6 Months-turns again

**SaFe** · 05-19-2008, 08:22

The informtion came from a italian magazine and to be honest i'm dissapointed.
Again six months, in the short time period of Empire seasonal turns would have been definately an advantage.
Again 3 years to march from northern germany to italy

**pevergreen** · 05-19-2008, 08:26

Link please, or scan if legal.

Im going to wait for confirmed sources before I accept this, because it would be good infomation.

**SaFe** · 05-19-2008, 08:35

it is not allowed to scan official magazine pages, as everybody shoul know by now.
B.t.w. what is good on absolutely unrealistic 6 months turns?

**pevergreen** · 05-19-2008, 10:58

more confirmed infomation is good.

As for realism, I dont know anything about the era, so its ok for me/the casual gamer.

**Templar Knight** · 05-19-2008, 15:09

Man this sucks, probably easily modable though

4 months would be alot better, Spring, Summer and Autumn for campaigning and Winter to... well winter the troops

6 month turn will be sort of ok as long as armies and navies have huge ammounts of movement points, its rubbish when it takes 10 year to move across Europe

**Sol Invictus** · 05-19-2008, 16:17

Lusted just confirmed this over at the TWC. Six month turns it is.

**SirRethcir** · 05-20-2008, 07:22

Originally Posted by Templar Knight

4 months would be alot better, Spring, Summer and Autumn for campaigning and Winter to... well winter the troops

I don't know on which planet you live, but here it's roughly 3 months per season.

**Rick** · 05-19-2008, 18:11

Originally Posted by SaFe

... B.t.w. what is good on absolutely unrealistic 6 months turns?

One way it could work under certain circumstances and allowing for more than one engagements along the way (several, as a matter of fact). For the lack of a better discription, you could call it a telescoping.

Getting from point A to point B would be based on either a supply point system, or the administrative expertise of the leader at the head of the army, or a combination of both. Marching would use up supply points and fighting engagements would use up supply points much faster.

Moreover, if they haven't considered attrition as a functional part of this game, this may be a way to do so.

Let's hope that they do something, because I have to agree with you, a 6 month turn, the way they had it set up in RTW, is totally unrealistic.

**Faenaris** · 05-19-2008, 19:11

I'm quite disappointed that they chose to go for another 6-months-a-turn system. But then again, that can hopefully be easily modded, something I will do from day 1. I just feel that there should have been seasonal turns instead of half a year turns.

**Mailman653** · 05-19-2008, 19:11

Like Templar said, this will most likely be modded so don't worry too much.

**Sol Invictus** · 05-19-2008, 19:13

Sadly, I don't expect CA to make the strategic movement more complicated and realistic in a way that will make six month turns seem reasonable. The more I learn about Empires, the less excited I become. I will simply anticipate a simplistic strategy game that will mildly amuse me for a time. Sure, my eleven year old son will like the battles, but I keep hoping for some more depth out of the strategic gameplay. Maybe next game.

**PBI** · 05-19-2008, 21:14

I'm a little unclear about the debate here, what would be the advantages of having 4 turns a year, besides simply doubling the length of the campaign? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm struggling to see how it would make much difference.

**Zaleukos** · 06-02-2008, 14:14

Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

Sadly, I don't expect CA to make the strategic movement more complicated and realistic in a way that will make six month turns seem reasonable. The more I learn about Empires, the less excited I become. I will simply anticipate a simplistic strategy game that will mildly amuse me for a time. Sure, my eleven year old son will like the battles, but I keep hoping for some more depth out of the strategic gameplay. Maybe next game.

Dont hope for too much. The total war games are battle engines with a strategic campaign tacked on to give some sort of context to the battles. Other games with a different emphasis do the grand strategic aspect better.

EDIT: I'm not too troubled with the number of turns required to finish the game (CA got that part of the pacing about right) even if the travelling times are silly. In the end it's a matter of balancing (having many more movement points would reduce the value of choke points) realism vs gameplay, and there I am staunchly in favour of gameplay. If only CA could get rid of or abstract some of the more tedious micromanagement (do anyone actually ENJOY micro-managing a ton of merchants and priests with broken pathfinding) as well...