Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Battlefield Map Edge - Yes or No

  1. #1

    Default

    My analysis on each of the options.

    Option 1.
    "No map edge. risk of meeting other armies in strat map is good"
    Jerome from CA said this
    "Funny that this should come up... There was actually an early build of Rome which did get rid of battlefield boundaries altogether, and allowed you to walk from one end of Europe to the other on the battlefield, generating terrain from real geographical data as it went on a scale of about 5 : 1. But after some agonising we moved away from that approach because it was too difficult to integrate into the campaign game - for example, what do you do when an army involved in a battle walks off the edge of its 'battlefield' into a nearby territory which contains an army which is not involved in the battle?"
    end quote

    U have the risk of running into other armies and towns etc. also what happens if the enemy decides to choose only light cav and turns away from the battle and rides south for 3 hours until he hits your prize farm areas and destroys them. are u able to summon a force from the local garrison to intercept the cav? what happens if the enemy send 16 light cav in every direction. imagine the mircomanagment nightmare of trying to track them all down.
    this the reason why i dont support the no map edge option.
    how will reinforcments be handled ?

    Option 2.
    "No edge. spawn random terrain after regular battlemap ends"
    this sounds good as it gets rid of the cheesy camping on map edge exploit and u dont interfere with strat map as the spawned random terrain is kinda like a never never land that does not exist in the strat map reality.
    but again what happens if the enemy sends his forces in all directions. do u really want to spend 4 hours trying to find 16 light cav units. how will reinforcments be handled?

    Option 3.
    "I require a playable size of 4km X 4km"
    a very large battle map. if the armies spawn somewhere in the middle it will take a while for a entire army to reach the map edge, and they will be very tired when they get there but so will the ememy be if they chase them. I vote for this option cause its large enough for horse archers to have fun and should prevent all but the most die hard edge campers especially if all the edges slope steeply downhill.

    Option 4.
    "Agree with CA RTW plan of 2km x 2km. MTW was 1.2 X 1.2"
    I think this is still to small. edge camping will still quite possible although the downhill slope of the edge is a good deterence. mostly i dont like this option cause i feel the replaybility will be limited. eg if the map is a major choke point on strat map then it will be replayed over and over again. there will be only be so many good battle postions for the army. with the 4 X 4km option in theory u have twice as many hills, grasslands between forests etc for good battle postioning.

    option 5.
    Keep the size the same as MTW
    For the edge camping, quick battle enthusiast. the smaller the map the less manover warfare strategy you can use.



    Lord Romulous

    Secret Vice
    Sick, Bitter and Twisted.

    +3 pervisity +4 cursing +7 to chance of wearing purple pants.

  2. #2
    Member Member Knight_Yellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,261

    Default

    i thought CA said a rtw map was 9km x 9km not 2 x 2

    British Army: be the best

  3. #3

    Default

    JeromeGrasdyke

    Programmer

    Group: Senior Member
    Posts: 19
    Joined: Dec. 2002
    Creative Assembly / Horsham Posted: Mar. 02 2003,06:26

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "As with many other things about games prior to release we're still experimenting with this, so take it all with a grain of salt, but right now the playable area is a little less than double Medieval's size - 2 x 2 km rather than 1.2 x 1.2 km"
    Lord Romulous

    Secret Vice
    Sick, Bitter and Twisted.

    +3 pervisity +4 cursing +7 to chance of wearing purple pants.

  4. #4
    Freedom Fighters Clan LadyAnn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Somewhere unexpected
    Posts
    1,310

    Default

    9x9 grid. A grid is about 2 km x 2km (or central action area). The Current MTW map is 1.2 km x 1.2 km. Just repeat what I read. Check the posts yourself.

    Annie

    1.2 x 1.2 = 1.44
    2.0 x 2.0 = 4.00

    The size then would be almost tripple the size of the current map in term of area



    AggonyJade of the Brotherhood of Aggony, [FF]ladyAn or [FF]Jade of the Freedom Fighters

  5. #5
    AKA Leif 3000 TURBO Senior Member Leet Eriksson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    n0rg3
    Posts
    3,510

    Default

    I was wondering how much time it will take for the troops to reach from one edge to the other....
    Texas is Gods country! - SFTS
    SFTS = The rest =


  6. #6
    Swarthylicious Member Spino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    Why are we voting on something that clearly will not be changed to reflect public opinion, let alone for an option that the developers have said would cause numerous headaches?

    So long as CA gives us more room to maneuver and lowers the likelihood of any map-edge defense funny business from taking place then I will be very happy. One problem we will definitely see is the inadequacy of a 16 unit army on such a large battlemap. Even with sixteen units of 100 men I think some of the epic scope of RTW will be lost, especially when we attempt to assault those full sized cities OK, I'm definitely off the subject but I hope CA gives us larger armies to match the larger maps I hope they give us at least 20 units or some clever method of controlling more than one army on a battlemap at once.

    In light of the bigger battlefields CA will definitely have to tone the fatigue factor way down. Marching and countermarching in RTW should have a much lower effect on fatigue than it does in STW and MTW.



    "Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?" - Theodore Roosevelt

    Idealism is masturbation, but unlike real masturbation idealism actually makes one blind. - Fragony

    Though Adrian did a brilliant job of defending the great man that is Hugo Chavez, I decided to post this anyway.. - JAG (who else?)

  7. #7
    Senior Member Senior Member 1dread1lahll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    tucson Az usa
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Hi Ann, Jerome said it would be slightly less than double....I'de still like to see the unlimited map.

  8. #8
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Spino @ Mar. 06 2003,01:02)]In light of the bigger battlefields CA will definitely have to tone the fatigue factor way down. Marching and countermarching in RTW should have a much lower effect on fatigue than it does in STW and MTW.
    Yes... we already have problems with fatigue on large maps now

    CBR

  9. #9
    Member Member TexRoadkill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    AZ, USA
    Posts
    61

    Default

    Map size doesn't help to fix a 'gamey' problem. The only way to keep defenders from running away is to give the attack a real objective. Are the defenders trying to protect a strategic strongpoint or castle? The attacking team should merely have to move past the defenders or take up a certain position on the map to win. If the defender wants to run around then let him but it should't affect the outcome of the battle.

  10. #10
    Member Member ELITEofGAZOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Gazianteptogermany
    Posts
    253

    Default

    A larger map could allow:

    To attack in a 3v3 one wing of the enemy team before it can join the allied armies in the other corner.

    A better cav archery would allow:

    To make a team who is moving backwards into a defense position vulnerable to cav archers.

    Downhills at the map edges and corners would ensure:

    Fair battles in the center.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Senior Member Cheetah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (TexRoadkill @ Mar. 10 2003,18:05)]Map size doesn't help to fix a 'gamey' problem. The only way to keep defenders from running away is to give the attack a real objective. Are the defenders trying to protect a strategic strongpoint or castle? The attacking team should merely have to move past the defenders or take up a certain position on the map to win. If the defender wants to run around then let him but it should't affect the outcome of the battle.
    IMHO Texroadkill hit the nail on the head. The real problem is that it is assumed that the goal of the battle is to defeat (annihalate) the enemy army. It makes it impossible to play more flexible strategies, like bypassing an enemy army or an enemy stronghold. Furthermore it creates artificial problems like chasing down the last cav archer of your practically defeated opponent. In real life you would just bypass those cav archers, what really counts is the control of main towns and that of your line of communication. Of course, the current situations directly follows from the principle that there can be only one faction on a given territory and there must be a clear winner in any battle. It would be much better and more realistic if there could be several armies belonging to different factions on any territory and that there would be no pressure to declare a winner. Bypassing should be also possible.



    Lional of Cornwall
    proud member of the Round Table Knights
    ___________________________________
    Death before dishonour.

    "If you wish to weaken the enemy's sword, move first, fly in and cut!" - Ueshiba Morihei O-Sensei

  12. #12
    Member Member spiffy_scimitar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Montreal Quebec Canada .. Emeryville, California?!
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Also, perhaps give cavalry a range they need to be within of the enemy to remain "in the battle" for a certain time. Thus, if all infantry has been routed or killed, any remaining cavalry not in position to engage or harrass the victor is considered routed or retreated.
    This wouldnt prevent someone from dipping in, resetting the "cavalry rout" clock and run out again, but it would soon become a forbidden cheesey tactic that would ruin your rep online if you did it anyway.

    This would allow unlimited map size.

  13. #13
    Guardian of the Fleet Senior Member Shahed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Leading the formation !
    Posts
    7,918

    Default

    What I would enjoy is a realistic battle engine.
    I'm totally in favor of removing the battle edge entirely and deal with the associated problems on a programming level to resolve them.

    There are too many hypothetical scenarios like "16 light cav in 16 directions", to make such arguments a reasonable dedication of one's time.

    No map edge is ideal, a battle map in RTW MUST be at least double the size of the current map for me to be happy with it.

    A Gamecenter with a dedicated Total War fanbase!
    Check out our Facebook!
    Email: shahed@outpost.be


  14. #14
    Sideswipe feature king Member shingenmitch2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    855

    Default

    Two quick thoughts ---


    Spino -- Increasing army size defeats the point of increasing the map size. If my army covers 2x the area, a map is effectively divided by 2. Thus double the map AND double the army is close to leaving things as they are now.

    CBR - Absolutely the fatigue will have to change. I've always thought it was stupid to have troops tire from simply walking at a standard march pace. The idea with march pace is that you can keep it up for miles... and in terms of game play, fatigue from walking discourages maneuver. Also they will need to have a faster recovery (or at least allow troops to recover more) from standing still.
    Retreat? Hell, we're just attacking in a different direction...

    THE DEADLY SHINGEN



  15. #15
    Sideswipe feature king Member shingenmitch2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    855

    Default

    Okee, I lied 2 more:

    Seljuk - The cav archer running away forever isn't all that hypothetical and poses real problems. If someone is able to do it... they will do it.

    Cheetah, you're absolutely correct. There needs to be a strategic site within a map/province whereby control of that area (city, town, hilltop, river-crossing, crossroads area) confirs control of the province. Any other troops roving in that province that don't control that site exist as a military threat / irritant, but do not gain official control of the region or its wealth.
    Retreat? Hell, we're just attacking in a different direction...

    THE DEADLY SHINGEN



  16. #16
    Member Member Div Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    122

    Default

    an 'edgeless' map is the only way to go I think. Not for multi but for the campaign at least. The issue of cavalry running away so what? It happens, as long as you control the major fortifications/towns ect you control the land and therefore the income. Then if these runnaway cav actually want to do any damage you use your towns garrison against them, seems good to me. Much more realistic and adds extra dimensions to battles. You don't have to chase an enemy down if you control the important passes ect. The best thing about this would be the ability to force an enemy into running into one of your fortifications or well guarded passes then slaughtering them all but with limited maps you then have limited strategy. It's simple just have units within a cirtain distance to the 'commander' (you) under your direct control. Or it could be like possesing a general sought of thing. Where he controls this army and to use the other one after queing some orders switch to the other general to sort the other army out It would be awesome and I will be very disappointed if the maps are limited, that would suck. Go the continuous maps make it realistic damn it

    On the fatigue issue simply make marching not effect fatigue at all easy fix unless they want to bring in factors like sleep, food ect for an army on the move.
    Proud member of the Ravens

    I have an X-Box, it's where I keep all my x-girlfriends

  17. #17
    Member Member lonewolf371's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Also, if you're routing an attacking enemy army you should be able to pursue it as long as you like, however when the enemy army is .5 kms away from your own you should win the battle and the pursuit is stopped. Similar if your own army routs. In addition to this, you should be able to have a command that 'stops pursuit' if you do not wish the battle to continue any further.

    Another thing, more than one army can occupy a province as long as the two factions are Roman. However, unless the unit is allied it loses a certain number of its men each year due to supply loses, thus giving a reason to occupy towns and forts: supplies. Bonds should be closer between allies as in Medieval it is currently too easy to break them and attack your foe without any real consequences.

    With these systems in mind in certain battles a winner can be declared without having to chase a cavalry archer all the way to Egypt from France. With these in mind a no edge map would be the most awesome thing, I just hope CA reads this thread.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO