Originally Posted by [b
Quote[/b] ]
So this is a bit of detective work as well as some guess - and a lot of help from other, non CA, gaming "Professionals". Obviously CA won't comment on any of this or what TW3 is or might contain in technical terms - and, yes, i have asked... the following isn't confirmed by any stretch of imagination, but it will beintriguing to see how much, if any, is accurate.
TW3 (as yet unannounced) will almost inevitably see a LOT of changes from MTW.
MTW was an extension of STW in a fairly linear and logical fashion - large additions on the strategy (Campaign) side of things and minor changes to the Tactical (Battle) side of things.
TW3 will see changes to both. I envisage dramatic changes to the Battle side of things, the "dramatics" here will largely come from a new engine although I suspect that we will also see changes to the tactical maps in that they are tied intrinsically to the strategy map. We see a tiny element of this in MTW whereby the destruction of on-map buildings can result in a higher dread rating on the Campaign map - in TW3 I suspect that we will see the actual buildings OF the strategy map being represented directly.
Alongside this I think that the entire way in which MTW/STW managed in-province battles will be changed. To be honest it's time to. This is highlighted more in MTW than STW as the scale of the map is so much larger - it seems illogical that a province can only support the presence of "one army" in it - that of the controlling power and I suspect that TW3 will see the potential for multiple armies in one province with only one (or none) controlling that province. Indeed I suspect that provinces will not behave at all like they do in MTW/STW but will be far more "interactive".
This all comes form the logical way in which CA have been enhancing the TW series, gradually making it more of a grand-strategy game with real-time battles and less of an RTS. A good move imho and, in truth, the TW series is almost carving itself its own genre that isn't RTS but isn't Wargame. "RTW" (Real Time Wargaming" maybe?
When we follow that "ideal" it seems obvious "what comes next" and why I suggest the above. As far as "interactive" provinces I imagine that we will see, alongside multiple armies, that the provinces themselves will directly reflect the maps underneath them. We saw the first step towards this in MTW where provincial "maps" represent the type of map that the battles are fought on, alongside provincial borders doing the same (if there's a river between them it will be a river map).
The enhancement to this will no doubt be 3D terrain-maps for all provinces with strategic armies marching over them. As buildings will be represented "on map" i suspect that the long awaited (and much requested) elements of strategic building emplacement will now be possible. Which is to say: Expect "border forts" to be actually "on the border" and play some role in a strategic sense.. Who knows we may have to even fight through border defenses or somehow "see/help" spies and assassins get past them.
Ironically, in getting further away from a "pure RTS" game I think the Strategic (Campaign) map will become a sort of stylized RTS game in itself (All together now say "RTW"). As CA add complexity to the game in terms of its strategic and gameplay depth there seems no way that a 2D grand map can cope with the ever increasing levels of complexity. Therefore a fully interactive 3D campaign map seems unavoidable - along with 3D units , possibly in some form of direct 3D representation - although that may be stretching it a bit. Yet the emphasis on the strategic campaign map in MTW seems to back up this move in my opinion.
Overall what does this all look like? This remains part guesswork and part logic - and time will tell, but I believe that:
The campaign map will be fully 3D and largely interactive (units will move on the campaign map as they would move in the battle map i.e they will have a movement pace/rate) - this allows for multiple armies in the same province and battles will now be fought as armies "intercept" one another - rather than permanently on the "border" of provinces (which is essentially what happens now in MTW).
The direct representation of buildings from Battle-Campaign map will mean that there will be some benefits to where and when you fight. Intercept an army in the hills and it will no doubt be a hilly battle - but also one will need to prevent opposing armies from reaching building targets. Thus you will need to place and protect buildings Strategically - this in itself something that simply doesn't happen in STW/MTW and will be both a dramatic change and a massive improvement.
Military structures such as Border Forts and Castles will play some major part in all of this - how, I have no idea, but one presumes that border forts and maybe other defenses (Great Wall of China "types") will have a direct impact on troop movements or "defending borders". Added depth will therefore also come from any counters to these - probably spies and assassins, and as we now have an interactive and undeliminated provincial map maybe we will also see multiple strongholds and watch towers and suchlike throughout each province.
One final thing to add here - because of of this added complexity will make the Campaign map tremendously "active" it also seems inevitable that the number of actual provinces contained will drop rather dramatically from MTW.
The sheer number of provinces in MTW worked well for that game - but I cannot see it working very well for the next game in the series with all this added complexity at the strategic level. Indeed the very fact that we might have multiple armies in one "province" gets rid of the need for many provinces.
If you think of the current provinces in MTW they actually represent a chance for the gamer to play a "strategic" game in terms of overall army movements: Envelop an opposing province or attack from a more beneficial line of attack (over the flat and not over the mountains or rivers). That necessary element is obviously all contained WITHIN each province if you can move within each province - and thus you need fewer of them.
In MTW terms you could imagine "France" being one province, rather than 6 or 7 and the strategic element of moving armies take place WITHIN that grand province (country) rather than by shuffling pieces between multiple smaller provinces. It makes things much more "fluid" I would suggest - although just how it is determined who "controls" a province I have few solid ideas.
Maintaining or extending the siege element I suspect that we will see some form of "central city" or castle-equivalent which decides who is in control of the province yet I can also see how different players/factions could hold onto parts of a province... perhaps a single province will have multiple fortifications that you must possess before a province is truly"yours" - it seems historically accurate if nothing else.
One MASSIVE clue to all of this comes in the unused files that MTW so nicely left n the code - certain elements that didn't make it into MTW are plastered all over these redundant files - most especially the references to "supply". We know that CA want to introduce a supply line element into the game and the utilisation of "real" terrain and suchlike provide the ability to do this.
Your marching armies will need supply routes and their LOGICALLY has to be someway for the opposing forces to cut these (otherwise there is little point to having them). Indeed I rest most of my case for TW3 on this - it is impossible to have "realistic" of "sensible" supply lines in MTW - as you can only cut them by taking an entire province.
The only way I can see cutting supply lines as working is to do so "physically" within a province - and that means a) you must be able to have multiple armies existing in the same province b) that opposing forces must be able to control different areas within a province and c) that each force must exert an "area of influence" (so as to cut a supply line) d) that supply lines must be ultimately tied to "physical objects" (Castles, forts, towns etc).
Indeed once you accept that CA want to enhance the "significance" of supply a LOT falls into place. The only thing that may be entirely different is that another way to achieve this is too have far MORE "provinces" or "mini provinces" (Cantons, Countys etc) that are tied together to comprise an overall "province" - thus owning X number of county's means you control X supply and therefore the "province" as a whole.
I thought long and hard at this approach but don't see it as being as viable as fewer provinces with "variable" control within them. Firstly it means an inordinate number of "mini-provinces" and secondly it doesn't "enhance" the gameplay in any way from MTW - its just essentially more micromangement - a burden as it stands now and even more so if they went down that line of thinking.
The battles themselves will not change tremendously except in visualization. We already know that the sprites in MTW are actually 2D representations of 3D models/animation's. So CA already have some working system for 3D modeling of their soldiers. Games companies tend not to waste resources so I have always wondered why the sprites are drawn from 3D models - the level of detail (LoD) in MTW doesn't utilise well that level of detail - a 3D engine, however, would.
Games such as Age of Mythology and Praetorians give us a clue as to what TW3 battles may look something like. 3D soldiers on a 3D map using an "isometric 3D lookdown" position for control. I feel confident that TW3 will be something similar to this - although what engine they use is anybody's guess - probably a proprietary one but who knows.
Controls will not change significantly - there seems little need and the TW control system is without doubt one of the best out there. I hope that we will see an extension of the "maximum 16 units at a time" but that may come down to a requirements cost for recommended PCs - inevitably a "full" 3D engine/system will require a higher spec of PC - that's not something we can guess at though unless CA are willing to cough-up what they are working on.
Of course the tie-ins between battle and campaign, where both are 3D, leave immense room for other attributes and actions - routed armies "could" rout all over the 3D map of that province rather than "reform" magically (as they do now) into defeated armies in the nearest friendly province. I've no idea how they might handle this but there is a lot of room for the imagination: They might flow back into the population or turn into bandits/rebels. The entire "banditry" theme could be tremendously enhanced using a 3D campaign and interactive map system with highly detailed provinces - I wonder if that level of complexity is desired though? But to see a bandit "army" pop up inside your province and wander around raiding supply lines seems one possible outcome or even "capturing" part of your province.
The "Great Secret" remains, of course, what TW3 will be in terms of "Period". Ancient Greece, China, Alexander and Macedonia, Egyptians, Romans, English Civil War or even WWII.
Nobody knows, but I do know it isn't WWII.
With what I think will happen with the TW series it is actually possible for them to return to either Japan or Medieval Europe - I think TW3 will be so dramatically different to STW or MTW that either one could also work for TW3. I don't think that this is likely though as it smacks too much off an "expansion pack" rather than an "all-new game" - problems more for the marketing department than anything else but enough to warrant an entire new "genre/age" of warfare.
I will guess that it will in the "Ancient" world. Alexander and Macedonia seems a good bet with its mix of "Greek" and "Persian" units and a map from Eastern Europe through to Western India.
Having said that ancient Greece is also a potential "winner" going from the central Mediterranean through to north east Europe even, certainly Troy and modern day Turkey.
And there is the Roman Empire also, similar maps to that of MTW and also of the Greek option above... although the level of unit variation in the Roman scenario seems somewhat limited... more likely it seems possible for a "combined ancient civilizations", possibly even Alexander to the end of the Roman Empire.
The American Civil War seems a bit too "advanced" for the TW series as its stands now and the dominance of gunpowder units too "extreme" maybe. English Civil War periods seem to me to be the last potential "age" for the TW engine but the ECW is a little known affair albeit a great one to "wargame". WWI and WWII are plain out of the loop, aint going to happen, no way, I'll bet my dog on it.
One thing I have no clue too is the "period" over which TW3 may occur - hundreds of years of a few dozens? The absence of season in MTW was highly controversial initially and I suspect there will be a return to seasonal variations - whether this will "shorten" the potential for the length of TW3 (in terms of years) is unknown, yet it obviously affects what Period is chosen as the next games focus. If seasonal variations "are" back in I would suggest that they choice a "shorter" period than that in MTW - and that may render "periods" such as "ancient" and "roman" as undoable - leaving "periods" such as Alexander far more likely.... of course if they model seasons just at the tactical level and not in terms of campaign turns - forget everything I've just said.
Summary:
A new engine for battles - definitely true 3D soldiers.
A 3D campaign map that is "interactive".
A change to how provinces are "controlled".
A change to how many armies can exist in one Province.
Supply will figure in Strategy.
Buildings will have strategic significance in placement.
A "shorter time period".
A return to "seasons" at least in the tactical battles if not in terms of game turns.
Edit: I forgot Politics/Diplomacy - Any improvements here will be significant - STW & MTW really had poor diplomatic models and it has always seemed one of the weakest elements to the TW game - expect significant improvements in this area.
And: A LOT more overviews, "shift" for loyalty is fine by more layered info-overviews would be much better, along with more detailed and sortable info panels and a reduction in micro-manangement burdens for special units.
But im now getting into a "wish list" - which isn't what I intended so...
