Big provinces or small provinces? Your preference

[Epistolary Richard]

As we've seen from screenshots, Barbarian Invasions looks like it's going to have fewer, larger provinces than RTW.

I know many people jumped on this with annoyance, that they expected more provinces from BI, not fewer - and yet in the past I have also come across people railing against the game for being "Rome Total Siege" as they resented the number of cities they had to conquer - even more so in the mods that take the number of settlements to their limits.

So, people like field battles, people like their sieges to be significant and not just one in a chain, yet people still like to have individual territories as closely defined as possible.

Which do you prefer, and why?
.

[The Stranger]

i like medium, i do think that the map of RTR and EB are to big but in someway it is also cool. i think the vanilla map was the best though.

i always autoresolve sieges (when i'm the attacking side) and i fight in a way that i deplete the defending side by luring them into an openterrain battle, it always work. i have a cool battle somtimes outnumbered 1:20 (physicly) and i dont have to fight in a town.

[RabidGibbon]

I prefer a larger province in general, but having said that I can't play the Sarmatians, because theirs just too much ground to cover between each city.

Yet Siegeathons are remarkably dull. A happy medium for me would be Gaul and Iberia.

[The Stranger]

yeah.

[bubbanator]

Yes, I would have to agree. I can't stand playing as the Numidians just because it takes five turns to get anywhere at all. However, if I was fighting field battles in those five turns...

But I think that the size of the provinces in Iberia in vinilla are nearly perfect size. Not too big, not too small.

[gardibolt]

Larger territories would be fine if movement weren't so ridiculously slow. But it is, which makes big territories a serious annoyance (especially since they tend to be impoverished anyway, which makes it a lot of movement for little gain).

[Ianofsmeg16]

I think that the EB map is great, its a huge map but the provinces arent seperated by that much at all, its a great map....if someone did that just after BI is released it would make it a AWESOME game, even with the bugs....

[TB666]

I tend to like big provinces more.
The small ones have their advantages but the bigger is more for me.
Sure it takes a while to get to the city but the AI might intercept you with an army so you might have a decisive battle over the province in the open instead of in the city and that is far more cooler then sieges. :duel:

[King of Atlantis]

In big provinces you have to travel way to far, plus less cities means less armies, so you are doing relatively the same amount of sieges. Plus managment is rediculous. I like EB's map, but i think rtr went to far with adding.

[professorspatula]

I'd like to see a bit of a smaller map, but divided into more regions. The AI really struggles to co-ordinate its forces where there are vast open spaces and its too easy to pick off its numerous small armies between each settlement. But when you have lots of settlements in close proximity, you get more battles and sieges and its a bit more like the Risk element of the previous Total War games whereby the AI can respond quicker to your own armies moving into attack. So more cities with less space between each one, but not necessarily a greater sized map is my preference. I want there to be a greater enemy presence nearby whenever possible. That said, it could turn into a bit of a chore to proceed, but at least you won't have to spend 4 turns just to move your army to attack the next nearest settlement.

[Coldfish]

Is normal for the desert,arid and unfertil parts of the map...to be less populated...therefore are bigger..nobody wants them..the temperature too is a factor...i preffer more fertil lands if u ask me ~:) so can be more provinces

[sunsmountain]

Anything that shortens the campaign game. That means Big provinces.

Should also encourage more battles in the field (instead of near cities), which i like better. The path-finding in cities is better, but i dont find it a fun place to fight... sorry CA.

[Mr Frost]

Anything that shortens the campaign game. That means Big provinces.

Should also encourage more battles in the field (instead of near cities), which i like better. The path-finding in cities is better, but i dont find it a fun place to fight... sorry CA.

I prefer long campaigns myself . I wish that C/A had retained the option for a Glory campaign like they had in MTW . The race to own X amount of provinces does nothing for me ; building a strong , prosperous and stable kingdom/empire and maintaining it over generation however strongly appeals .

The ideal would ofcourse be designed with sufficient options to satisfy both preferences . I think it could be done with enough ingenuity .

[AntiochusIII]

Big provinces sucks. You wouldn't like to walk around for like 3-5 turns (about 2 years!) just trying to get to another settlement. That really sucks. Imagine Steppes provinces all over the place...

[CMcMahon]

Smaller. Mo' money, mo' problems.

[sapi]

yes - i think rtr provinces are damn near perfect - more to conquer, more challenging opponents

[Colovion]

The size of Provinces has nearly nothing to do with what I care for; it's the amount of settlements within said provinces I would like to see changed.

Presently you control the whole countryside from a single fortified position. While this might have been acceptable for STW, MTW and RTW - I hope to high heavens that their next title will expand upon the options of capturing geographical territory. I'd like to see at least two cities per province, three for some.

[Taurus]

yes - i think rtr provinces are damn near perfect - more to conquer, more challenging opponents

I agree with you. Although generally I prefer smaller provinces to larger ones owned by the likes of Scythia (vanilla) and Sarmatians (rtr)

- Vip3r

[PseRamesses]

With only 20 factions present, 200 provinces available size doesn´t matter. RTW is clearly a total war game with a diplomacy feature that really doesn´t work so eventually you´ll be at war with everyone. To delay that, the more province there are the better for build up etc on your part.
Trying out different mods it´s evident that a map like MM, with fever starting provinces and more rebels around a "total war game" is distant. Now in the vanilla game it´s eminent from the start and with RTR some 10-15 into the game (unless you´re playing the Seleucids or Greeks, he he!) My personal playstyle requires build up and semi-pressure from the surrounding factions. I don´t like to go blitz on my neighbours just to prevent them fron doing it to me, it´s simply not realistic.
This is why I´ll go with the maximum amount of provinces any day.

[caesar44]

A smaller map with more provinces , it will be more realistic .
Why we should have all these territories in Central Asia , Arabia and North Africa ? Huge territories with 1 or 2 factions with 3 or 4 provinces :dizzy2:
To take Italy (a small territory) you must conquer 8-10 provinces in contras with Sarmatia . and to think about the army march per turn....damn !!!

[Shaun]

well the BI map has a little too few provs eg.

Italy-4

iberia-4

the balkans-4 (greece=2, macedonia and greece)

anatolia(turkey)-5

middle east(not including anatolia)-10

north africa-4(inc egypt)

now i got this info from my BI map.

[ToranagaSama]

I know many people jumped on this with annoyance, that they expected more provinces from BI, not fewer - and yet in the past I have also come across people railing against the game for being "Rome Total Siege" as they resented the number of cities they had to conquer - even more so in the mods that take the number of settlements to their limits.

I'm one of those that think a name change would be appropriate.

I would like to see more provinces not fewer, but the true issue is not with the number of provinces, but rather the fact that Sieges are too great a part of taking EVERY province.

Taking a castle here and there is would be fun and interesting and a good break from the normal battlefield battles; but having to take a Castle *every* time is tedious, and not what i'm seeking in a TW game.

Lining up Army to army on the field of battle is what the game is about.

What might be a MUCH better effect is to give the AI the capability to *judge* the real potential outcome of a *siege* battle and judge the value of engaging in a siege.

For example, the game s/h the capability to compel the Besieged to surrender. Of course there s/b a good many varying factors to the outcome of a *demand-to-surrender*.

"Surrender you scum! or, I'll killer every last one of you. I'll rape your mothers and sisters. I'll cut off the genitals of your fathers. I'll burn the countryside, reduce your homes to rubble, and leave you naked to suffer, starve and recall my wraith. Surrender be your only hope. Surrender and Live."

Of course CA didn't make any significant improvements to the AI, so what is their solution? Reduce the number of provinces and reduce the number and tedium of Sieges. A *Kludge* fix if ever there was one. So be it, par for the course!

[Abokasee]

new citys during the game will come because barbain rebel tribes if left long enthough will become a proper faction! ~:eek:

[King of Atlantis]

ah the return of the true abosakee!

[sunsmountain]

Of course CA didn't make any significant improvements to the AI, so what is their solution?

Ah, it's STW/MTW-loving ToranagaSama talking. What are you doing here & posting on a Rome forum? Go play your beloved old total war game.

I for one hope they DID make significant improvements to the AI, considering they've said so themselves here:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=868762#post868762

So what have you to doubt them, Toranaga?
:furious3:
~:handball:

[Colovion]

Ah, it's STW/MTW-loving ToranagaSama talking. What are you doing here & posting on a Rome forum? Go play your beloved old total war game.

I for one hope they DID make significant improvements to the AI, considering they've said so themselves here:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=868762#post868762

So what have you to doubt them, Toranaga?
:furious3:
~:handball:

The demo's reality purports that his statement is well founded.

Of course myself and TS would love to have the AI improved, but playing the demo makes me somewhat perplexed with their statements thereof.

ToranagaSama and myself are realists who wish for more; in the end our mentality evolves into a cynical and pessimistic state once it's been treated to past CA releases (RTW demo, Full, 1.2 patch especially here).

[Shaun]

well, more provs wood have been nice, especially more than 2 provs for the whole of greece!

[M.T.Cicero]

The more the merrier - size medium, vanilla Central Europe style. What really annoys me with all rome maps is that in Greece for instance you have like 5 cities in an area that is 5 times smaller than a single province in Africa or in the East. Sure some areas are less populated but it makes no sense that in an area size of Italy there is a single rebel village with 500 people (Scythian/Sarmatian steppes look like that to me). Whole nations just kept coming from that area into Europe for years, it's not like they came from nowhere, they had to live somewhere before they moved. So it turns out size of the province does not so much depend on how populated it is but on how important it is for the story and how much trouble you need to gather some info on its history. That sux big time, IMO. I don't want map full of mini-provinces like in Greece where you have to siege every turn and I don't wanna march from Siwa to Lepcis Magna for 5 turns just to conquer another couple of hundred square kilometeres by killing some sorry bunch of peasants without even a palisade to hide behind. Why is that too much to ask??

[sapi]

I think 'broken' provinces would be a good idea.

Have up to 4 cities per province, and once you take one of them the province is 'contested' and the ai will come at you and present the opportunity for a field battle. If you smash the opposing army, you could then go up to the remaining enemy cities which are devoid of a proper defense and have them surrender aka. Saladin vs. the crusaders

[Shaun]

thats a good idea, but is impossible with the RTW engine.

[Colovion]

thats a good idea, but is impossible with the RTW engine.

There aren't any new ideas being proclaimed which assume to be utilized on the current engine - at least a heavily revamped RTW engine would give credence to such a feature.