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

[Silver Rusher]

Aww, c'mon, each province has about two cities and you can build forts wherever you like. And with 225+ provinces in the game (compared to the some 99 in MTW) that amounts to one hell of a lot of towns. And if you don't like that cos of micromanagement, then you can give it to your generals to look after. Trust me, don't doubt Rome. It has all your needs except for mp campaign, which I really really want.

[Patricius]

Another point against a larger number of cities - apologies if it has been made already - is that it could a late game a positively painful firefighting exercise as troops have to be moved betwen cities in double-quick time.

[d6veteran]

I don't know guys ... 100+ cities seems plenty to me. Maybe you are forgetting about the forts you can build?

Historically speaking there really wasn't a large number of notable cities in the ancient world. When I read about the Roman campaigns in Briton and Gaul; I get the impression that the number of cities that hold more tactical signifigance than a legionnairy fort are few and far between. Same goes for cites with a significant amount of commerce.

So my answer is no, I'm not dissapointed by the number of cities.

Also, this is definitely one issue that I don't think can be effectively debated until the game is played. The demo did reveal some issues with the battle map, but none of us has played the strat game yet. By all accounts the strat map is very different from the STW and MTW and the ancient world does not map to the fuedal world very well at all. Give the strat map some legs before making you argument I say.

[ToranagaSama]

Wow, I thought I had read somewhere that cities could be founded. Guess I'm wrong.

I'm less than 20 turns into a new campaign, and under the impression one could found cities, I put a couple of units along with a Peasant unit (thought you needed peasants to found) onto a boat and sent them over to the Spanish pennisula.

There's a nice spot just over the Pyrnees (sp? is that the right mountain range?), with some tradeable goods and a fishing village. The interesting part about founding a city is choosing a good location.

I choose a spot near enough to the fishing village, with a small mountain range to the rear and a meandering river to the front. The river creates a narrow gap to the north and south, the only approaches to the city. I thought this a VERY defensible location.

I couldn't figure out how to make the units found the city, looked through the manual and found nothing (surprise!!!), and then came to the Org and did a search.

Toooo bad....

It's early in the game, and if I could found and develop a city at this location while I'm at Peace with the Gauls and Spaniards, it would serve as a good base for expansion.

Sigh!

Fantastic thread. I'm not sure I want *more* cities placed into the game, but the capability to develop new cities would be facinating. I like all of the other suggestions of the original poster!!!!

I don't wish for ANY more Sieges/Taking of Cities than there already are in the game. In fact, I think Rome: Tota War could be changed to "Siege: Total War"!!! ;)

As far as Battle Engine development vs Campaign development:

IMUHO, the battle engine is STILL hands down the best thing going. Not much about the mechanics need improvement (save the RTW interface!!). There are two areas that would really take the Battle Engine to the next level:

1) An AI, without gettting into any specifics, simply a more *intelligent* and challeging AI. Something that would be a STEP FORWARD in technology.

2) MODABILITY. The capability to Mod the AI is something that's *sorely* missing. Not simply, as we have now, the capability to mode certain aspects and elements that effect the AI, but the capability to Mod the AI itself. Tailor it to specific tastes and aims.

Lastly, I support the continued *Civilizationing* of the Campaign/Strategic area of Total War. The true accomplishment of Total War is that it brings true STRATEGIC value to, as well as, EXCELLENT *Tactical* elements, to Battles; without which TW would just be another RTS game with little to no, actual, *strategy*.

I'm a Strategy Gamer, first and foremost.

What would be really great would be a collaboration between The Creative Assembly and Sid Meir. Sid Meir is the genius of strategy gaming and CA has the technology, what a wonderful marriage this would make!!

[DisruptorX]

I never had any problems with Medieval's late game, because I never play that long. The fun part is building up your provences civ-style. I usually have a blast playing up untill about the invention of gunpowder, and then start a new game. I also advance slowly and always consolidate my gains, making conquests last longer, and the game not too easy. I find that playing slowly makes it both more challenging, and more fun. Of course "slowly" is a word unheard of in RTW...


Considering how you have to micromanage every damn city in Rome because the heavy handed squalor rate, more cities would be a nightmare. In Rome, expanding is a pain, because you know you are going to get more damn people in your empire, who naturally hate you.