Larger and better battle map...

We all know that compared to MTW, Rome has a very small constricted battle map - not even going to start about the detail the Rome maps have...
Which I've always found a waste, considering there was no room for any movement without breaking your line and getting stuck in the advancing enemy and even worse no tactical manouveres and redeployment of your troops.

Also all in all getting from your side of the map to the enemy - on the opposite side - would take you about 3 minutes, in medieval it would take you at least twice that amount.


So anyway, what would you all like to see changed in the MTW2 battle map - other than hope it's just bigger ?

Would you like CA to go back to Medieval or do you like it the way it is in Rome/ BI ?

:balloon2:

It is MTW2 isn't it ~;)

I'd be nice if they would be more like the MTW maps too. (Hills etc)

I like it the way it is in RTW, I hate chasing off routing men for half an hour. Yet I do want more detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch_guy

We all know that compared to MTW, Rome has a very small constricted battle map - not even going to start about the detail the Rome maps have...
Which I've always found a waste, considering there was no room for any movement without breaking your line and getting stuck in the advancing enemy and even worse no tactical manouveres and redeployment of your troops.

Also all in all getting from your side of the map to the enemy - on the opposite side - would take you about 3 minutes, in medieval it would take you at least twice that amount.


So anyway, what would you all like to see changed in the MTW2 battle map - other than hope it's just bigger ?

Would you like CA to go back to Medieval or do you like it the way it is in Rome/ BI ?

:balloon2:

---

They should even go back to Shogun-type maps, which were way better than MTW maps! :)

On the positive side, the large trees in RTW are nice but practically useless because of the high unit speeds and small battle area. And units no longer get stuck on cliff edges (as in STW).

You can't spring an ambush in RTW because before you do, your units who are supposed to hold already engaged and routed. Also due to the speed, the archers are made stronger, further destroying the balance.

In MTW, I normally position a cavalry unit in the extreme flank (especially for flanking or capturing nobles). In STW, the army can be subdivided for an effective ambushes and flanking.

.
Larger battlemaps, pleeez! :jumping: ...and somewhat larger deployment areas.
.

It's been said before by myself and others, but I'd like to see the battlemap size directly related to the number of units in the engagement - so 20 huge scale units apiece would play out on a huge map, but 5 small scale units apiece would fight on a small sized map.

.
Good idea! Also to the total number of men involved in the battle...
.

I'd certainly welcome larger maps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zatoichi

It's been said before by myself and others, but I'd like to see the battlemap size directly related to the number of units in the engagement - so 20 huge scale units apiece would play out on a huge map, but 5 small scale units apiece would fight on a small sized map.

---

Interesting idea Zatoichi though would that not limit the tactical possibilities of the small armies ( say 5 -6 units owned by yourself and the AI ) ?

These seemingly minor clashes are as we all know, vital to early survival,don't know if giving them a smaller map would please me - though that is of course my own oppinion.

:balloon2:

Yeah, I guess maybe refine the idea to be map size tied to the number of actual soldiers involved in the battle rather than just the number of units. You'd still get the problem with skirmishes being played out on smaller maps, but if the smallest map was the size of the current RTW map, then that'd keep me happy!

Maps should be huge to allow for proper skirmishing and/or tactical and strategic positioning. A small map just gives no proper perspective of what the potential of battle could be and all the little battles that lead up to the main fight. Not to mention civilian involvement and the positioning of villages( where are these in ROME?). There are many factors that go into battles that were lacking in RTW and even MTW. I would prefer something entirely new and improved not a return to a more finite system. Those who want to go back to the way MTW or STW were are, frankly, not rowing with all oars in the water.

diBorgia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zatoichi

It's been said before by myself and others, but I'd like to see the battlemap size directly related to the number of units in the engagement - so 20 huge scale units apiece would play out on a huge map, but 5 small scale units apiece would fight on a small sized map.

---

This is perhaps the perfect way to solve the problem. In early battles with only perhaps 5 or 6 units on a huge MTW map it took ages just to come into contact with the enemy, let alone actually fight the battle and chase the enemy off the map, (or let him chase you if you weren't so good :inquisitive:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trajanus

This is perhaps the perfect way to solve the problem. In early battles with only perhaps 5 or 6 units on a huge MTW map it took ages just to come into contact with the enemy, let alone actually fight the battle and chase the enemy off the map, (or let him chase you if you weren't so good :inquisitive:)

---

While I agree that it shouldn't take long to engage in small battles, skirmishers actually require more space than melee units. Therefor, I would rather have an uniform map size. Instead, armies should be placed closer to each other if they do not contain many units.

I like the idea of individual maps relating to the campaign map and the corresponding terrain features. Why do people suggest that RTW maps are featureless? There are plenty of features. MTW had silly hedgerows, remember, and you could march straight over them. Buildings on the battlemap or any other model type addition does nothing but hamper pathfinding of units. I would fault RTW for its poor scale, the trees are all Sequoias.
I made loads of maps for STW and MTW and I can say that the textures of STW were better and there was greater choice. However, both games had small, medium and large map choices. I always used large because my maps were generally aimed at 4v4 MP battles. Cesare diBorja raises a good point. Manoeuvre has always been lacking, but I feel this is more because the deployment zones are too close to each other. Most battles had minor skirmishes prior to the pitched battle and with this in mind a large area between opposing armies would at least offer the chance for this. I have never been one of those impatient, let's get on with it types and have always preferred a battle to at least resemble a battle as much as possible. Above all I want the AI to use formations as it did in STW and MTW, for some reason it insists on one line formation which is inherantly weak but does at least limit the space (even though it is easy to smash the centre or either flank)
Some nice additions would be 'surprise' terrain features such as marshy ground, things that will hamper progress and possibly cause defeat if your general does not study the overall picture

......Orda

Terrain features like bogs, fords and the like would be nice. What would also be nice is if the map "moved". The cheezy tactic I like using on the defense is having my Army butt up against the edge of the map to restrict flanking. I think the map should stay the same size and as the whole of one force approaches another, the map would move toward the defender. This would force the defender into the attack in less his rear/flanks were covered by impassable terrain. Now I'm sure there are additionally cheezy ways that I would prevent this (using my fast cav to "anchor" the far side) but I would still like to see it.

I'm all for a bigger tactical map, as I love skirmishing. It should be definatly be possible to relate the size of the map and the total numbers of soldiers involved. Maybe also the relation/gap between the combined prize of units of both sides can also taken into account - this way a huge army has not to chase a few horsearchers all over the place on a big map. Maybe one could even have the option to tweak the weighting of the mapincreasing or decreasing factor, would be fine for MP. We really should work this one out more and refine it, so that it becomes duable and attractive for CA.

There are few things which Iiked less than having to fight against a never-ending spread- out line of phalanxes using the "edges" of the map as a natural protection against flanking and flankshooting. One of these were the hundreds of small skirmishes were it took relatively long time to finish off the enemy. A link between map size and the number of soldiers combined with an adjustable speedslider would take care of both.

With this features you can largly decide in SP what to do in which time.


Another possible feature would be that your victories by general xy are tracked, stored and used to influence the automatic resolve of a battle with this guy. With this link gameplay would become faaar better, as you could this wayaut. calculate far more "standard" rebel-killing-tasks later on without risking to lose so many of your valuable troops. An annoyance less to tackle. :idea2:

Longshank shouldn't be forced that way to defeat every Scotish bandit on his path to glory manually, but could get a far more likely result with the autocalc than before, while commanding the exciting battles directly.


One could also establish a track-record of the player Gealai and all his manually played battles. So if he was able to loose miserably with force superiority of 3:1 by Human Intelligence the battle of Antioch, this should also alter the performance of the KI in autocalc. matches. This gives an incentive to play battles by ourselve initially and to let the autocalc do the boring work more effectively later on when empire management becomes more demanding and timeconsuming.

What do you guys think? :2thumbsup:

Gealai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cesare diBorja

Maps should be huge to allow for proper skirmishing and/or tactical and strategic positioning. A small map just gives no proper perspective of what the potential of battle could be and all the little battles that lead up to the main fight. Not to mention civilian involvement and the positioning of villages( where are these in ROME?). There are many factors that go into battles that were lacking in RTW and even MTW. I would prefer something entirely new and improved not a return to a more finite system. Those who want to go back to the way MTW or STW were are, frankly, not rowing with all oars in the water.

diBorgia

---

Realistically though, MTW2 is based on RTW engine. Maybe they have something entirely new in the next engine. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zatoichi

It's been said before by myself and others, but I'd like to see the battlemap size directly related to the number of units in the engagement - so 20 huge scale units apiece would play out on a huge map, but 5 small scale units apiece would fight on a small sized map.

---

:idea2:

Can I be the seventh or so to quote you.

Anyways if the A.I. is much better improved, these smaller battles may be much less common, ruling out the need for this idea. Also smaller an especially heavilly outnumbered armies should have better options of retreat/withdraw, wich would/may lead to much more decisive battle(s) instead of many uneeded skirmishes.

Gealai, as for autoresolve, let's hope it really is'nt needed as much as it is in RTW

Bigger maps. Definitely. For those who like the smaller maps, then have an option to set the size of the battle map, so that everyone can have the experience they want.

And while I'm on the subject, can we PLEASE have a lot more options in general for tweaking the game to our liking? A choice between "RTS" and "Realism" mode just doesn't cut it.

One option I REALLY want to see is the option to select for either quicker battles as in RTW or slower ones as in STW and MTW. A LOT of grognards were deeply pissed off at the "instant rout", "machinegun kill rate" of RTW.

PLEASE GIVE US A FEW MORE OPTIONS THIS TIME AROUND CA. Hide them away in a config file if you must, but DON'T GIVE US THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY TREATMENT AGAIN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

On the positive side, the large trees in RTW are nice but practically useless

---

The large trees are not merely useless, they are a downright hindrance to play. When you're tracking over the battlefield, they force the camera UP and over the trees so you have to keep readjusting the camera to your preferred height.

I found this to be a particular problem in city centre battles where the centre was surrounded by trees.

The solution is really obvious. When you pass over a high obstacle like a building, wall or tree, the camera should bounce up over it and then RESUME THE HEIGHT AT WHICH YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY SET IT. This way you wouldn't have the constant annoyance of fiddling with the camera in built up areas all the time to get it to back to your desired height when you could be otherwise occupied in commanding your troops, which is what the game is supposed to be about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Terrain features like bogs, fords and the like would be nice. What would also be nice is if the map "moved". The cheezy tactic I like using on the defense is having my Army butt up against the edge of the map to restrict flanking. I think the map should stay the same size and as the whole of one force approaches another, the map would move toward the defender.

---

Hey, that's a good idea. Then instead of routing off the map edge to finish a battle, you could just make it that the battle ends after all of one side's remaining units have been in continuous route mode for a given period of time.

However, I think it would probably be too resource hungry to implement.

Edit: On second thought, maybe not such a good idea anyhow, since there'd be no easy way for the AI to tell where the "centre" of the battlefield was anymore...

It might be resource-hungry... it would also truly bring horse-archers into their actual strength, rather than being squeezed against artificial battle borders.

In reality, the bordered battlefield would be a boon to any losing army. Personally, I am for a non bordered battlefield with disengagement determined by how far the enemy is away from my army. 5 to 10 gaming miles would be sufficient as chase would only tire my men and leave them subject to ambush. I am currently thinking this through, so bear with me. Imagine your army on the defensive and you need time to evacuate the field so you set a two unit ambush further afield(to the rear) while your army retreats. These men have time to recooperate and make a proper defense maybe some cavalry with them to assist in a shocking counter-strike. I wonder.........


diBorgia