Results 1 to 30 of 56

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder Member Steppe Merc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    7,907

    Default Re: Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

    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.

    "But if you should fall you fall alone,
    If you should stand then who's to guide you?
    If I knew the way I would take you home."
    Grateful Dead, "Ripple"

  2. #2
    Member Member afrit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    321

    Default Re: Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

    Quote 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.)
    The plural of anectode is not data - Anonymous Scientist

    I don't believe in superstition. It brings bad luck. - Umberto Eco

  3. #3

    Default Re: Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

    I like your ideas. That would make it more like Civilization.
    Never underestimate a desperate man.

    Odysseus

  4. #4
    Member Member Armchair Athlete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    336

    Default Re: Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

    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.
    CHIVALRY TOTAL WAR - A medieval mod for RTW
    http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/chivalry/

  5. #5
    Member Member USMCNJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Clifton, NJ
    Posts
    388

    Default Re: Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

    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.
    MILLER: I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.

    MILLER: Now, that would be pretty good.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Senior Member RTKLamorak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    541

    Default Re: Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

    agreed.. but, having the option would appeal to a wider range of players. Just the option of having that kind of micro managment kept auto or manual would please everyone imo.

  7. #7
    Member Member afrit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    321

    Default Re: Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

    Quote Originally Posted by USMCNJ
    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.
    More cities *may* lead to worse gameplay, but if done right it leads to better gameplay. Hence the analogy I made with the tactical battle. If TW battles were like Starcraft where you managed each individual soldier, then it would become a nightmare to play with 1000's of soldiers. Rather you manage units, but the fight looks *and feels* much more realistic because the computer simulates each soldier individually.

    Similarly, a province really contains many towns and villages and not just a single city. If done right, with most (smaller) towns on auto-manage, then the "feel" and gameplay will improve. Remember that with RTW we will be able to play a realistic rendition of the battles of hannibal in Italy, but we will not be able to play a realistic rendition of his campaign given that there are only 7 or so cities in the entire peninsula!

    THink about all the strategies that increasing the number of cities engender:

    1. Raids. If you invade a province in MTW (and I bet in RTW) with a small raiding force, you either capture the whole province or have to abandon the raid if the enemy seriously outnumbers you. However, with multiple towns your small raiding army may be able to burn a settlement or two. Or maybe it'll get caught and be destroyed.

    2. More flexible borders. In MTW, certain provinces were a "must get" because they shortened your borders. However that is an artificial product of the way the map was drawn. (I believe this would be less of a problem in RTW because you can build forts).

    3. More replayability. Reading the guides on different factions in MTW shows that certain factions have a predictable progression (e.g Danes always take sweden etc....). With multi-cities, you may take part of sweden, all of sweden or carve a new province from west sweden and east norway etc...

    4. Eliminate some artificial aspects of the game such as a single unit per province per turn. You can build multiple barracks in different towns of the same province. As long as the population supports unit training and you have enough money.

    There are many more.

    Of course things like loyalty, productivity, religion etc. will become much harder to track. But that;s why we have powerful computers! Also cities would have to fall to an invading army without a fight after a defeat of the defender's army in the field (i.e would have a morale indicator for garrisons).

    I could go on . But I think I explained my point.

    I really hope the next TW title goes in that direction.

    Afrit
    The plural of anectode is not data - Anonymous Scientist

    I don't believe in superstition. It brings bad luck. - Umberto Eco

  8. #8
    Part-Time Polemic Senior Member ICantSpellDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    7,237

    Default Re: Anyone else disappointed in the low number of cities in RTW?

    Quote Originally Posted by afrit
    More cities *may* lead to worse gameplay, but if done right it leads to better gameplay. Hence the analogy I made with the tactical battle. If TW battles were like Starcraft where you managed each individual soldier, then it would become a nightmare to play with 1000's of soldiers. Rather you manage units, but the fight looks *and feels* much more realistic because the computer simulates each soldier individually.

    Similarly, a province really contains many towns and villages and not just a single city. If done right, with most (smaller) towns on auto-manage, then the "feel" and gameplay will improve. Remember that with RTW we will be able to play a realistic rendition of the battles of hannibal in Italy, but we will not be able to play a realistic rendition of his campaign given that there are only 7 or so cities in the entire peninsula!

    THink about all the strategies that increasing the number of cities engender:

    1. Raids. If you invade a province in MTW (and I bet in RTW) with a small raiding force, you either capture the whole province or have to abandon the raid if the enemy seriously outnumbers you. However, with multiple towns your small raiding army may be able to burn a settlement or two. Or maybe it'll get caught and be destroyed.

    2. More flexible borders. In MTW, certain provinces were a "must get" because they shortened your borders. However that is an artificial product of the way the map was drawn. (I believe this would be less of a problem in RTW because you can build forts).

    3. More replayability. Reading the guides on different factions in MTW shows that certain factions have a predictable progression (e.g Danes always take sweden etc....). With multi-cities, you may take part of sweden, all of sweden or carve a new province from west sweden and east norway etc...

    4. Eliminate some artificial aspects of the game such as a single unit per province per turn. You can build multiple barracks in different towns of the same province. As long as the population supports unit training and you have enough money.

    There are many more.

    Of course things like loyalty, productivity, religion etc. will become much harder to track. But that;s why we have powerful computers! Also cities would have to fall to an invading army without a fight after a defeat of the defender's army in the field (i.e would have a morale indicator for garrisons).

    I could go on . But I think I explained my point.

    I really hope the next TW title goes in that direction.

    Afrit

    very good suggestions
    "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
    -Eric "George Orwell" Blair

    "If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
    (Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

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