Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

**afrit** · 09-07-2004, 00:45

Title says it all.

When I initially read that RTW will have towns instead of provinces and that the campaign map will have about 10,000 squares on which to fight, my hopes were high that the campaign will be even more realistic with many cities to occupy and expand into. Unfortunately, it appears that the total number of provinces and towns is basically the same as MTW (about 103 +/- 5).

One reason TW tactical battles appear so realistic is having so many soldiers on the field. This allows morale, fatigue, formation etc to be simulated well. Of course the player only controls soldiers at the unit level, but they fight at the individual level. Similarly, the TW campaign can be enriched by having large number of cities and towns, but they are controlled at the province level or by family members as in RTW.

My wishlist for improving the campaign in that regard includes:

1. A much larger number of towns.
2. Ability to group and un-group towns into provinces for government purposes.
3. Automatic naming of battles by the TW engine based on closest town or geographic feature.
4. Ability to rename towns when captured from a foreign culture.
5. Ability to found new towns.

I'd like to hear other players comments on this.

Afrit

**Steppe Merc** · 09-07-2004, 00:54

That would be really awesome. And mabye for 4, it could be automatic, because otherwise people will end up being bored and start naming Cities "Bob" or something.

**afrit** · 09-07-2004, 01:31

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

That would be really awesome. And mabye for 4, it could be automatic, because otherwise people will end up being bored and start naming Cities "Bob" or something.

An automatic suggestion should be offered, but the player can override it. It would be funny if you have a city named after your pet :-)

(In the same vein, I always thought we should have had the choice of name of children from a list in MTW. Makes it easier to remember your heirs if you named them.)

**Odysseus** · 09-07-2004, 01:40

I like your ideas. That would make it more like Civilization.

**Armchair Athlete** · 09-07-2004, 01:46

What remains to be seen is that whether there is a limit of a number of cities/provinces that can be modded in (like in MTW). Hopefully the limit will be fairly high, it would be great to have more cities on Sicily, Greece and Italy so the Punic Wars could be an epic clash.

**USMCNJ** · 09-07-2004, 03:57

more cities does not equal to better gameplay.
it;s more micromaneging to do.
look at VI compared to MTW, i personaly like VI better.

**chilliwilli** · 09-09-2004, 15:31

I think the game would be far to time consuming if we had more cities. Remember you have to capture them all

Founding cities might not work well with the mtw campaign map either and the time period. A player who is dominating the game shouldnt be able to build metropolis' all over his empire, CA would need to make it very very time consuming and costly to avoid exploitation.

Founding cities and colonies would be nice if they ever do an age of exploration game

**Spartiate** · 09-09-2004, 15:40

Actually we don't have to conquer all the cities in RTW(at least not as a roman faction).You merely need to conquer Rome(or the senate...not sure) and hold onto it for 20 years for your campaign to be considered a victory.I believe there is also an option of continuing after you have been declared victorious.