False suggestion

[Zone]

It has ben said in many reviews etc. of this game that it's 4 times the length of Shogun because Shogun only spanned 100 years and this spans 400. However, Shogun had 4 seasons to a year and this just has the one turn per year, so actually it's the same 'length'. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, I'm not sure I'd ever get round to finishing a campaign if it did take 4 times as long but it's a little misleading. Or have I got muddled?

------------------
ROFL..Zone does not rest [MIZILUS]

I don't play to win... I play not to lose ;)

P.S. smilies should work in the signature!

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

However, with a larger map, deeper diplomacy, & keeping track of generals Virtues & Vices to put the best in command, it easily will take me four times as long as Shogun to finish a campaign. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Not that I'm anxious to finish.


------------------
The King Who was Thursday

[takkran]

You are right Zone i think the same. In shogun it was nice to see some snow. Also 400 years is not enought to build and upgrade all the buildings in the same province (like in shogun i like to develop mainly the provinces whith iron deposits, because of the bonusses but 400 is not enought) And also some buildings take too much to build. I think that whith a "bad" ruler the workers could hurry a bit http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

I've had snow, though I wasn't sure why the computer decided it was winter in northern France for that particular battle.

One arguement CA could use for using mainly non-winter maps is that armies tried not to fight when it was very cold. Having your men miserable before beginning is not the way to success.

------------------
The King Who was Thursday

The fans want the game to sell. The publishers definetely want that too.



------------------
Clan Kenchikuka (http://www.totalwar.org/kenchikuka)
evil is within us... http://www.totalwar.org/site/emomalta.gif

[GilJaysmith]

Quote Originally posted by Mori Gabriel Syme:
I've had snow, though I wasn't sure why the computer decided it was winter in northern France for that particular battle.
[/QUOTE]

Without seasonal turns we had to come up with some other system to include the occasional winter battle. From what I remember, each battle in the same turn happens in a different season, starting with Spring. So if you fight four battles in one turn you'll get a winter battle.

Gil ~ CA

[cihset]

Are there no randomization for seasons at all? If so, then you used a rather crude way to implement the different seasons.

Considering how long the battles take, I never play four in a turn, it takes to darn long time and is too tedious.


For instance, you could've made the chance for different seasons randomized with a weighting for each season depending on which area it lies geographically.

I.e. In southern France, you almost never get winter (aka snow) but mostly summer and spring, and in Scandinavia and northern Russia, winter is a common season.

This suggestion is not based on empirical facts but more on the common opinions about areas in Europe.

[Zone]

Quote Originally posted by cihset:
Considering how long the battles take, I never play four in a turn, it takes to darn long time and is too tedious.[/QUOTE]
How can you possibly find the battles too tedious http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif

I've had 7 in one turn, and I didn't start any of them. The spanish reappeared in 2 of my provinces, the polish in another and 4 of my provinces rebeled (They were all on 200% loyalty but I think my govenors were the other side of the map and taxation was at very high). I wasn't aware of different seasons, I just fought the battles as they came and chances are one or two of them did have bad weather, I certainly remember playing a couple of winters recently.

[Kraxis]

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

I have not experienced any winters...

YET! I hope to experience some soon when I invade Russia and the east, but first I have to kill off the Almohads.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

A winterbattle isn't really a good idea, thus this seasons serves as consolidation phase. But nothing prevents you or the AI to launch a winterbattle.

Yearturns result in some ridiculous travelling times, irrealistic construction times and takes away strategical and tactical depth.

I'm not absorbed into the game when I play a campaign.

MTW offers more diplomacy etc, but I feel it's quite flat. For example the ransom for captured enemies: the computer decides how much I should ask my enemy to return their soldiers. I had 1,000 french captured, including 5 nobles, the french refused to pay the ransom (probably just because they didn't had the money).

I (I repeat 'I', which means that I don't say what someone else should want) don't want to speed through history nor do I want the computer to make decisions for me. I want 1 month per turn. I enjoyed the negotiating in the Sid Meier games: I need 1,000 florins, dare i ask him or would he wage war on me when I do? How should I ask? Offer an alliance or threat to crush him otherwise?

------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu

[cihset]

Quote Originally posted by Zone:

How can you possibly find the battles too tedious http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif

I've had 7 in one turn, and I didn't start any of them. The spanish reappeared in 2 of my provinces, the polish in another and 4 of my provinces rebeled (They were all on 200% loyalty but I think my govenors were the other side of the map and taxation was at very high). I wasn't aware of different seasons, I just fought the battles as they came and chances are one or two of them did have bad weather, I certainly remember playing a couple of winters recently.[/B][/QUOTE]


When fighting several fronts at the same time, 2-3 similar battles each turn, then i call it tedious. Thank god for autoresolve, even if it doesn't reflect how an actual battle would have gone, I wouldn't have time to play the game without it.

One thing I dislike in the tactical battle mode, is if you decide you want to end a battle, you automatically loose. Perhaps it works as an incentive for players not to quit if they see the battle is going to be lost, I hate it when I see that the enemy consists of pushovers and there is no real reason to fight the battle.

Is autoresolve in a battle good or a bad idea? (I'm convinced the CA dev team must have thought of this sometime)


------------------
Do you know what happened 11th september, 1973?

[ToranagaSama]

cihset, I agree mostly with you. More than 2 or 3 battles, consecutively, is NOT as compelling as the Strat Map. Beating the AI in battle is relatively EASY, managing the Strat Map is certainly more challenging.

There's been many comments, including my own, indicating that many can't wait for the battles to end so they can get back to the Strat Map. An attitude that wasn't present in Shogun.

The height of Strat Map management and of Great Generalship is to achieve victory without a single drop of blood.

Now, anyone who's fighting SEVEN battles in ONE turn, must realize that...ahhh... (using British understatement)...full control of the game is eluding them. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[Zone]

Well as I said I'd just left my taxes up very high. Even so, I enjoy the battles. You say that 7 battles on similar terrain would be dull. However, the polish reappeared in Poland (I own a good deal of the map), the spanish appeared in North Spain, I had on in France, a couple in spain, One in Tunisia... they were mostly quite different. I never auto resolve, I always do better on my own.

------------------
ROFL..Zone does not rest [MIZILUS]

I don't play to win... I play not to lose ;)

P.S. smilies should work in the signature!