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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[Voigtkampf]

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

[USMCNJ]

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.

[The_Emperor]

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...

[Soulflame]

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.

[Omegamann]

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.

[Tamur]

Err... pardon the ignorance but where are people finding lists of cities, or cities linked with provinces?

[afrit]

Glad to see well thought replies to my suggestion, although majority seem to disagree with me :-(

I have to admit that I have not played Victoria or Civ, so cannot draw on experience from those (MTW is the only game I have time for. I work an average of 70 hours a week).

My main problem with the current system of few cities is that it just lacks the immersion feel you get with the tactical battles. Playing MTW campaign feels like playing a game, not commanding an empire. Playing MTW battle feels like you're in a battle, not playing a symbolic representation of one.

I'll try to address the issues one by one.

One of the main things that would be different is that cities and towns would surrender to your army without a siege if the garrison's morale is low enough . Things that would affect garrison morale are:
1. size of city. Smaller towns cannot support the garrison long enough.
2. Loyalty of city.
3. Recent defeat of defemder's army in the field. If defender is utterly crushed, the garrison knows there is no relief and would surrender more easily (in MTW, if a single soldier escaped he could hold the defense of the city indefinitely!! Not realistic!).
4. Distance from "the front" and any possibility of relief.
5. Lenght of siege or isolation.
6. Quality of garrison, loyalty and charisma of garrison commander.
7. Fall of the provincial capital . This would allow simulation of capturing an entire province by taking just the main city.

WIth enough parameters like these (all calculated by computer of course), I envision that a single glorious victory of your invading army will mean the surrender of a dozen towns and cities . Of course it also allows for a heroic defense of one fort by an outstanding commander who can harrass the invader etc.. THe point is that variety is introduced.


@soulflame:
1. Sieges would still happen, but only for big cities such as province capitals (see above ).
2. Raids would be annoying, but that is the point of raids. If the are small enough, you can ignore them. If big enough, try to oppose them.
3. City spamming. Founding a new city would require:
-A certain distance from neighboring cities
-A city will control and exploit the surrounding countryside, up to a certain distance. The distance depends on city population (bigger controls farther) and presence of neighboring towns (kind of like gravitational fields of planets).
-The closer a town is to a natural resource, the better it is exploited (e,gfound your cities close to mines).
-Cities are expensive to create, so this will discourage city spamming.

@USMCNJ and Emperor
Endless sieges would make for a tedious campaign. Again, the idea is for multiple towns to fall in *one blow under the right circumstances*. Which is what happened historically. Right circumstances could include:
-Death or capture of enemy king and heirs.
-Similar culture/religion to occupied land
-Good reputation of clemency in your ruler (if you have a habit of enslaving all enemies they may fight more!)
-Having overwhelming power
-Offering autonomous status . (i.e you defeat an enemy, but instead of acquiring his lands outright, you install a client state there).
-Having a bunch of cities being part of the same land for a long time makes them surrender or fight together

Again these are just ideas for long term improvements in the game.

[afrit]

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

Thanks

[Louis VI the Fat]

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...