Campaign Map screenies

[Gustav II Adolf]

I dont want to be overly critical, because there is still plenty of time for edits to be made, but these screenshots give the overall feeling that i would be buying just an updated and slightly more complicated game than something like Imperial Glory.
I really liked the whole rumor about having multiple cities or settlements per province, but i guess these screenshots pretty much shot that one down.
We will see what they do. If anything, i am highly intrigued.
Id certainly like to see the map on a more global, or atleast partially global scale, Civ 4 world maps come to mind....

And yeah i agree, Poland is TOTALLY messed up.

Poland has one region taken by Russia in those screens. CA commented on that somwhere. Otherwise I think the campign map looks better and more alive after seeing the land battle video. Still, I wish that some day CA will move away from the over all cartoonish style in TW games.



G

[Polemists]

move away from the over all cartoonish style in TW games

Not really sure what you mean by this. Compared to games like Warcraft I never viewed TW games as Cartoonish. I mean they are probably not going to be crysis graphics in battles, but then again they are probably not going to turn the campaign map into some overly done design like google earth.

I always viewed TW games as very realistic, espically when I consider the other games out there.

Though maybe that's just me.

[Aemilianus the Younger]

Now that i think about it, there are only two things that upset me about looking the screenies.
Firstly, the whole seperate maps for each continent/region, really bothers me. It just doesnt seem right. I thout they did a decent to good job in MTW2 when the integrated the Americas. Why not build on that concept and add africa asia and maybe south america? beats me.
Secondly, there is a total emptiness feel to the campaign map. I really feel as though there needs to be more cities. A major concept in this era is the industrialization of Europe and the eastern coast of America, there should be more cities(especially when i look at the map of england), the entire Manchester/Liverpool/Sheffield/Leeds region is totally barren. I felt sure there would be atleast one if not two or three cities there. Same thing goes for the Ruhr in Germany. Just having two cities/provinces on the entirety of Mainland Britain baffles me.
What do you guys think? Was i just expecting the totally wrong thing from the new game?

[Polemists]

Well I think they said in a interview that thier goal was less micromanaging and more focus on overall decisions and battles. Which would lead you to imply you would spend less time going through every single city throughout all of England, but rather just focus on the major ones, and make Empire decisions.

In practice I'm pretty sure this will work like MTW2, where you are not controlling every minor village throughout Spain but rather major provinces, this time it's probably controlling central economic hubs.

Just my theory anyhoo, they are going for the less is more thing, to attract new players with less micromanaging.

[PBI]

Now that i think about it, there are only two things that upset me about looking the screenies.
Firstly, the whole seperate maps for each continent/region, really bothers me. It just doesnt seem right. I thout they did a decent to good job in MTW2 when the integrated the Americas. Why not build on that concept and add africa asia and maybe south america? beats me.
Secondly, there is a total emptiness feel to the campaign map. I really feel as though there needs to be more cities. A major concept in this era is the industrialization of Europe and the eastern coast of America, there should be more cities(especially when i look at the map of england), the entire Manchester/Liverpool/Sheffield/Leeds region is totally barren. I felt sure there would be atleast one if not two or three cities there. Same thing goes for the Ruhr in Germany. Just having two cities/provinces on the entirety of Mainland Britain baffles me.
What do you guys think? Was i just expecting the totally wrong thing from the new game?

I believe those cities didn't really become significant settlements until the Industrial Revolution, so perhaps when you build a Factory, it'll pop up in the region of Manchester or Birmingham.

[Aemilianus the Younger]

Thats a good point(both of you).
I hadnt thought of it so much as micormanaging.
Thanks for that.
Yeah you are probably right about the industrial revolution thing. I never really understood why they always make the end of the campaign so soon. They did the same thing in Medieval, you get a shot at the Americas, and then the campaign ends like 20 or 30 turns later.
I wish they just let the campaign continue for maybe an extra 20 or 30 years.
If they expand the campaign up to 1850 for example, there are many new things that they could integrate into the game. Manifest Destiny for the 13 colonies comes to mind, and Industrialization is another huge thing.

[Thermal]

wow they look good!

while were going on about how things look andscreenies why not enter a competition to show off your profile
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...02#post2041102

(woo shameless advertisement rulez )

[Caliburn]

I for one love the simplified maps. Camera glare should be a thing in the past, though. As long as there is enough variety in battle maps, it should be ok.

In Medieval II and Rome, when the country grew to medium-large size, the strategic element was swamped under micromanagement. And if you made a mistake (clicked your agent to walk to a wrong place), you couldn't correct it without reloading (movement points...). With less agents, less cities and less clutter on the screen, things should work pretty well. Independent, non-controllable village units (a la Civ 4) that could be pillaged for income and used as battlegrounds might be interesting, but not that important.

Forest battles could be fun, if there was an option to clearly see your forces deployed among the woods. I don't mind the enemy being consealed (that's what light cavalry is for), but I really want to know where my own forces are and to which direction they are deployed. Maybe not "realistic", but that's the most annoying thing about forest battles.

More field battles is a good thing. Although, this is actually THE period I really want to play sieges. I hope it won't be the same ol' Bash The City Walls, but that they'll have an abundance of the period's fortifications. The old style castles should still play their part, as not every castle was modernized, or at least not completely.

Then again, the "siege engine" (lol) has gotten better and better with every game.

I wonder if they have anything like coastal fortress vs. fleet battles planned... That kind of thing can be moddable (fortresses as immobile "ships") though, if they don't incorporate it directly to the game.

The four seasons would have a direct strategic impact, especially if there would be income only in the beginning of the year or end of the summer or something. (Sir! The harvest is poor! The Takeda will finally take your lands, as this is the 5th year in the row, lol! I will be honoured to be your second if you want to cut open your belly!)