View Full Version : Creative Assembly GAH! MAPS! GAH!
GAH! GIL! GAH!
So... in MTW, you cross a border, you get a random map to play the battle on depending on the classification of the border crossing...
Like, if the border says "mountainous", you play on a random "mountainous" map.
Now, the question... GAH!
Say I make a new map with the included map editor. Can I then classify it as "mountainous", for example, and then when I play the campaign, and find myself fighting on "mountainous" terrain, have my new custom map included in the list of "mountainous" maps from which the random map will be selected?
GAH!
Or, does the editor automatically classify the map somehow?
GAH!
Either way...
This would expand the game, as new maps will add variety to the game over time...
GAH!
mizuYari
08-19-2002, 21:00
My deduction is:
1. There are two types of map: system and custom.
2. Custom maps are simply custom map, you play on that particular map.
3. Each province may have a number of system maps and the game simply pick one of them. I didn't read anywhere that the map is generated randomly.
MizuYari
GilJaysmith
08-19-2002, 21:49
Er... GAH! VANYA! GAH!
The maps work like this. Unless Target's reading this in which case they work like how he says.
Borders have properties such as "hilly", "mountainous", "inland", and "river". (I think these are set in the startpos file.)
Each non-castle system map is named according to the properties it embodies with a suffix serial number. So for example there are 30 "hillyinland" maps, which are called "hillyinland01" through "hillyinland30".
The game detects how many maps there are which would satisfy the border criteria, and then picks one at random.
So I think you could create a new map called "hillyinland31", copy it into the system map folder, and then there's a chance it would be used in a battle fought across a hilly inland border.
Or, if you find a hilly inland map which you really like, you could replace all the "hillyinlandNN" maps with this map and then they'd all be fought on the same terrain...
Gil ~ CA
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Correction: that IS great http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Kraellin
08-20-2002, 00:21
nice touch, guys. how about adding the same thing to multi. as an option, one could pick 'random hillyinland' or 'river' and so on, rather than a specific map. this would be in addition to being able to pick a specific map. it might spice up multi a bit more.
K.
------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.
mizuYari
08-20-2002, 00:28
HAG!
I was wrong!
But it is better than what I thought.
MizuYari
NagatsukaShumi
08-20-2002, 00:33
This si great news, CA have single handidly made the game long term, I mean you cna add your own maps and the region you attack never looks the same anymore which I think is a great idea.
GilJaysmith
08-20-2002, 04:16
Quote Originally posted by NagatsukaShumi:
This si great news, CA have single handidly made the game long term, I mean you cna add your own maps and the region you attack never looks the same anymore which I think is a great idea.[/QUOTE]
Target has confirmed to me that this is indeed how it works. We're glad you like it so much http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Anyway, this is why there are about four times as many maps as there are contestable regions... we have over a hundred castle maps representing the various sizes of castle on various terrain types, as well as these huge groups of maps for given terrain types.
It can make a huge difference, invading a region across one border as opposed to another. Another decision you have to make while campaigning http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Gil ~ CA
NagatsukaShumi
08-20-2002, 05:15
Well you know, kiss a bit of butt and it may help me infiltrate CA as a member of it's elite later in life http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Seriosuly now putting my job ambitions aside, this is great news, I was just pleased about the border feature, but this rocks.
Is it just me or is MTW the greatest game ever concieved? I mean think about it, before the only true incentive to make maps before was for new maps to play in Single Play and MP, now we can create maps for campaigns instead meaning more variety, and it's more logical too, you would not fight at the same place EVERY time in a region and of coarse they are plenty big enough.
Well done CA.
KampfBar Ritter
08-20-2002, 07:32
I approve of anything that can be modable or slidable in the game. the more options, the better. Mods: This is good info that should be kept somehow not pruned, no?
------------------
All my actions are dedicated to the memory of my great Lord Frederick I who one day knighted a poor woodsman and man-at-arms. Ich der Salut der mutig Barbarossa
GilJaysmith
08-20-2002, 13:24
Quote Originally posted by NagatsukaShumi:
Is it just me or is MTW the greatest game ever conceived?[/QUOTE]
It's not just you, but then that's just me http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Gil ~ CA
Excellent news! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Very nice feature.
*sees defender playing on a flat map, going to mountainous border and defend a mountain map*
Gah!
Every excellent feature may have it's bad sides. Will this feature be enabled by default in MP or optional?
------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)
evil is within us... http://www.totalwar.org/site/emomalta.gif
GilJaysmith
08-20-2002, 14:32
Quote Originally posted by Terazawa Tokugawa:
Every excellent feature may have it's bad sides. Will this feature be enabled by default in MP or optional?[/QUOTE]
Well, the host picks the map by its name from a list showing every single map we've got, whereas in the stratmap the computer picks a map suitable for the border and the region in question. If you see an MP game being played on a "flattohilly" map then you know the defenders will probably seek hilly terrain.
This may turn out to be better than having to memorise the details of 60+ named provinces...
Gil ~ CA
I'm not sure but I don't think anyone's mentioned what this means for the campaign strategy.
Say you have an enemy province next to you, but to invade direct you would have to fight in mountains , but if you went around and came in the side door you would be fighting on flatish ground.
Which route to take?
Again with rivers similar situations could occur. Will also mean you can no longer have an army that's good only for river defence. It must be able to defend all it's borders.
oops, Giljaysmith did point this out:
'It can make a huge difference, invading a region across one border as opposed to another. Another decision you have to make while campaigning '
I just explained it a little better http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
[This message has been edited by DrNo (edited 08-20-2002).]
Konnichiwa Gil Jaysmith sama,
What happens in the campaign when a 'province' is simultaneously attacked from the south and the north? The army can't be in 2 places at once. Is the army split (50% fights north, 50% fights south)? Do all three armies fight on the same field in the center of the province? Will 100% of the defenders army fight either south or north, and is the province lost at any rate because the other enemy succesfully invades?
Does the entire army fight north first then south?
The latter would be bad, as two smaller armies are no match for 1 large army in that case, while 2 small armies at one field and even more 2 small armies from two directions are a serious threat.
Does the user have a say about where/which to fight in that case?
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
GilJaysmith
08-20-2002, 16:47
Quote Originally posted by TosaInu:
Konnichiwa Gil Jaysmith sama,
What happens in the campaign when a 'province' is simultaneously attacked from the south and the north? The army can't be in 2 places at once. Is the army split (50% fights north, 50% fights south)? Do all three armies fight on the same field in the center of the province? Will 100% of the defenders army fight either south or north, and is the province lost at any rate because the other enemy succesfully invades?
[/QUOTE]
You only fight one battle, with the combined forces of the armies you've moved into the province. I don't know whether the border is the first one you moved over, or if it picks it at random from all the borders which were invaded. Target or ECS will know that.
Gil ~ CA
If you have 2 forces invading across different borders, then you fight on the terrain of the border that the supreme general crossed (by supreme general, I mean the guy who ends up leading the combined army on the battlefield).
If it's a three-way (or more) battle, then the terrain is picked randomly from those of the borders that the supreme generals of the invading factions crossed.
Clear? No, I didn't think so.
------------------
Quote MagyarKhans Cham:
i even suspect Target is coming here to hype things up.[/QUOTE]
Konnichiwa Target sama,
Perfectly clear, thanks for explaining.
Does such a 2-way attack have extra penalties for the defender? If the defender 'decides' to defend the north, the attacker from the south travels from south through the provinces to the north: it seems logical that they would pillage a bit (collect gold).
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Quote Originally posted by TosaInu:
Konnichiwa Target sama,
Perfectly clear, thanks for explaining.
Does such a 2-way attack have extra penalties for the defender? If the defender 'decides' to defend the north, the attacker from the south travels from south through the provinces to the north: it seems logical that they would pillage a bit (collect gold).
[/QUOTE]
Are you sure it was clear?
The defender dosn't choose where to defend it's down to the attacker(s) deciding where to attack based on the senior general.
So I would guess no pillaging, otherwise defender should be allowed to split and defend seperatly. Would get a big messy however with fake attacks etc...
Konnichiwa,
'decides' means something different than decides.
A two sided attack is nastier than a one side invasion: so yes one would decide to split his forces to defend both borders. Now the defender 'decides' (actually the program does) to defend only one border. That could mean that the other attacker has time to pillage the country.
I'm sure that I understood what Target sama said, and I'm sure it's valid to assume that the other army should be able to pillage a bit (even if the attack was just fake). Perhaps a chance to pillage as the other thing might be that the army rushes to the fight and forgets about pillaging?
The second 'improvement' might indeed be that the defender gets the option to defend both borders and split his forces (perhaps if there are two armies? 2 armies defend 2 borders, 3 armies defend 3 and so on).
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
DarknScaly
08-20-2002, 20:33
Interesting point that, especially for TW3...
Do you actually "defend your borders" or do you "fight for control of the province."
ie succesfully defending the borders means no pillagaing - even succesfully winning a battle for control of the province means some pillaging.
It'd be a nice feature for the future to be able to try to a) sneak into a province and b) deliberately do a chevaucee type of crossing, where you are never really fighting to take over the province...
although that probably doesnt fit too well into the current context of the campaign game.
Thus a 3-way attack would be almost impossible to defend against on all 3 borders (but you could try) but you can still retain control of the province and fight for that in one pitched battle (which is what happens now by default)..
hmm I suppose you'd need to introduce supply lines for this to be effective though... definately a TW3 thing.
Konnichiwa,
I guess that implementing free choice of defending borders in MTW would:
-require some recoding to make it happen.
-would require more recoding to make the AI make good use of it.
If we start with the system used now (all armies pop up at one field) then we could just add a limited chance of some pillaging (a two pronged attack has benefits). Think of a chance of trampled fields -> bad harvest in that province or a serious decrease in people loyalty (I'ld be very unhappy if an enemy army travelled through my country).
------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi
http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
Kraellin
08-21-2002, 00:17
from what you guys are proposing, i'd say the best solution is to go massive map style. armies travel in real time on real maps. the campaign map becomes relegated to a simple tool to expedite general orders, but ALL real play goes to a massive real time map, the way that the massive multiplayer games are played now.
obviously that's a thing for a tw3 or tw4 or even a tw5, but that would be the ultimate total war game. it would also make a real time massive multiplayer campaign feasible as an ongoing gaming experience. you'd need some rather large dedicated servers, but entirely possible to run a 32 to 64 player massive multiplayer campaign this way. the possibilities here become rather intricate and involving and would take some pretty clever coding to accomplish.
K.
------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.