Turns per year?

I cannot of course verify if the poster is actually someone from CA, but the following was posted in one of the threads over at the .com:

Quote:

---

Hey guys, thought I'd clarify Bob's comments for you.

Medieval 2 no longer tracks years, it tracks turns. The turns alternate between winter and summer, so we are definitely keeping the seasons in there.

From a practical point of view it means that we've abstracted the passage of time so it's no longer linear - although the amount that gets done each turn stays constant, the amount of time that passes does not.

As far as actual gameplay goes it's merely a cosmetic change so rather than seeing the year displayed in the UI you see a turn number.

Prasant Moorthy
Associate Producer
The Creative Assembly Australia

---

If this is in fact true, then the implications are worrisome, to say the least....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I cannot of course verify if the poster is actually someone from CA, but the following was posted in one of the threads over at the .com:

Quote:

---

"As far as actual gameplay goes it's merely a cosmetic change so rather than seeing the year displayed in the UI you see a turn number.

Prasant Moorthy
Associate Producer
The Creative Assembly Australia"

---

If this is in fact true, then the implications are worrisome, to say the least....

---

No year display at all? That's nuts. It doesn't let you put anything that's happening in a game into a historical context. I don't want to have to drag out a calculator or a chart and figure out that Turn #43 is more-or-less-kinda-like 1166. I want to know if the date is 1166.

Maybe I'm misreading what he's saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Hey guys, thought I'd clarify Bob's comments for you.

Medieval 2 no longer tracks years, it tracks turns. The turns alternate between winter and summer, so we are definitely keeping the seasons in there.

From a practical point of view it means that we've abstracted the passage of time so it's no longer linear - although the amount that gets done each turn stays constant, the amount of time that passes does not.

As far as actual gameplay goes it's merely a cosmetic change so rather than seeing the year displayed in the UI you see a turn number.

Prasant Moorthy
Associate Producer
The Creative Assembly Australia

---

Cosmetic? Unless it is for balancing purpose not for further simplification of the game.

How does one know people's ages? How will one know the events? :no: :inquisitive:

I don't know about the rest of you but if I start in 1080 I do not want to take ~ 1200 effing turns to get to the late Middle Ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

I don't know about the rest of you but if I start in 1080 I do not want to take ~ 1200 effing turns to get to the late Middle Ages.

---

I agree no game needs to be that massive. I still vote fore a one turn per year with two startingpoints. One early and one mid/high. this would give those who enjoy gunpowder the possibility to their end too. You will still have the possibility to play a whole epic game through the different time periods.

Anyway, i hope my fear of this game turning into a strat game for the adhd crowd is´nt warranted.

I voted 4 tpy myself but after the official annoucement I'm not that sure anymore. I mean, seriously - 1800 turns per campaign? I won't last 500, nevermind the whole damn thing.
Phwoar! I simply cannot wait to see how CA approach the subject of splitting 550 years into 225 turns. I really don't think CA are consciously planning to snub all the fans posting on this forum. They MUST be aware of our high expectations and there is simply no way they want to make a lousy product only for console fans to enjoy. Think outside the box gals and lads! No one trusts such radical changes in they beloved game but this actually means we could get so much more from it when it's finished!

What would really be so wrong with 4 years per turn? If there were three different eras, f ex: 1080, 1220 and 1400, you could play with whatever medieval tech you like. I for one would hate having to use 50 years crossing Europe, or having my characters die out on me once they are starting to get some good traits.

I guess you mean 4 turns per year.

I'm trying to figure out how that is meant with the "tracking turns". I think this offers some opportunities (please read on before outrage). Instead of a set period of time a turn could represent an amount of action. I for one often have in my campaigns times at which few things happen. Then, turns rush by without me doing much. For example because I have to wait for a structure to be build. At other times, say I'm involved in a campaign against a neighbour or defending a city, lots of things happen each turn. It sometimes takes hours just to complete one turn. What I'm suspecting is that CA wants to change that.
In calm periods, turns represent more time since few decisions have to be made over several years. But when the action starts, each turn might only represent a fraction of a year, so that you can control every step of the campaign.
If my interpretation is right, 225 turns might actually be fine, even for me, because, actually, several years in which nothing happens could be put into one turn, leaving more turns for the interesting action.

Obviously, there are some difficulties. How are they going to do this? Years still have to be represented some way because the life of people cannot be counted in turns and I expect historical events to play a role. But that's not really a problem. That a turn can represent various amounts of time doesn't mean the game can't keep track of years as well (and show you). It only means that a year, or half a year, isn't an instance that offers you a set amount of decisions to make.
What I'm more curious about is how the game will be able decide how much action there is and how much turns you're offered for that action. In what way will the player be able to decide how much action he's going to start.
I'm sceptical whether CA can implement this right, but I still see the opportunities.

MAYBEEEEEE..... CA is taking a Civilization approach. Where the early game is more years per turn and the late game is less time per turn.

Soooo, 1080 in turn 1, 1085 in turn 2. Or something like that.

And turn whatever hundred in summer 1500, then winter 1500, then summer 1501, then winter 1501, etc....

'Tis a possibility.

What the heck?! BASICALLY, is all I can say...
What the heck?!








edited for language

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

MAYBEEEEEE..... CA is taking a Civilization approach. Where the early game is more years per turn and the late game is less time per turn.

Soooo, 1080 in turn 1, 1085 in turn 2. Or something like that.

And turn whatever hundred in summer 1500, then winter 1500, then summer 1501, then winter 1501, etc....

'Tis a possibility.

---

Maybe, but I think if it were that easy, the devs would already have explained it.

Turns not associated with years!?!?

Even the variable rate of Civ is based on a number of years... And how can it be based on seasons but not years!?!?

I mean I understand the dilema of tying the movement rates to the amount of time in a given turn is awkard to say the least... Even if they went seasonal with 4 turns a year one turn would still be long enough or a unit to walk the length of Britain and then fight a battle (on foot)! While this could be represented on the map the campaign would be as previously mentioned over 2000 turns... So this means you need to make it shorter which then really throws the movement rates for a loop...

I guess we will have to wait and see exactly what they introduce... :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Maybe, but I think if it were that easy, the devs would already have explained it.

---

Do you really think that?

To be honest, most devs hate bringing in other games to explain their own features (which might very well not be their own, but that is another story). And in interviews it doesn't ring very nice if he goes on to talk like Divinus did (no offense buddy), it would not be very PR'ish if he talked in numbers.

So I think it is fair to hope in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

It would not be very PR'ish if he talked in numbers.

---

Official statements always speak in the language of flowers. If they gave some concrete things away, then they wouldn't be official statements... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Do you really think that?

To be honest, most devs hate bringing in other games to explain their own features (which might very well not be their own, but that is another story). And in interviews it doesn't ring very nice if he goes on to talk like Divinus did (no offense buddy), it would not be very PR'ish if he talked in numbers.

So I think it is fair to hope in this case.

---

Of course he would have explained it differently. He certainly wouldn't have said "it's like in Civ". But still, if you look at what he said, it goes in another direction. This model wouldn't really be an "abstraction". It may still be possible, but it doesn't seem to me like that.

Maybe it will be a random number generator. Loads of fun. 1 year could pass or 50.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

Maybe it will be a random number generator. Loads of fun. 1 year could pass or 50.:laugh4:

---

Heh. Hope the modders will save us then.

Four is too many turns as everyone's said, and one is too short: your assassins would die of old age before getting 10 subterfuge..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

Maybe it will be a random number generator. Loads of fun. 1 year could pass or 50.:laugh4:

---

I'd say that's the least sensible solution. But is it the least likely??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Four is too many turns as everyone's said, and one is too short: your assassins would die of old age before getting 10 subterfuge..

---

I don't think, that assassins and their "subterfuges" would decide the length of the turns. It will be one, cause 900 turns are also too many. If you think about it in this developed (?) system each turn could be 15-20 minutes, which multiplied with that number is about 15.000 min, so 250 hours without battles! And that's only one campaign with one nation.

Maybe ca's gonna put in an option, that can change the turnlengths or in a late period campaign it will automatically switch to two-turn counting.

In RTW my average turn is about 1 minute. 2 minutes is a long turn because I'm moving;/building a lot. What takes a lot of time is the battles and I probably fight 2 of those a turn on average. The average of those depends on whether or not I fight the battles myself or if I auto-calc them. I tend to auto-calc most rebel battles and fight most non-rebel battles. Auto-calc takes seconds to do, but fighting a battle could be anywhere from 15 minutes to 1 hour. Average is probably closer to 20 minutes as most battles tend to be the little 400 vs 800 size battles.

That puts turn length at about 22 minutes. In the 225 turn campaign that they are talking about that puts a campaign at a little over 80 hours to play. That is assuming that it takes you the full 225 turns to complete the game. Rome, if I wasn’t turtling, I generally won in about 150 turns.

80 hours is a long campaign but at the top end of acceptable to me. If they work at the game play and pace it better than they did in Rome, than that will work ok. Not that I’m thrilled about it. I’d still prefer to have 3 eras/periods and 4 turns a year. Cut down on the number of battles a turn (since they are seasons) and a Era campaign would be near the 80 hours that CAs current 225 turn game is heading for. It’s the battles that take the time and there’s really no way around fighting many/most of them. Reducing the number of battles fought, and hopefully making the battles fought more significant, would reduce the campaign length noticeably.

Bottom line: Depending on game play balance, 225 turns could very well be acceptable, its just not what I’d prefer (4 tpy with 1 or 2 battles a year and 3 era’s with the option of continuing at the end of the era.) So I guess at this juncture I’ll have to wait and see how it plays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magnum

It’s the battles that take the time and there’s really no way around fighting many/most of them.

---

I agree with your analysis, except that in RTW you could avoid fighting many battles if you had a more adjustable autocalc. I don't autocalc because I suffer much higher losses than if I fight manually. If CA allowed you to adjust the bias in autocalc (including to be heavily in your favour), then I would use it. I hate fighting small groups of rebels and even after a while pitiful enemy AI armies. Full stack battles are great, but walkovers (including many of the sieges) just get old real quick.

I don't mind the 225 turn length. It fits me well enough as I seldomly used more than 130-150 turns at the very most.

But I don't like that the ingame time has then been expanded. From the 365 years of MTW to the 450 years in M2. If time is then going to pass that fast, then how am I going to get an attachment to my kings and pricnes and whatnot? Also there is the problem of units getting outdated almost as soon as you can train them.

Who managed to get to play with Triarii or Feudal Knights in any numbers before they got outdated?
If M2 is going to half-copy MTW in regard to units then I can see a problem with this. I just hope that the 225 turn comment was wrong, and that it was just 225 turns for the first Age (and then another 225 turns for the second Age), or something like that.
The Ages of MTW were really good. They threw you into different situations with different units and that. I didn't mind that I often didn't get into High before restarting. But I do not want to get forced into playing the entire timeperiod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Who managed to get to play with Triarii or Feudal Knights in any numbers before they got outdated?

---

That harass me too.

But I guess if CA still didn't comment this question, so they really gonna make just 225 turns in MTW2.

Civ2 memories: a caveman driving a tank using 19th century railroad tracks.

Judging by the poll it would seem that most here will not be happy, me included. I prefer long campaigns, winning in fewer turns does not feel right

........Orda

The last thing I want is one turn every 2 years. Which, if you do some simple calculations, is what will happen. (1080 - 1530 = 450 years. 450 divided by 225 = 2 years per turn) It doesn't look very good.

4 tpy with era choices , should make every one happy, heck I might even like to see the option of a month to month 12 tpy. however long it takes you you it just takes you. Maybe they could throw in some role playing questions. like some people in blah blah blah province think the the think the the people from the bleh bleh bleh province are stealing water from their wells , ruler of these provinces will you

A. send ministers to investigate the veracity of these claims
B. Restrict travel between these provinces
C. Assert your authority by having the Plaintiffs flogged for water hording
D. have new wells dug in the bleh bleh bleh province
E. Ignore the problem

Choices could lead to new choices like you choose C ( its good to be the king) and one man whose wife was killed by your troops is trying to raise a rebellion against you in the mountains. Do you
A. send your armies to find him immediatly
B. wait to see if the province respects your authority
C. Send assassins to find this man
D. place a bounty on his head
E. Ignore the problem

This would all be non animated text based stuff and would be real easy and cheap to add because it would nt require alot of a programmers time to make but would add alot to the feeling of the game. Poor domestic policy could ruin your empire even though your a kick butt general.

Not to mention, crushing a rebellion that has names faces and a history to it would be infinitly more satisfying than than the generic whilte bannered rebellions.

And for those who just want to fight and not deal with domestic issues they could just click Domestic ajudication off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I don't mind the 225 turn length. It fits me well enough as I seldomly used more than 130-150 turns at the very most.

But I don't like that the ingame time has then been expanded. From the 365 years of MTW to the 450 years in M2. If time is then going to pass that fast, then how am I going to get an attachment to my kings and pricnes and whatnot? Also there is the problem of units getting outdated almost as soon as you can train them.

Who managed to get to play with Triarii or Feudal Knights in any numbers before they got outdated?
If M2 is going to half-copy MTW in regard to units then I can see a problem with this. I just hope that the 225 turn comment was wrong, and that it was just 225 turns for the first Age (and then another 225 turns for the second Age), or something like that.
The Ages of MTW were really good. They threw you into different situations with different units and that. I didn't mind that I often didn't get into High before restarting. But I do not want to get forced into playing the entire timeperiod.

---

I've been playing Master of Orion 2 for the past week since it's apparently considered to be one of the better strategy games ever designed. I never played it before, but it has become apparent that climbing the tech tree is very important. The AI is good at climbing the tech tree, and, if you reseach advanced tech and don't trade it with the AI factions, they will steal it from you soon after that. So, there's no way to get ahead of the AI in tech, and tech is very powerful. For instance, a single upgraded AI cruiser ship destroyed my fleet of 9 battleships which were not uphgraded as much, and a cruiser is one class below a battleship. I'm auto-resolving the battles so there is no chance to use tactics to overcome this deficiency, and, given what looks to me to be limited tactics in the battles, I doubt it would be possible to overcome it. This type of gameplay also means that defense is basically hopeless. If the AI attacks, you have to be in a position of enough military strength to attack the enemy's best planets in order to damage the economy which supports his military.

Total War is different in that the tactics used in battle make a big difference in how well you do in the strategic game. You can win in 150 turns in a game where it takes 450 turns to fully climb the tech tree. This means less emphasis on the tech tree, and more battles within a particular tech level. This also means that you can defend successfully along the way since the AI won't get a big jump in tech. This is consistent with the history of the period where defense was a good strategy. The game gives the AI an advantage in auto-resolved battles to encourage the human to play the battles on the tactical map since that's supposed to be the strength of the game.

MTW2 moves to a 225 turn campaign incorporating a 450 turn tech tree. I would expect that it will still take at least 150 turns to win. (It wouldn't make sense to set up the campaign so you could win in 75 turns.) I think this will move the strategic gameplay towards Master of Orion 2 gameplay, and have an adverse effect on the tactical battles. It could also make defense a less viable strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I've been playing Master of Orion 2 for the past week since it's apparently considered to be one of the better strategy games ever designed. I never played it before, but it has become apparent that climbing the tech tree is very important. The AI is good at climbing the tech tree, and, if you reseach advanced tech and don't trade it with the AI factions, they will steal it from you soon after that. So, there's no way to get ahead of the AI in tech, and tech is very powerful. For instance, a single upgraded AI cruiser ship destroyed my fleet of 9 battleships which were not uphgraded as much, and a cruiser is one class below a battleship. I'm auto-resolving the battles so there is no chance to use tactics to overcome this deficiency, and, given what looks to me to be limited tactics in the battles, I doubt it would be possible to overcome it. This type of gameplay also means that defense is basically hopeless. If the AI attacks, you have to be in a position of enough military strength to attack the enemy's best planets in order to damage the economy which supports his military.

---

I have played MoO2 extensively, and hope to get some time to replay it in the following days.

What you describe has actually never happened to me, the AI rarely ever stole my secrets. Depends on which race you play, since they all have different strengths. If I my give you an off topic advice, create a custom race, take some negative stances like minus spaceship defense, money, poor planet or something, and add to your race the attributes lithovore and creative; first enables them to go on without food, and the second one will enable them to research all three items from the research branch.