Printable View
I think the game would be far to time consuming if we had more cities. Remember you have to capture them all ~:eek:
Founding cities might not work well with the mtw campaign map either and the time period. A player who is dominating the game shouldnt be able to build metropolis' all over his empire, CA would need to make it very very time consuming and costly to avoid exploitation.
Founding cities and colonies would be nice if they ever do an age of exploration game
Actually we don't have to conquer all the cities in RTW(at least not as a roman faction).You merely need to conquer Rome(or the senate...not sure) and hold onto it for 20 years for your campaign to be considered a victory.I believe there is also an option of continuing after you have been declared victorious. ~D
I think you're talking about something very much like the border system used in both Alpha Centauri and Civilization 3. There each city you own (found or conquer) exerts a certain amount of territorial influence around it. This represents itself by a dotted line, areas within the dotted line are considered your territory for economic, military and diplomatic purposes. The greater the 'culture' (essentially - importance, determined by what is built inside it) of a city, the greater the borders around the city. If two civilizations have adjacent borders, they can flux even without war if one civilization has greater 'culture' on their side of the border.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
This could certainly be implemented into the Total War style... but we need to ask ourselves if we really want this. Do we really want Total War to turn into a Civ clone with realtime battles? This game series has always concentrated on being one of the best, if not THE best, in the tactical battlefield simulation genre. The world map is certainly needed to give a broader view of the world and overall strategy, but I fear that trying to put too much detail into the campaign map will simply result in moving Total War into the 'nation building sim' genre of games. This is an area where the Total War series would be seriously out-classed and I fear that it would detract from the quality of the battlefield game.
How so? As long as they have the same quality of battles (why would they downgrade the battles?) the more politcal the better. And it beats trying to go to the RTS crowd...
Wow. Lots of long replies. I'll try to address as many as I can. Hope you can read the entire post ~;)
@TuffStuffMcGruff, voigtkampf,
thanks for agreeing. I really think provinces should be up to the player to draw as TuffStuffMcGruff suggested.
@Tamur,
I made a list of cities and provinces from screenshots of the map in the "Province profile" section of the .com. The demo .pak files also contain campaign related info, including a province and city list. Both sources are pretty close (103 +/- provinces).
@Peregrine Tergiversate,
a cohort of 50 men may hold a castle, but surely cannot hold a large city!! Now if a few survivors garrisoned a minor town (like the ones I'm suggesting) then I'd believe it!
@sir robin,
you mention that "you would have many of the cities just being bypassed by blitzkriegs deep into enemy territory". That is actually a reasonable strategy. If a city is not on your army's path (i.e on a highway) then you should be able to bypass it! If your blitzkrieg succeeds, it will likely surrender on next turn. If not, then it will remain a thorn in the side. Or could become a staging base for the enemy.
@simon,
I totally agree with you that the end game in MTW is broken: it is tedious, non-challenging and takes inordinate amount of time. The solution, however, is not to have less provinces (i.e shrink the game) but to change the way you win (Spartiate mentions that in his post) . CA has done that for RTW. My vision of additional cities should not mean you have to siege them all. Again a mechanism for the surrender of groups of cities should be established.
@SilverRusher
Where did you get the info that there are 2 cities per province in RTW. All info on RTW points to a single city per province. You're right that the ability to found forts will go a long way to satisfy some of what I'm asking for. But those forts will lack a name, resources or any other use besides defense. Once they are not your frontier, you might as well consider them clutter.
@chilliwilli,
a player won't be able to build metropolises all over his empire because you will need people to occupy them. And population can only increase at a certain rate. TO found a city you will need to decrease the population in other cities. A new aspect of empire management is thus created. You may choose to use it or ignore it. Just like some people use assassins in MTW and others don't (I don;'t).
@TinCow,
I haven't played alpha centauri or civ 3, but you describe what I envision well. Cities will have spheres of influence based on their size and surrounding areas. And my opinion is , yes we want that in TW games. Sure it will make it more of an empire building game. That does not mean the tactical aspects are lessened. In fact, the main reason I want more cities is to enhance the tactical aspect of the game. Which route do you take into a province? Do you bother with the small border forts or try to bypass them? etc... I think Steppe Marc answered your point on that one.
In summary, I think that if done right, with all the concerns everyone expressed taken into account, a much more detailed campaign map will increase the depth of the game, will improve its realism, and would give us new challenges. It may lengthen the campaign time further, but as long as it stays enjoyably challenging, I welcome that.
Afrit
1. Expected low number of cities (equal to MTW at best) = Yes
2. Disappointed = No
I did not expect more cities so I'm not disappointed. Do I think there should have been more, yes I do.
Yeek, sounds like a lot of work. Thanks for the answer!Quote:
Originally Posted by afrit
My concerns come from the realities of software publishing, not what I would actually like to see in a perfect world. The next TW game (full, not XP) will almost certainly be yet another game engine build, this means from the ground up. The more time spent on improving the campaign map, the less time spent on perfecting and tweaking the battle system. I am simply afraid that due to time and budget constraints, any resources spent on these improvements would actually harm the battle system. This might result in the TW game doing a poor job at both aspects and I would rather have it do an excellent job at one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Of course if CA is able to get the resources and support from publishers to allow it to expand further into the civilization simulation market, I would be very happy. I guess I'm just a bit cautious about TW reaching for the dream and falling on its face.
Here are a few screenshots I found on the net that show Civ 3 with the borders:Quote:
Originally Posted by afrit
http://www.4gamer.net/civ3/images/Civ3_04.jpg
http://www.monitor.ca/monitor/issues...civ-3_scr1.jpg
As I understand it, it was at first the plan not to implement provinces in RTW. Some of the older FAQs pointed in that direction. Obviously CA has decided against it and they had probably a reason for that. If it was justified we will only see if we have played the game.
The difference is that in MTW/STW, units and agents were just generically in a province, but for RTW they are actually at a specific point on the campaign map. It seems to me that really all that the 'provinces' are likely to do in RTW is to signify the faction borders (so that other factions can't just waltz armies up next to your cities without you being able to tell them off for it). I doubt they'll have any other notable impact on the game. It's the settlements/cities that matter.
Couldn't agree more. Since the game's due out in less than two weeks, I think I'll sustain passing judgement until I can play the game. I remember playing MTW for quite some time before I reached a point where I was SURE certain changes would be beneficial, and enhance all aspects of play, rather than just make a particular annoyance more tolerable. Kinda hard to mod something ya ain't seen.Quote:
If it was justified we will only see if we have played the game.
Here's a list of all the provinces and their city (taken from the provinces and cities tags in the pak files). There are 103 all up.
Province - City
Britannia Inferior - Eburacum
Tribus Saxones - Bordesholm
Locus Gepidae - Domus Dulcis Domus
Hyperboria - Themiskyra
Tribus Sakae - Campus Sakae
Hibernia - Tara
Tribus Alanni - Campus Alanni
Tribus Silurii - Deva
Locus Gothi - Vicus Gothi
Tribus Sarmatae - Campus Sarmatae
Britannia Superior - Londinium
Germania Inferior - Batavodurum
Tribus Chattii - Damme
Pripet - Vicus Venedae
Regnum Marcomannii - Vicus Marcomannii
Belgica - Samarobriva
Maeotis - Tanais
Agri Decumates - Mogontiacum
Armorica - Condate Redonum
Germania Superior - Trier
Boihaemum - Lovosice
Scythia - Campus Scythii
Tribus Iazyges - Campus Iazyges
Central Gaul - Alesia
Dacia - Porrolissum
Noricum - Iuvavum
Tribus Getae - Campus Getae
Pannonia - Aquincum
Bosphorus - Chersonesos
Aquitania - Lemonum
Lugdinensis - Lugdunum
Colchis - Kotais
Atropatene - Phraaspa
Cisalpine Gaul - Mediolanium
Venetia - Patavium
Transalpine Gaul - Massilia
Illyria - Segestica
Thrace - Tylis
Gallaecia - Asturica
Dalmatia - Salona
Armenia - Artaxarta
Narbonensis - Narbo Martius
Liguria - Segesta
Pontus - Sinope
Celtiberia - Numantia
Paionia - Bylazora
Etruria - Arretium
Taraconenis - Osca
Umbria - Ariminum
Media - Arsakia
Lusitania - Scallabis
Sardinia - Caralis
Latium - Rome
Macedonia - Thessalonica
Propontis - Byzantium
Bithynia - Nicomedia
Galatia - Ancyra
Cappadocia - Mazaka
Hispania - Carthago Nova
Epirus - Apollonia
Apulia - Tarentum
Campania - Capua
Assyria - Hatra
Baetica - Corduba
Phrygia - Pergamum
Cilicia - Tarsus
Thessalia - Larissa
Baliares - Palma
Bruttium - Croton
Ionia - Sardis
Syria - Antioch
Babylonia - Seleucia
Aetolia - Thermon
Attica - Athens
Elymais - Susa
Peloponnesus - Corinth
Lycia - Halicarnassus
Sicilia Romanus - Messana
Sicilia Poeni - Lilybaeum
Mauretania - Tingi
Regnum Palmyrae - Palmyra
Cyprus - Salamis
Phoenicia - Sidon
Numidia - Cirta
Africa - Carthage
Sicilia Graecus - Syracuse
Laconia - Sparta
Coele Syria - Damascus
Rhodos - Rhodes
Arabia - Dumatha
Byzacium - Thapsus
Crete - Kydonia
Nabataea - Bostra
Judaea - Jerusalem
Gaetulia - Dimmidi
Tripolitania - Lepcis Magna
Cyrenaica - Cyrene
Nile Delta - Alexandria
Sinai - Petra
Libya - Siwa
Middle Egypt - Memphis
Sahara - Nepte
Thebais - Thebes
~:eek: ~:confused: ~:joker:Quote:
Locus Gepidae - Domus Dulcis Domus
So the main city of the Locus Gepidae is called...."Home Sweet Home"??
Those Gepids must have had a sense of humour... ~;)
ROTFL :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by biguth dickuth
:joker:
heh good one mate ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by biguth dickuth
'Quote:
Babylonia - Seleucia
I'd thought it would be Baylon... ~:confused:
Camp Sarmatian? Is there the Mickey Mouse camp to? ~:joker:Quote:
Tribus Sarmatae - Campus Sarmatae
Interesting... It was noted back when the province profiles came up that there was such a place. Naturally people with experience with CA humour explained the novices that it is a joke, now it seems serious. ~:shock: I'm puzzled. I still hope it is a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by biguth dickuth
Steppe Merc. you haev noticed that there are several other camps right? Any why is that so funny? Am I missing something?
Bear in mind that those province and city names are taking from the demo. So it may have been still in 'joke' phase when the demo build was split from the full build (and so we may well see some different names in the final release). But yes, some funny names there ~:joker:
If you guys think that MTW/RTW had a tedious endgame, you haven't played Civ yet. Even if you weren't clearly winning and the game is still in doubt, the game gets very tedious in the end. My last game of Civ3, I had more than 100 cities in the end and got so sick of the micromanaging. I spent more than 100 hours playing and that game had no tactical battles.
The fact is, there has never been an acceptable AI and there never will be until we discover how to biologically create new lifeforms. Adding more cities will just add more to the micromanagement in the game. You could automate it, but again, the AI will surely be retarded and will never make decisions on the same level as a human does. I thought MTW had enough provinces already and I really don't wish for much more in RTW.
The city of Babylon was practically deserted by 275 BCE, which is prior to the start of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Here's an article from Britannica online:
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/articl...y=null&ct=null
To quote:
Quote:
It (Babylon) was conquered in 539 BC by the Persian Achaemenian dynasty under Cyrus II and in 331 BC by Alexander the Great, after which the capital city was gradually abandoned.
Oh, thanks, Stuie. And yes, I think Camp Sarmatian is funny because
1. The Sarmatians aren't even in the game for some moronic reason. ~:confused: :furious3:
and 2. As nomads they wouldn't really have to many permanate cities. But calling it Camp Sarmatian? I still think it's idiotic.
I don't know guys ... 100+ cities seems plenty to me. Maybe you are forgetting about the forts you can build?
Historically speaking there really wasn't a large number of notable cities in the ancient world. When I read about the Roman campaigns in Briton and Gaul; I get the impression that the number of cities that hold more tactical signifigance than a legionnairy fort are few and far between. Same goes for cites with a significant amount of commerce.
So my answer is no, I'm not dissapointed by the number of cities.
Also, this is definitely one issue that I don't think can be effectively debated until the game is played. The demo did reveal some issues with the battle map, but none of us has played the strat game yet. By all accounts the strat map is very different from the STW and MTW and the ancient world does not map to the fuedal world very well at all. Give the strat map some legs before making you argument I say.
Wow, I thought I had read somewhere that cities could be founded. Guess I'm wrong.
I'm less than 20 turns into a new campaign, and under the impression one could found cities, I put a couple of units along with a Peasant unit (thought you needed peasants to found) onto a boat and sent them over to the Spanish pennisula.
There's a nice spot just over the Pyrnees (sp? is that the right mountain range?), with some tradeable goods and a fishing village. The interesting part about founding a city is choosing a good location.
I choose a spot near enough to the fishing village, with a small mountain range to the rear and a meandering river to the front. The river creates a narrow gap to the north and south, the only approaches to the city. I thought this a VERY defensible location.
I couldn't figure out how to make the units found the city, looked through the manual and found nothing (surprise!!!), and then came to the Org and did a search.
Toooo bad....
It's early in the game, and if I could found and develop a city at this location while I'm at Peace with the Gauls and Spaniards, it would serve as a good base for expansion.
Sigh!
Fantastic thread. I'm not sure I want *more* cities placed into the game, but the capability to develop new cities would be facinating. I like all of the other suggestions of the original poster!!!!
I don't wish for ANY more Sieges/Taking of Cities than there already are in the game. In fact, I think Rome: Tota War could be changed to "Siege: Total War"!!! ;)
As far as Battle Engine development vs Campaign development:
IMUHO, the battle engine is STILL hands down the best thing going. Not much about the mechanics need improvement (save the RTW interface!!). There are two areas that would really take the Battle Engine to the next level:
1) An AI, without gettting into any specifics, simply a more *intelligent* and challeging AI. Something that would be a STEP FORWARD in technology.
2) MODABILITY. The capability to Mod the AI is something that's *sorely* missing. Not simply, as we have now, the capability to mode certain aspects and elements that effect the AI, but the capability to Mod the AI itself. Tailor it to specific tastes and aims.
Lastly, I support the continued *Civilizationing* of the Campaign/Strategic area of Total War. The true accomplishment of Total War is that it brings true STRATEGIC value to, as well as, EXCELLENT *Tactical* elements, to Battles; without which TW would just be another RTS game with little to no, actual, *strategy*.
I'm a Strategy Gamer, first and foremost.
What would be really great would be a collaboration between The Creative Assembly and Sid Meir. Sid Meir is the genius of strategy gaming and CA has the technology, what a wonderful marriage this would make!!
I never had any problems with Medieval's late game, because I never play that long. The fun part is building up your provences civ-style. I usually have a blast playing up untill about the invention of gunpowder, and then start a new game. I also advance slowly and always consolidate my gains, making conquests last longer, and the game not too easy. I find that playing slowly makes it both more challenging, and more fun. Of course "slowly" is a word unheard of in RTW...
Considering how you have to micromanage every damn city in Rome because the heavy handed squalor rate, more cities would be a nightmare. In Rome, expanding is a pain, because you know you are going to get more damn people in your empire, who naturally hate you.
Uh, maybe the map with provinces and cities that came with the game?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamur
Grifman
BTW these suggestions are impossible with the current engine - you might as well be asking for the moon. They would require extensive changes to the engine to allow you to found cities, change provincial borders by grouping cities, plus require extensive playtesting and balancing. Play Civ if you want that type of game. I'm happy with RTW as it is in this respect.
Grifman