Let me examine the battlemap my army is standing on.

I have many times been annoyed at the way the campaign map translates into battle map. Sometimes because I'm standing comfortably at the top of a steep incline on the campaign map, only to find that on the battle map, my army has deployed far enough from the summit to allow my opponent room to deploy up there to. Having a master of warfare at the head of said army doesn't seem to help either. You'd think he'd understand the benefit of shooting the enemy as they climb up the hill, but no! Other times it means that what looks like a hill is simply plains, or the hill you were standing on has decided to appear under your foes instead. Sometimes I have the alps at my back on the campaign map, I cannot move closer to the mountains, but still I have an ample field beind me once battle is about to begin.

Strategy as I understand it has a great deal to do with selecting the proper place for a battle, one that will suit you better than it will your opponent. Forcing him to attack you there, or attacking him in a spot where he is weak. This applies to both the campaign map and to the battle map, but M2TW robs me of the ability to choose where I make my stand, or from which direction I sould attack the wretched foe not to be greatly at a disadvantage, unless I somehow take note of all the hexes on the map and what they'll look like and where the defender will get to deploy depending on from which direction he is attacked.

I remember that in Rome you could look at your city as it would appear on the battle map (with tiny plebs going about their insignificant business). Such a feature built in to the info scroll of armies would make this would-be viking happier than a fresh basket of fly agaric mushrooms.

At least bridges are there most of the time...
Cheers!

I agree that they should have kept the city view, hopefully they'll put it on E:TW but with all the new crazy stuff they've put in, I doubt they'll have returned to it.

I never decide my battles on the campaign map, mainly, because I got straight for settlements. I try to bypass armies if I can, Attack them if they're annoying. As such, I just use whatever I can on the battle map itself.

I agree. I've been perpetually annoyed with the lack of coordination between the two maps. Especially on Vh/vh, a hill can make or break the battle.

IIRC this was handled better in the first MTW. But in M2TW, there isn't really any coordination, with one exception - crossing bridges. (IE, in my experience, when you and the opponent are on opposite sides of a bridge in the campaign map, it'll always be that way in the battle map.) Of course, that's one incredibly important strategic placement scenario.

Otherwise in many battlemaps, the AI often does not make the first move. (I'm talking about situations where it's not a given, such as if they try to break a seige.) So I just crank the speed up to x6 and move around to the best position possible. Then go to x1 and have fun.

This may be because I play cautiously and always try to keep stacks equal to or greater than other (potential) enemy stacks nearby.

Just wondering what a TW battlefield would look like in real life at the time. The battlefields I fight on always seem so desolate, even in places like Northern Europe, or The British Isles. I can understand why the civilians may have fled the seen, but where are their huts, and why is the ground not tilled? Sometimes I see an abbey or a deserted farm, but never any sign of life other then the soilders.

One of the battlefields I hate most is one with a forest or scrub that I have to fight in. I have to zoom way in to see what is happening, but this makes it hard to veiw the rest of the battle. My battlefields dont seem to correspond to the terrain on the campaign map either.

I agree with Gaiseric I do hate Forest Battles... No way to coordinate the attacks. I usually find myself trying to keep away from forests area's when I get to pick a battle. If I do get stuck in a forest battle.... at least find a clearance for me to position my troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lancome

I agree with Gaiseric I do hate Forest Battles... No way to coordinate the attacks. I usually find myself trying to keep away from forests area's when I get to pick a battle. If I do get stuck in a forest battle.... at least find a clearance for me to position my troops.

---

Calvary get a big negetive in the trees while some infantry get a bonus. It can be very useful there. Calvary can't get a formed charge with all the trees in the way.

I agree, I wish it were possible to actually be on the map where you were in the campaign map - I might actually pay more attention that way.

I'll never forget one time in Rome Total War where I joined a battle with the Greeks around some craggy mountains and the enemy had deployed on the mountaintops...yet their position was completely unreachable! There was no path leading up those rocks, and they were too far away to even hit me with arrows! :oops: Was completely pointless and really annoyed me...

But yes it is true of MTW2 as well...you never seem to be close enough to the terrain advantage to pip your enemy to the post. I grant you, defender's rights should be given, but it doesn't matter who attacked, you always seem to be in a pointless place to be, and your deployment zone never quite reaches that bit of terrain you really covet.


Forest battles are hell. If I must go through trees, I do it when I'm sure nobody else is around, or I'll find the fastest beeline to an enemy settlement in the hope that I get there and can siege it before I happen upon anyone. That way, when they sally or another unit comes by, it's usually on open ground so I don't have to jerk around trying to find where I put that uni amongst a dense forest. It's funny how even one tree on the campaign map equates to the impenetrable Amazonian jungle...

And is it me, or does the AI almost never attack, even when it initiated the battle? It just seems to sit there kicking its heels and expecting me to do all the legwork, which I'm obliged to do because the game doesn't care - IRL I'd just go around the hill and ignore them until they came down if they attacked me then stood on a hill...now, if they attacked me and I was on the hill, different story, or if they attacked me from the hill and came down to meet me...

Yeah the Forest Battles bug me too, I prefur to fight out in the open without any enemies hiding or anything, just a flat plain so i can see what my enemy are doing and work out some tactics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedKnight

IIRC this was handled better in the first MTW.

---

QFT. I liked the way you could get some idea of what the terrain you were going to be fighting on by selecting the province you were going to attack from and mousing over the one you were going to attack. Also I like the pre-setup ability to view the battlefield before the battle. M2TW doesn't quite do this as well. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marauder

Calvary get a big negetive in the trees while some infantry get a bonus. It can be very useful there. Calvary can't get a formed charge with all the trees in the way.

---

The MTW1 battlemap seemed to work the best for this. I remember defeating a unit of royal knights in a forest with only my pitchforked armed peasents. Lol, those were the days. I've seen units in MTW2 that say combat bonus in woods, but I never really noticed any differance. Does anyone know what conditions need to be met for the bonus to work? (ex: battlemap 90% forest?) And what does it do? (raise attack/defence?)