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
    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

  2. #2
    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

  3. #3
    The Anger Shaman of the .Org Senior Member Voigtkampf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Holding the line...
    Posts
    2,745

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

    Most reasonable arguments, afrit, and I would like to see your wishes becoming as much as possible part of the Rome.




    Today is your victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men.

    Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings, The Water Book

  4. #4
    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?

    in theory it sounds good. but think on how it will effect game play.
    the map would be clutered with cities. ( you would have the old problem of dozens of units in a provence, but now it would be cities, which you need to build your empire)
    emagine having to protect all those cities from raids. you would have to double or triple your forces, (depending on the number of cities). then you have to think about their loyalty , and the cities.
    think of the trade system.
    it would be worse then victoria. play that game and you will see why more != better.
    if you add more cities than a single campaign will take months to complete.
    and that takes the replay value out of the game. I personaly would not want to start a new campaign knowing that it would take a month to complete.
    MILLER: I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.

    MILLER: Now, that would be pretty good.

  5. #5
    For TosaInu and the Org Senior Member The_Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The United Kingdom of Great Britain
    Posts
    4,354

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

    if you add more cities than a single campaign will take months to complete.
    and that takes the replay value out of the game. I personaly would not want to start a new campaign knowing that it would take a month to complete.

    Yeah and arguably MTW campaigns take too long to finish anyway. I couldn't stand it when you become the greatest superpower, nobody can stand before you... Yet you are forced into an endless string of sieges rather than battles.

    All I ever seemed to do was lay siege to castles in the latter stages of a MTW campaign it was too boring.

    I'd hate for us to have even MORE cities in RTW that we have to sack...
    "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

  6. #6
    Pet Idiot Member Soulflame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Abyss - Formerly known as 'The Netherlands'
    Posts
    293

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

    I'm also with the camp of doubters:

    One of the nice aspects of R;TW are the city sieges. But to have to do 4 or 5 city sieges to control a province is annoying. Raid tactics would just play a too important role, and the game could inherit the silly sea battle thing from M;TW (one ship blockading and moving around each turn so you can't catch it unless you make faster ships).

    Founding new cities may sound nice and plays ok in Civilisation, but here alot would have to be drastically altered to the game I think. Because 2 cities next to eachother should not be allowed (spamming one island full of cities is just unrealistic), the game needs now to calculate the worth of terrain so that the income of the town isn't some random number. Probably have to make up some trade goods as well etc etc.
    While I can imagine that there might be events which create cities (thus generated by the game itself, on places predetermined), so that everything (including income trade goods etc) are predetermined that it wouldn't be seen as odd or out of place.

    I like the flexible borders and conquering half a land-remarks, but it is really hard to implement I think: How much land would you conquer if you build a town in the middle of a land, where at one of the edges, there are 2 more towns? or 3? Would an extra town make difference? How much? WHo holds the title for the province? can you split up the province so that you get more governers?
    Basically the only way I see this as being possible is if you are cutting the provinces up more, into miniprovinces (if you want to). Although there might be people who like that, I for one think the map will be big enough for some quality campaigns, more (mini-)provinces would just make the game even longer.
    Download version 1.2 of my RomeUnitGuide (PDF format) here;
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/downl...do=file&id=108
    It has over 32.000 downloads. Thanks for the kind words I got over the years :).

    Download version 1.1 of my RomeTempleGuide (PDF format) here;
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/downl...do=file&id=107
    It has over 5.000 downloads. Thanks for the kind words I got over the years :).

  7. #7
    Member Member Omegamann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Duesseldorf, Germany
    Posts
    130

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

    It also wouldnt really enhance historical accuracy, as in ancient times most generals only needed to take controll of a single strategic location or city to get all the surrounding citys to capitulate of their own accord.

  8. #8
    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 voigtkampf
    Most reasonable arguments, afrit, and I would like to see your wishes becoming as much as possible part of the Rome.

    Thanks
    The plural of anectode is not data - Anonymous Scientist

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

  9. #9
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

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

    I like your ideas, Afrit. But (sorry for that inevitable 'but') just like you I have to work for a living and I fear that implementing these ideas would only make the game even longer than it is already...
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


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