STW/MTW or M2TW/RTW style campaign map?

Which campaign map style do you prefer? The risk-style map from STW and MTW, or the animated 'realistic' map from RTW and M2TW?

I much prefer the risk-style map. I think the RTW/M2TW style map has introduced more micromanagement (e.g. ships and sea travel) and less interesting battles (more sieges and more minor battles against rebels, etc). Worst of all it creates huge problems for the campaign AI. I don't think the advantages it provides - such as ambushing, picking your terrain and defending strategic points - outweigh the disadvantages.

I'm interested to see what other people think.

I'm torn, but overall I think I'd have to go for the Risk style. The extra micro management the campaign map has generated makes the late game much slower and it wasn't exactly speedy in the original style.

You could still fight bridge battles and defend mountain passes in the old style, the only thing I really prefer the current way is defending a region by sitting in your castle and resisting a siege as opposed to the risk style where defending your castle meant you'd already lost the region and small castles could only fit very small garrisons.

The things I'd love to see the back of in the current style are all the time consuming animations you get with spies, assasins, merchants, diplomats, armies laying siege etc. In fact I wondered if it was possible to mod these so that for example the animation for spying became the same as the animation for standing still?

I would love an enhanced risk-style map. Or make the campaign real-time that would be even better. Just go really slow or pause all the time to decide things.

The m2tw/rtw style map is better.............. but it was not implimented well at all. The ai can't handle it. The original style, or risk style if I may, is much easier for the ai, and thus the ai is much more challenging on those style maps at this point. I really do like the the newer style more, but the simple fact is that the ai doesn't know how to cope with it.

I should have selelcted the third option

I would definitely go for the RTW style map if the AI were up to the challenge.

I remember when RTW came out thinking how great it was going to be to maneuver the enemy onto advantageous ground to win battles against insurmountable odds. Hordes of barbarians ambushing Roman columns in the forests of Germany, etc. It just didn't work out that way.

Maybe there's an option somewhere in the middle. If each region had only 3-5 potential battlefields, and you didn't get the city until you had contol over all of them.

My preference is Knights of Honour style Real Time campaign map and diplomacy.

Definitely the RTW realistic map, it adds so many new layers of complexity and tactical choices in terms of picking your ground.

The upgrade to the new map, as well as seige battles that didn't look like utter crap, were two of the biggest improvements RTW made over MTW.

I prefer the RTW map, but there's no doubt that it causes problems for the AI

I prefer the RTW realistic style campaign map. Although its not without its problems. But there is so much more you can do. The ability to choose where you fight your real-time battles a great feature. And the amount your troops can walk is a great feature also (though no always accurate) thus building roads is not longer just abstract way of increasing trade. It carries your armies. It also helps that those little animations run on the road once trade links have been established.

And the campaign is overall better in terms of diplomacy and espionage. If you are still with the first gen RTS you'll probably not enjoy the turn-based system as much seeing as you just made the transition to Total War, but then again the turn base system isn't unique to Total War, Civ does it a hell of a lot better. And if I had as much control over my empire as Civ allows, TW would be amazing!

But I do agree this new map has its problems, generally I avoid large armies altogether in campaign simply because if I take out there castles or settlements first they simply turn into stoic rebels. And defeating large armies does nothing for you anyways, especially with the new unit pools you can replenish an army faster than mine can move across the battlefield, so as soon as I defeat that massive army and get a Heroic Victory, you just send another one at me next turn. I feel like King Pyrrhus: "Another such victory over the Romans and we are undone."

Hmm, I love the M:TW map - it's much more of a challenge to play on. The AI is much more of a tough fight and everybody also always has wonderfully balanced and realistic empires - it is forced to attack on province before it goes for another one. Another thing I like about the map is the superbly realistic "antiquated style". It makes you feel as if you are actually the king deciding on strategies from your capital by moving the "chess" pieces around the map. Wonderful gameplay, pretty map, immense chalanges, what more can you ask for!

I´m undecided, since both versions have their pros and cons. The pro of the RTW style map is, quite obvious, that it gives you a great freedom of movement, you can choose when and where to fight. On the other hand, that doesn´t account for that much, a lost battle will not leave what´s left of your army huddling in the castle, praying for relief to come. As well, to retreat is almost completely useless, for if yu retreat, and the enemy follows, you have to fight to the death, while fighting at once, you can retreat from the battlefield, and though your army gets pushed back a long distance on the map, it doesn´t matter much.
That the AI isn´t really up to coping with the RTW style map has been said already, especially it doesn´t make use of one of the most useful features of the new map: multi-stack battles. In BI there was a bigger tendency of the AI to keep its armies together, especially the hording factions did that. Sadly, this cohesion has been lost for MTW2 again.

RTW/M2TW style campaign map :yes:

Old map. If the AI could handle the new one it would be amazing...but now all it is is seige after siege. Seiges should be big things. In M2TW, field battles are exiting cause I never get them.

I like the new style, though it would help if there was a way so that you could put on advisors for your agents for when your empire gets so large that it would take 30 min to do a turn thoroughly

I prefer the old style map, it's so much easier to locate your units/agents.

Visually, it seems less messy than the new style map.

Strategically, the AI on the old style map works better.

I do however like being able to choose the terrain you fight on (bridges, mountains etc) so if this could be incorporated it would be ideal.

Quote:

---

I do however like being able to choose the terrain you fight on (bridges, mountains etc) so if this could be incorporated it would be ideal.

---

Possibly a choice when invading to 'hold position in enemy territory', putting you on an easily defensible bridge or mountain, would be useful.

I prefer the new map. It just simply allows more honest maneuver in the game.

The AI's issues are a different matter. If you were playing the game against other people, which map would be more fun? Ambushes, bridges, fords, forests...

On STW you were able to pick where you fought, but that disappeared with MTW with it randomly picking a map. But choosing where to fight it too important to nerf in a game like this. The AI just needs to learn how to do it better.

I prefer the Risk-style map, for all its good looks the RTW-style map doesn't really add much. Maybe if terrain mattered for beating the AI, or if the AI could properly gather its forces it would. People talk about about manuevering, but who really does it? Given that the AI won't attack stacks that it thinks can kill it means you'll be engaging it most of the time. Since you have to finish off all those pointless small stacks it doesn't combine. All you've really gained with the RTW-style map is the ability to lure the dumb AI into traps at areas like bridges or HA-heavy armies into woods.

Compare this with the Risk-style map which made managing things much easier, meant the AI actually concentrated its forces, and made you feel more like you were leading a kingdom instead a few cities scattered over a vast wilderness.

Obviously i'm a bit biased but I can't really think of anything the RTW-style campaign map really added aside from needless tedium and a crippled AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clairvaux

And the campaign is overall better in terms of diplomacy and espionage.

---

I think the RTW map makes espionage and diplomacy much more tedious. I love the way an agent can travel between any two ports in a single turn in MTW. It makes it so much easier to use agents, especially diplomats. I find their slow movement rate in M2TW very frustrating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grinningman

I love the way an agent can travel between any two ports in a single turn in MTW. It makes it so much easier to use agents, especially diplomats. I find their slow movement rate in M2TW very frustrating.

---

Word to your mother. Diplomat movement is really slow. But as for the port teleport, is that two of your own ports, or any two ports? Would take the thrill/terror out of sailing a merchant down to North Africa in a leaky, undefended cog. God squads and master assassin squads could jump around doing their thing with impunity.

I definitely prefer the risk style map because it made game play that much more enjoyable and forced the AI into some semblance of cohesion. As for choosing your battleground in RTW/MTW2 it doesn't really matter since your terrain matters very little in combat. There are no bonuses for height and formation so it doesn't really matter where you assembled with the exception of cavalry in woods.

Bah, sometimes I wish they'd take the same MTW exactly as it is and just change the graphics. I'd have rather shelled out money for that than RTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Zhukov

Word to your mother. Diplomat movement is really slow. But as for the port teleport, is that two of your own ports, or any two ports? Would take the thrill/terror out of sailing a merchant down to North Africa in a leaky, undefended cog. God squads and master assassin squads could jump around doing their thing with impunity.

---

Any two ports. And as for the worry of getting swarmed (or swarming your opposition) with Assassins, that´s what border forts are for. Add an own assassin and spy to each province and nearly nothing gets through. However, you won´t be doing much in the way of assassination either. However, a failed attempt won´t make it harder for the following assassin, in MTW all movements happen at the same time, when clicking "end turn". So so each single agent in your swarm of 20 assassins will face the same odds for sucess, there are no V&V chance modifiers applied in between, unlike in RTW/M2TW where a security trait is aquired immediately after the failed assassination.

Of course, in terms of agent movement and application, the MTW 1 style map is superior.

Quote:

---

As for choosing your battleground in RTW/MTW2 it doesn't really matter since your terrain matters very little in combat. There are no bonuses for height and formation so it doesn't really matter where you assembled with the exception of cavalry in woods.

---

True for the biggest part of it, but that´s not the fault of the strategy map, but the battlefield mechanics and AI. Now, if M2TW´s AI paid as much attention to terrain advantages as MTW 1´s did...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DensterNY

I definitely prefer the risk style map because it made game play that much more enjoyable and forced the AI into some semblance of cohesion. As for choosing your battleground in RTW/MTW2 it doesn't really matter since your terrain matters very little in combat. There are no bonuses for height and formation so it doesn't really matter where you assembled with the exception of cavalry in woods.

---

You're kidding right? Or have you never tried it? Having groups of archers standing behind another on higher ground so they BOTH get to direct fire on the enemy? That matters. Making the enemy charge up a hill to attack you so they go slow and tire faster? Matters. Forcing his whole stack to funnel through a bridge so you can route them all with one barrage from a monster ribault? That matters. Attacking his missile intensive force on flat ground so you can bowl them over with cav with hardly a loss? I've done all of these things and none of them are even that creative.

The only reason the AI won't attack you is if your force is bigger. Using the terrain is a way to have a smaller force trash the biggest thing the AI... or any human player... can muster. Even without "bonuses" and other stat-obsessed nonsense, using the terrain is a big deal.

Definitely the RTW/M2TW style map - miles better in every way.

IMO the additional micromanagement isnt really down to the map so much as other design decisions made at the same time - e.g. agents/priests dying of old age etc, and some (IMO) annoyances regarding how units blocking other units is handled.

I agree with Davey, agents should NOT be stopped by armies at all. Hell, the bridge to Venice is almost an exploit; one unit on it and no agent can would the city.

Agents should also move much, MUCH faster. They are just one guy or a handful of people, civilians traveling around. They don't have to worry about logistics or such. I wouldn't be bothered at all if an agent could go from one side of the map to the other in less than 6 turns. Also, agents should be able to "pop" from one port to another along trade lanes... they use civilian transport after all, and shouldn't need a ship to move them unless you just want to.

MTW. More fighting and planning and building empires less tedious micro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCoyote

You're kidding right? Or have you never tried it? Having groups of archers standing behind another on higher ground so they BOTH get to direct fire on the enemy? That matters. Making the enemy charge up a hill to attack you so they go slow and tire faster? Matters. Forcing his whole stack to funnel through a bridge so you can route them all with one barrage from a monster ribault? That matters. Attacking his missile intensive force on flat ground so you can bowl them over with cav with hardly a loss? I've done all of these things and none of them are even that creative.

The only reason the AI won't attack you is if your force is bigger. Using the terrain is a way to have a smaller force trash the biggest thing the AI... or any human player... can muster. Even without "bonuses" and other stat-obsessed nonsense, using the terrain is a big deal.

---

In MTW, the first key of any battle was to find the best terrain to fight and everything that you said applied. When you were on higher ground your archers had greater range, your infantry were more effective and your cavalry picked up that much more speed on charges. These things haven't been that significant starting from Rome because when I started RTW I applied MTW tactics and realized immediately how they made little difference.

I like the new style. I just wish they would make a couple of minor alterations, like for instance, if an army is within a single day's march of a battle that involves an ally, they can choose to participate in that battle (and get a reputation boost for their king) or not (And take a reputation hit).

Ideally, M2TW/RTW style should be better. But in reality, I think the MTW/STW style works better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DensterNY

In MTW, the first key of any battle was to find the best terrain to fight and everything that you said applied. When you were on higher ground your archers had greater range, your infantry were more effective and your cavalry picked up that much more speed on charges. These things haven't been that significant starting from Rome because when I started RTW I applied MTW tactics and realized immediately how they made little difference.

---

The most important change that was made between MTW and RTW was removing the line of sight rule for ranged weapons, in MTW a missile weapon which has no direct line of sight to their target suffers a severe accurracy penalty, so missile weapons have to be deployed either in front of the army or on a steep enough hill. This penalty is gone in RTW, sadly.
One thing I noticed in M2TW, however, is that even crossbows are able to arch their fire. In RTW they cannot (that is, in BI they cannot, in RTW it´s the slingers who can´t shoot over their comrades´ heads), something which a) completely defeats the purpose of having archers, since crossbows can do their job as well plus they´re armour-piercing, and b) it looks utterly stupid, the crossbowmen holding the weapon level and the bolts going up like skyrockets.

But this is all battlefield stuff, not concerned with the campaign map and therefore off topic.

STW/MTW system with improvements. Hearts of Iron/Europa Universalis III for example could export some elements that would fix the problems and simplicity of the map.

Definetly the old style. The Rome/M2TW style map has too much unneccesary guff, it no longer feels like a generals map and is too busy to look at. All I want is a simple map to view with tokens to move around, not animated avatars everywhere I look. There is no need to have a winter/summer either.

Yes the old risk style map did need a rework to bring it up to par, but instead of over engineering it with animated trees and silly giants walking about, they could've taken a more reserved, cartography stance and modeled the strategy map off the relief maps sold in map stores. An example of the path they could've gone can be seen below.

http://www.ign.fr/images/GP/60901.gif

Maybe it's just nostalgia for MTW but the old map felt more atmospheric, was simple and worked. The new map just over-complexes the strategic component.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Powermonger

Definetly the old style. The Rome/M2TW style map has too much unneccesary guff, it no longer feels like a generals map and is too busy to look at. All I want is a simple map to view with tokens to move around, not animated avatars everywhere I look. There is no need to have a winter/summer either.

---

Couldn't have said it better myself.

What you show is one of the many alternatives they could have taken. There were definitely marketing/commercial reasons for the map change however too. I find it very hard to believe that it was done on grounds of game design and functionality only.

As for nostalgia as i see it, it has nothing to do with it. The strategic element is quite downgraded in the new map; its quite hard to lose and there is no need to coordinate many parameters both in short and long term. Instead there is plenty of micromanagement.

The AI cannot handle the new free form map which is one reason why RTW is so easy. Can't comment in M2TW because I haven't brought it (I see too many unhappy similarities between the two).

I like RTW stylish map. :yes:

For me it’s definitely the M2TW/RTW style map. Whilst I loved Shogun I just think the new version is so much more enhanced… It’s just no comparable. Play Shogun after a game of M2TW and you’ll understand ;). Even with better graphics, the Shogun one would still be obsolete by far.

I had a MUCH easier time defeating the AI on the old STW/MTW style maps.

I prefer the new maps, it makes it more difficult for both the Ai and myself. Just dragging and dropping stacks of armies was too simple. At least with the current maps, i have to plan my different armies timeframes for attacks. If I am using two half stacks and heading towards a castle with a full stack defense, I get one stack there too early and it can blow up all my plans...especially if it's in hostile territory with other half+ stack armies hiding out or marching around.

My only annoying thing is having to keep an eye on my civ's when moving them somewhere. If something gets in their way, they can't move around it without my attention. I would really like it if holy civ's of the religions could use their own religions ports for quick travel. An english priest could travel all the way to the Iberian penninsula in 2 or 3 turns just using French/Portugese/Spanish ports(1 per turn). Same thing with diplomats...while say spies and assassins had to move overland or with my own boats...that would be cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grapedog

If I am using two half stacks and heading towards a castle with a full stack defense, I get one stack there too early and it can blow up all my plans...

---

I must say, I never feel the need to attack with more than one stack. Other than the Mongols/Timurids, there's not much the AI will throw at you that is a threat to a single stack.

Indeed, it would be more accurate to say I worry more about keeping my armies far enough apart so that I don't get let an attack against a second army drag a better army into an unwanted battle.

I have enjoyed both map styles while appreciating the advantages as well as the shortcomings of each. I prefer the Rome/MTW2 strategy maps because of the far greater terrain variations for tactical battles. In Shogun and MTW you had the very same battle maps time after time.

Since most RTW/M2TW battles end up being seige battles you still end playing the same maps alot of the time. The variation you gain for the rare RTW/M2TW field battles aren't worth the AI getting crippled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChaosLord

The variation you gain for the rare RTW/M2TW field battles aren't worth the AI getting crippled.

---

Yet another guy who holds a good map responsible for a bad AI. As I've said, facing off against other human players, which would you prefer? I'd say new style every time.

The MAP is great. The AI has problems, but it has problems everywhere. IF you removed everything the AI wasn't so great at, you wouldn't have much game left.

What does the campaign map have to do with mp? CA will likely never add the campaign mode to MP so it doesn't matter there. If you're talking about the battle-map variation for MP the default maps and mappacks for the older games seemed to help that just fine. I didn't say to remove the map, just pointing out that the Risk-style map served the AI better. It could more easily gather its forces to put up a better assault or defense.

You're thinking so... narrow you missed the point entirely chaos. You don't judge a feature by how well the AI uses it. Any feature. Would you say we shouldn't have buildings because the AI doesn't know the right thing to build? We shouldn't have army stacks cause the AI doesn't know how to balance them? We shouldn't have flaming/exploding artillery shots because the AI has no idea how to use them right? We shouldn't have merchants because the AI has no clue what to do with them?

You don't base a feature's virtue on the AI's ability to use it. Ever. The map is good, but the AI is mediocre, across the board the AI is mediocre.

The AI will grow to accomodate new features in time anyway. IMAGINE you were playing against another person. Would the new map be better then? It would be a lot more interesting. As for AI, the goal of AI, any AI, is to be able to play similarly to a person eventually. When that happens, which map would you rather play on? That's the point... buildthe playability as involving and robust as possible, let the AI catch up. It will in time. Til then, you can always mod in campaign multiplayer if you really want. But that had nothing to do with the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCoyote

You're thinking so... narrow you missed the point entirely chaos. You don't judge a feature by how well the AI uses it. Any feature. Would you say we shouldn't have buildings because the AI doesn't know the right thing to build? We shouldn't have army stacks cause the AI doesn't know how to balance them? We shouldn't have flaming/exploding artillery shots because the AI has no idea how to use them right? We shouldn't have merchants because the AI has no clue what to do with them?

---

Yes to all those questions.

It's a single player game. Every time the developers think up a new feature, they should ask the questions (1) Can we make the AI use this feature effectively, and (2) will this feature give a huge advantage to the player over he AI? If the answer to (1) is no and (2) is yes, then they shouldn't put it in.

There are always some things that you can put in that add flavour or are just fun, like traits and ancillaries. But in a single player game, the actual game should take precedence over everything else. Don't get me wrong, I love eye candy just as much as the next guy, and I think that it counts for a lot more than some crotchety old TW veterans give it credit for ;-) But my reason for playing TW games is ultimately to make interesting strategic and tactical decisions in order to defeat the computer players.

RTW/M2TW style hands down......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCoyote

You don't base a feature's virtue on the AI's ability to use it. Ever. The map is good, but the AI is mediocre, across the board the AI is mediocre.

---

Why not?

You can't neatly separate the benefits of a feature from the AIs capability to use it when it comes to the overall enjoyability of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelson

In Shogun and MTW you had the very same battle maps time after time.

---

MTW chooses randomly from a set of maps for a particular terrain type. Maps can be added to these map sets. The attacker/defender are also oriented four different ways depending on the orientation of the border on the strategic map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

MTW chooses randomly from a set of maps for a particular terrain type. Maps can be added to these map sets. The attacker/defender are also oriented four different ways depending on the orientation of the border on the strategic map.

---

That’s true but my (perhaps spotty) recollection is that if I crossed the same border going in the same direction repeatedly I got the same battle map each time. But it has been years since I played it.

Back in the day, I never held the Risk style strategy map system against Shogun or Medieval and I still don’t. They work well.

Regarding AI and its’ relationship to the map style, well, the assumption always seems to be that AI should mirror a competent if not brilliant human opponent. Yet history is chock full of kings, emperors, generals, consuls, chiefs, warlords, etc. who were miserable commanders. For every Black Prince or Richard Lionheart there was a guy who didn’t know his helm from his chamber pot. The AI can simulate him with admirable fidelity! The player meanwhile suffers very little from these knuckleheads in his own employ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelson

Regarding AI and its’ relationship to the map style, well, the assumption always seems to be that AI should mirror a competent if not brilliant human opponent. Yet history is chock full of kings, emperors, generals, consuls, chiefs, warlords, etc. who were miserable commanders. For every Black Prince or Richard Lionheart there was a guy who didn’t know his helm from his chamber pot. The AI can simulate him with admirable fidelity! The player meanwhile suffers very little from these knuckleheads in his own employ.

---

The issue to me is when the bad AI makes the game less enjoyable.

A great strategy game should give you the feeling you have overcome mighty odds and accomplished greatness only because of your fantastic managerial genius. It should not make you feel like you just beat a six year old at basketball.

M2TW gives you some of both.