Printable View
I have already read some discussion on this in other threads, but I was interested in knowing what the actual turn count will be, officially.
I assume no one has officially announced how many turns will be programmed into the game mechanics, but my guess would be 2 turns per year, giving a total number of approximately 240 turns for the game.
I was hoping for much more. My preference would be 4 turns per year, one for each season.
Your thoughts?
I can see it being four turns per year to be totally honest with you alex9337 with maybe more than one starting date, though I don't think we will find out for sometime.Quote:
Originally Posted by alex9337
At this point I'm thinking either four or two turns per year. I'm certainly hoping for the former, as we haven't had that in a while and it's nice to only have one or two faction leaders for an entire campaign.
I agree with the 4 turns per year. After all, most of the game will happens between centuries XVIII and XIX i guess, and since you will probably need more turns to finish a long campaign (at such time you should be able to access to all parts of the world), 4 turns per year is quite possible. Also, i always found a bit stupid that my armies need more then 10 years to cross, for example, the Iberian Peninsula (with 2 years per turn)... 1 turn per season seems quite good to me.
I hope it's four since the game will only last a little over a hundred years.
I'm hoping for 4 turns per year. Hey, I'm used to EB. But, hey, think: 120 years times 4 seasons equals 480 turns. That's already pretty much.
Of course, I've gotten used to 2 turn per year thanks to Deus Lo Vult. And that's less time: 240 turns to win.
Both are okay. One gives more realism, the other moves the campaign faster. In any case, it'll probably be moddable, so...
I really liked the 4 seasons in shogun, and would love to see the same in ETW, but i'm expecting it to be 2/year, cos 120 x 2 = 240.
I´d like 2 or 4 probably 4 since you have to sail alot around the map. So it will probably take longer time to complete long campaing than usually. And both would make more realism for events, birth dates and aging.
Quite frankly, for this era in history, 12 turns a year would not be out of the question for realism's sake. Especially when you add naval movement, and things like the American revolution. At 2 turns a year, the American revolution would have to be complete in what? 16 turns? I just hope they pay attention to the speed of travel and all. With some of the other games being x amount of turns per year, you got some really oddly long travel times occasionally.
Four turns are a good option in my view, hopefully with the possibility of more than one starting date, though if it must be, two turns isn't a total disaster.
As Zarky touched on, I wonder how aging will be programmed in ETW.
Will factional leaders/generals/agents/admirals age the normal 1 game year = 1 aging year or will it be at the warped rate that they age in M2TW?
4 turns per year for me please. 240 turns is just too short and quick for me. I like just to sit back, relax, trade and build up the faction under my control. I like advantage at the pace I want to, I love to micromanage my towns to their perfection. In general I want deeper campaign map experience.
In m2tw the default turn rate was 2 years per turn. If you'd had generals/etc age at that rate you'd only be able to use them for about 20 or so turns before they died. Its a bit hard to get much training up done in 20 turns, its also very hard for players to care about keeping their best generals alive in battle if theyre going to be dead soon anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyarPunk
So CA decided to decouple the aging rate and the turn rate. No, its not realistic - but it makes sense in terms of making the game more playable. And its a game, not a simulation. Games are supposed to be fun.
It still staggers me that people dont understand this - and that there are still people, even now, complaining about the 'unrealistic' movement rates in M2TW. All i can say its that i'm thankful these people dont make games - they'd be as much fun as a watching paint dry simulator. Reminds me of a quote: "I hate tetris - it's so unrealistic". :grin:
Anyway, thankfully this shouldnt be a problem in ETW - its 120 years timescale, Assuming 2 turns/year this will give you plenty long enough to get plenty of use out of your generals etc (i.e. 40 years active service at 2 turns per year = 80 turns) without having weird aging rates. So hopefully thats one less thread topic to see posted to the forums anew every day. :wink:
Things like this, when confirmed, will be posted in the summary thread.
Lets hope people can read. :no:
If we can vote, I vote 4 turns a year and several starting dates! :charge:
Starting date ideas:
- Great northern war
- 7 years war
- French revolution
I concur.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I'd like to see 4 turns a year. 240 turns just seems like to little time to me. I don't like to feel rushed when playing strategy games, which is probably why I suck at RTS games. :wall:
I vote 4. And who is to say that those of us who want realism are being ridiculous? I understand it is a game, but my enjoyment of it would be crippled if it took me two years or more to simply get a fleet from France to Egypt. In this time period things moved at such a pace that a two turn per year system simply cannot convey the nature of the era. For me, immersion is something I seek in games. I am particularly interested in seeing things portrayed somewhat believably in this game, as the era has been a favorite subject of mine for several years now. So that's my take on it. If we're concerned about different types of gamers with different preferences (which I think we are) a great way to deal with the issue would be to expand the aspect of campaign goals, and what constitutes a victory. My biggest complaint with nearly every grand strategy game I've ever played is that the wars are nearly always total, and to achieve victory involves the complete conquest of the map. To have more realistic and limited criteria for a campaign victory would appeal to people who are interested in shorter games, I imagine. So hopefully we could all be satisfied. :beam:
but it would be out of the question for gameplay's sake. The campaign would last much much too long.Quote:
12 turns a year would not be out of the question for realism's sake
Even at 4 turns that quite a lot of turns, but 2 seems a bit too short as well. I wonder what they'll decide?
Maybe 4 years and have it only cover 100 years time instead of 120.
I think there should be an option to allow players before campaign start to select the amount of time per turn whether it's 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. years per turn or a certain amount of months per turn. It would make for a versatile game regarding time. Of course, gameplay, presentation, and all other relevant areas should be then properly covered in conjunction with this time choice. It would take take much more time to complete such a product, but ohhhh the beauty of it in the end.
Personally I would love to see a return to the way STW worked, 4 turns a year. I think I had more "fun" playing that game than any other total war title to date. With the possible exception of MTW.
Multiple starting dates would also be a great added bonus.
I think it should be 4 turns per year and America arising at 1770. In a expansion bout the revolution the time would be 12 turns a year cuz after all, 20 turns is not much for a expansion XD. Thats what i think is best for the game.
If they made this game 2 turns per year they would have to make armies move very far each turn.