Strategic map Vs. bettle map

Well, the strategic map could attract swarms of strategy gamers, just take the Civ games, which have no tactical play, as an example. The only problem is that the campaign as it is, is far from that level of depth and playability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I think if the tactical battles were improved then the strategic game would become more challenging, so I would look at improving the battlemaps. It has been noted by players that the AI doesn't value hills in RTW. I clearly recall, around the time that RTW was relased, someone from CA saying that the combat bonuses for being on a hill were reduced because new players would be confused by it. It's quite possible that decision messed up the AI because now the hill bonus is so small that the AI doesn't recognize it as an advantage. Other parameter values being plugged into the game could be messing up the AI as well. The parameter values chosen should be re-evaluated because it's difficult to believe that the AI forgot how to fight open field battles as well as it could in the previous games. Also, this high level decision by CA to change battlefield parameter values in an attempt to make the game more suitable to new players is unnecessary. The game has an arcade mode which is there for that purpose, so they could have simply put the reduced hill bonus in the arcade setting.

---

it seems that even OPTIONS are too scary for the "average gamer" ~:eek: Proof?

Quote:

---

Q: Are there any plans for making auto resolve separate from regular difficulty settings?

A: Not in the expansion pack. This may happen in future products, but we have to consider how confusing it would be to the average player to have too many difficulty setting toggles and switches. It may be possible that we'll add in difficulty sub-settings as advanced options in future products. It can be argued that auto-resolving battles makes the campaign game harder because you are likely to lose more troops in an auto-battle than if you fight it out under manual control, and losing troops unnecessarily is tantamount to burning resources for no payoff.

---

:dizzy2:

EDIT:

I started a thread about it: http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...cID=1482.topic

Good grief. The last thing the TW series needs is to return to a bland boardgame style map.

If you want Risk, play Risk. There is a reason that those strategy boardgames are made so simply, it is so that a wider audience can have the patience and ability to play them. Imagine unrolling an intricate strategy map on the dinner table and expecting the family to play it with you. Ain't gonna happen.

People who are largely uninterested in strategy war games need an easy-to-understand checkerboard style boardgame, and that's why Risk and all the others exist.

Thankfully, we now have the technology to create intricate maps that allow players to take any number of routes instead of just hopping their pieces around a board like so many checkers.

Also, I would hate to see a return to the MTW style of maps where the same old tired maps are used over and over again for battle after battle. It was silly that there were so few battle maps for border areas that were hundreds of miles long.

The changes they have made to many parts of this game have made it so much more realistic than many parts of the previous ones.

Just say no to Hopscotch Strategy ~D

http://www.wallaceh90.freeserve.co.u.../Hopscotch.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Magnus

Thankfully, we now have the technology to create intricate maps that allow players to take any number of routes instead of just hopping their pieces around a board like so many checkers.

---

It is not so much the intrincate map I object against, as the fact that it is far too easy to exploit it against the AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Magnus

Also, I would hate to see a return to the MTW style of maps where the same old tired maps are used over and over again for battle after battle. It was silly that there were so few battle maps for border areas that were hundreds of miles long.

---

It is true you fought at the same terrain over and over again in M:TW, but the maps contained more tactical element which is in my opinion more important than the number of maps available. Better have ten interesting maps then a hundred bland ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Magnus

Just say no to Hopscotch Strategy

---

~D

Am i wrong or not but bi BI demo screens shows us battlefields will be much more larger. Just look at the battlemap...

http://www.totalwar.org.pl/gallery/bi-demo7.jpg

http://www.totalwar.org.pl/gallery/bi-demo8.jpg

I hope and pray it could be like that standart campaign battles. Looking very promising. If a CA staff enlightens us it would be a better and decisive information. :bow:

For the other screens just check that link mates:
http://www.totalwar.org.pl/?ShowGal=23

That is a screenshot of a historical battle. You can add some code that makes a historical battle cover 2x2 km instead of regular 1x1 km battlemaps. Nothing new.

I can't really understand that strange behavior of CA. I mean historical battles and camp battles... Why are they should be in different measures?

Historical map sizes are pretty much to enaugh reflect better TW battle experience. Why are they making the ordinary camp battles still smaller? :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Little Legioner

Historical map sizes are pretty much to enaugh reflect better TW battle experience. Why are they making the ordinary camp battles still smaller? :embarassed:

---

Because the cheating auto-resolve forces you to play every battle, so CA is trying to speed up the battles with smaller maps, faster movement and faster fighting.