear of the enemy and rout them, that it seldom matters.

I hope in the next installment of the TW series, the terrain generator creates more realistic and varied landscapes. Coupled with a larger map area, you could have armies defending a narrow moutain pass, with the attacker forced to attack the chokepoint whilst also sending another force on a long journey to get behind the enemy position (with the route also guarded). That type of thing. Basically having the terrain feature more heavily in our tactics would be great.

[pezhetairoi]

for that, movement speed would have to be way slower, or we should all just play the SPQR mod where armour levels are jacked up uberly high to ensure soldiers survieve longer, don't break so quickly, and the fight will last longer. And I think we should need longer battle time limits too.

[IliaDN]

And I think we should need longer battle time limits too.
I think time limit gives more interest to battles, maybe just because I never had problem with " not enough time " !!!

[Reverend Joe]

I think we don't need time limits at all. The terrain does need more features, true, but this would be mainly by drastically expanding the battle map. Frankly, I think the battles worked much better in MTW because the soldiers were tiny.

[professorspatula]

There's no point in expanding a map if it's just going to be more of the same.... more big open spaces. Marshland, ditches, gorges, valleys, supermarket shopping trolleys... we need obstacles and variation.

As to the previous titles' tiny units, you're right there. Some of the battles felt almost epic, despite their small size, because it took the little critters an age and a half to move across the map and engage the enemy. And when they did get stuck in, damn they were exchanging blows for a good few minutes. Well compared to RTW, a long time.

To be fair to the maps in RTW though, when you have more than two factions fighting (in custom battles anyway) the map is expanded so there is more room for fighting and running away. If only the AI wouldn't waste its energy chasing routers all the way across the map though.

[pezhetairoi]

supermarket shopping trolleys...

...the hey?!? XD

Obstacles would be nice. It would, for example, be much more pleasant to have brush and undergrowth on the ground, such that hoplite formations would be broken up like they were at Pydna. I would like the terrain features to be finer, so that we can actually see hoplite formations losing their neat dressing as they march over it. Right now terrain features are too large compared to the armies it must support.

[Little Legioner]

I am looking for a official statements. Coz my point are very clear and simple.

So:

1- Fast battles, flat grounds, basic land, high kill rates, close armies, small map. (Current Situation) ~:confused:

2- Long battles, non-flat grounds "broken land", slow kill rates, far armies, bigger map. 2kX2k. ~:) Like Teuteburg...

Dear CA staff please make a comment or decision. Battlefields and combat philosophy is everything about the game. Community could make perfect mods for skins, musics etc etc but they cannot modify what we are talking for. Situation directly related on your decision and behavior.

[Marcus Maxentius]

...the hey?!? XD

Obstacles would be nice... so that we can actually see hoplite formations losing their neat dressing as they march over it. Right now terrain features are too large compared to the armies it must support.

I was hoping for that. Right now, you have to whittle them down a lot before the wall starts breaking down. I wanted bodies to hamper the integrity, too.

[Marcus Maxentius]

I want to try Medieval now that it's so cheap. But it sounds like the previous TW games played like this PS game called KESSEN based during the Tokugawa period. Great game that let you pick units and assign generals, but the battles were tediously slow. I have ADD and I gave up because even simple battles would take 30 minutes because the maps were huge and the units moved slowly. It was agonizing to try to save a losing battle and waiting for my reinforcing units to march across the map like it was the state of california.

The maps don't have to be huge, just big enough to allow enough tactical movements so that one "gets the idea" so to speak. And have enough terrain to use ancient war tactics. I don't want to play a game where it's like a Dragonball Z episode where both sides posture and decieve and posture and deceive before the big apocolytic battle. Just fight already.

[Marcus Maxentius]

A lot of the stuff that people want on the battle map is done on the strategic map with it's higher detail than Medieval. Sure, There are things you can't do or don't work they way they should(ambushes). They could improve on this by adding a strategic map of the region where the battle is to take place, like on any history program. Each side has a turn to move their unit cards around until they start to engage.Maybe give players the option to skip to the battle. Then the fight plays out on the standard RTW battle map. I think that's a good compromise

[Little Legioner]

I have no information how will be the combat system in Barbarian Invasion. I wish they make some improvements on the field and some arrangement for slower battles and army deployment.

Btw our concern is some information from CA's itself. We cannot get a statement from them. Thats too boring and not so polite :dizzy2:

[Brutus]

It's also annoying when I don't know how to incline the camera enough to actually see the opposing army on a high ridge. Alpine battles are nuts. We're fighting in the passes and valleys, not on the peaks.
Yeah, those battles are pretty wacky. But the terrain (when moving up) makes fatigue go berserk on your men, so it does make a distinct difference. Maybe you should see some of the cavalry when charging at full momentum down a slope as steep as a brick wall tripping and crashing to their deaths. Right now, these cavalrymen would wreck havoc in any horse riding contest anywhere! ~D

[pezhetairoi]

LOl yes, but then it'd be like Helm's Deep with Eomer charging down that incredible 70 degree slope. It'd be sorcery. Ha. Well, does anyone know how to rotate camera up and down? Is there a hotkey for that in FPS keyboard control mode? And I don't charge my troops until they're within the charge distance, I walk them up the hills. Not like my (dumb) friend, who sends them at a run up the mountain, and then laments his 'clear defeat' and the loss of the Julii half-full-stack he'd so painstakingly trained... XD