should rtw get rid of the strat map altogether ?

[IceTorque]

in the thread should rtw get rid of battle map boundries jerome said it's possible to walk from one side of the map to the other on the battle map.

just a thought but i think it would be cool to play the whole game
" on the battle map "
march with your army, recruit/replenish troops from conquered city's/towns/villages.
have a field tent/HQ /throne room, to view the world map speak to advisors
recruitment officer, treasurer, and recieve messages/orders diplomats etc.

i think it would be much more immersive gameplay you would get really attached to your army and it would feel much more like i was a caesar rather than a city governor, i'm sorta getting tired of running economies.

just a thought what do you guys think ?.

[Wishazu]

sounds kinda similar to warrior kings, i like this idea :)

[Didz]

That would be the last straw for me, I hate games like Age of Empires and EU where everything happens at strategic level.

[Ar7]

I agree with Didz, the TW series are the only games where you see a bigger picture of the world rather then a simple battle. Of course there are the Paradox games, but they are lacking the actual battles, so the TW games actually combain the best elements of different games.

[magicalsteve]

I personally think this would be a brilliant idea. Albeit hard to pull off (I'm guessing).

The more realistic a game is, the more immersive it is. Therefore realism = fun.

Why distance yourself from the game and and move chess pieces around when you could instead live the life of a general?

[Didz]

Why distance yourself from the game and and move chess pieces around when you could instead live the life of a general?

Quite simply because thats how real generals operate.

Napoleon for instance had a large map table transported with him wherever he went and a range of sticks marked with the scale distances his troops were expected to march in various time frames. He then spent hours every evening over his map table (sometimes actually laying across it) moving wooden blocks and markers whilst his chief of staff made notes.

Once he was happy with his deployments and objectives for the next few days these were drafted into orders and dispatched to his Corps who were then required to acheive the specified destinations within the given timescales.

Thus as you can see there is a distinct split between Strategic Planning and Tactical implementation.

What happens with games that blurr this distinction is that you end up with nothing more than a large battlefield. Everything including resource acquisition happens at tactical level in real time which unless one is going to slow the game speed down to 1:1 and spend all day on a days movement means that everything has to be done under unrealistic pressure.

These games are great for those with a click-festish but are hopeless for any sort of strategic planning. The classic recent screw up was actually LOTR3 which whilst it did seperate strategy from tactics failed to stop the realtime clock when a battle was being fought thus acheiving all the penalties of the one map system with none of the benefits.

Not Realism, so much as Vandalism.

[Khorak]

Personally I want the strategic map to get even MORE strategic. By the time I'm done, the game would be a mutant form of Civilisation. :D

[Ar7]

Personally I want the strategic map to get even MORE strategic. By the time I'm done, the game would be a mutant form of Civilisation. :D

Yea, deeper RTW would be fun, more option and more aspects to manage, many more decisions to make *dreams*

[Mikeus Caesar]

I prefer the strat map. That way, you can see everything that's going on around you, such as who has just invaded your country and were your armies are. If it was just always on a battle map, then you'd be scrolling over huge distances to get to your armies, and then having to wait an eternity while they march somewhere. It would basically take away the management side of it, and make it more battle-oriented, instead of it being a balance between deciding where you move and how to make money, while fighting battles and stuff.

[Ptah]

I personally think this would be a brilliant idea. Albeit hard to pull off (I'm guessing).

The more realistic a game is, the more immersive it is. Therefore realism = fun.

Why distance yourself from the game and and move chess pieces around when you could instead live the life of a general?

Because this is a Strategy game, not a RPG. A mix of the good aspects of two different genres can sometimes create interesting results, but there are some basic limits to a certain genre which should never be crossed, lest the game turns into a weird bastardized version of corny strat game with messy gameplay.

Some people just go crazy about 'realistic graphics', but any serious strategy gamer would instantly understand the need for an overall main interface which is immensely useful when you have to manage multiple armies, cities, personnel, resources, empires, etc etc.. Something that is fast to control, effective in management, and easy to understand. I'm not gonna spend 30 minutes staring into the forests of Germania using satellite photos, trying to find out just where my legions were placed before. Click, click, a simple and well laid out overview map is about the best way to handle any kind of strategic action. Always.

Besides, "more real = more fun" is about the most flawed (and yet, most overhyped) analogy that could ever show face in the simulation genre. Realism can, and often will, contradict gameplay.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Precisely.

Some people just go crazy about 'realistic graphics'

That'll be the evil NCG's, wanting more eyecandy instead of a good game.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I'd rather have salt rubbed into my eyes than see the total war series go the sad and shite way of age of empires and other assorted crap and boring games

[Bhruic]

Quite simply because thats how real generals operate.

Er, while your statement may be vaguely accurate, the reality is that's not the way things happen. That is to say that yes, real generals would plan things out in the way you describe Napolean doing so. However, the actually implementation of those decisions wouldn't happen remotely like it does in RTW. The "turn based" system sees to that by having each player move individually. Sure, Napolean might have enjoyed it if he had 6 months to move his armies around knowing that no one else would do anything, but that certainly isn't the way it went down.

In a lot of ways, the strategical elements in RTW are castrated by this system. For example, it's impossible to intercept an army marching on one of your cities, unless they run out of MPs. It's impossible to pick the battlefield of your choice, because the enemy can march around you and keep going, and you can't stop them.

Sadly, I have to agree that moving to a real-time system probably wouldn't be very effective either. The best "compromise" situation would be something resembling combat as it took place in MTW. That is, having the ability to pause and issue orders whenever you wish, as well as complete control over a timer (instead of the 1x/2x/3x of RTW). I've played games like that in the space-strategy venue, and haven't found them terribly enjoyable, but I haven't been able to tell if it's because of the implementation, or just because it wasn't an enjoyable game.

Bh

[Didz]

Sadly, I have to agree that moving to a real-time system probably wouldn't be very effective either. The best "compromise" situation would be something resembling combat as it took place in MTW.

I agree that from our omnipotent perspective what you say is true.

However, having played the role of Napoleon in a moderator controlled recreation of the Eylau campaign where both my Corps commanders and the enemies were also players, I have to say that the distinction is academic.

Although in this instance movement was simultaneous and constant (in that the moderator calculated troops movement based upon the real passage of time) from my perspective as a player and Commander in Chief the situation evolved as a series of turns or trigger points.

For example:

Late evening: Strategic Planning Session, Daily Orders Dispatched.

Morning: Reveille, Await acknowledgements from Corps Commanders. Then begin HQ movement.

Movement: Await arrival of couriers from scouts units and Corps confirming sightings of enemy or achievement of objectives. Upon receipt review content and decide on response. Dispatch reply if necessary bearing in mind perhaps a 1 hour to 2 hour delay for each dispatch.

Encamp: Upon reaching destination set up new HQ and plot all new intelligence gathered during the day on the map. Receive end of day reports from Corps Commanders. Prepare for strategic Planning session.

As such although the actual movement was being conducted in simulated real time and simultaneously the actual command experience was broken down into a series of event triggers which could easily be considered turns.

The problem with true real time where the player can see see everything, just the way it is, and at exactly the time that it is, is that it is unrealistic and prevents the sort of fog of war that really exists in the strategic theatre.

For example Darius' army would quite simply have failed to outmanoeuvre Alexander if Alexander had been able to watch their movements over the previous few days in real time. In turn based play such an event can occur because the Persian player can use the turn system to simulate the fog of war.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Having everything on the strategy map stinks of crappy RTS to me. Don't think i need to tell you what i think of RTS games. I much, much prefer having a split between strategy map and battlefield - this is what makes totalwar totalwar.

Agree with Bhruic about limitations of turns based games though - Europa Universalis got around this by having the game in a continuous timing counter, but total control over the timer, as you suggest, meaning that you had the ability to effectively stop the game whilst you made strategic decisions, and then speed it up until something of note happened.

As long as you don't end up with a superbo naff click-fest RTS when building a pantheon takes the same amount of time as having a battle, i don't mind....

[doc_bean]

A problem I see is that wouldn't be able to use 2 armies at the same time, when you are attacking with one army in, say, Sicily, you wouldn't have any control over what is happening at that moment in Asia Minor, which would make you an easy target there.

Personally, I like the split as it is, although both the tactical and strategy side leave room to be fleshed out.

[Didz]

Europa Universalis got around this by having the game in a continuous timing counter, but total control over the timer, as you suggest, meaning that you had the ability to effectively stop the game whilst you made strategic decisions, and then speed it up until something of note happened.

I hated EU it was a complete waste of money.

[Bhruic]

The problem with true real time where the player can see see everything, just the way it is, and at exactly the time that it is, is that it is unrealistic and prevents the sort of fog of war that really exists in the strategic theatre.

You're ascribing a problem to the system that is a separate problem in itself. I mean, if you want to start talking about that level of realism, the concept of controlling multiple armies is ludicrous. There's no way that I can be fighting in Spain and fighting in Rome at the same time. The amount of time needed to transfer information back and forth would make it if not impossible, certainly futile.

The concept of 'fog of war' is there to attempt to limit visibility in a semi-realistic way so that the player doesn't have an omniscient view of things. If you find that the 'fog of war' isn't working properly, that's a problem with 'fog of war', not turn based vs non-turn based. The 'fog of war' is supposed to represent that area where you get reports about what the enemy is doing. It's an abstract of things like scouts, watchtowers, etc. So if my scouts have spotted an enemy army marching towards my city, and I want to move to ambush it, I should be able to. Getting stopped simply because it's not "my turn" is pretty stupid. And certainly doesn't add to the realism of the game.

There are too many strategical elements that you can't work properly if you are limited by a turn based system. I'm still hoping that CA comes up with a decent compromise to this that can help solve the problem.

Bh

[Didz]

So if my scouts have spotted an enemy army marching towards my city, and I want to move to ambush it, I should be able to. Getting stopped simply because it's not "my turn" is pretty stupid. And certainly doesn't add to the realism of the game.

On the contrary being aware that an enemy army is marching towards your city

a) as soon as your scouts spot it,

and

b) its exact position and direction of movement minute by minute,

is unrealistic.

The turn based system at least only tells you where it was at the end of the previous time period when your scouts spotted it and then forces you to guess what it will do during the next.

Ideally, of course its position would be where it was when your scouts first dispatched a report and it would not move until another scout arrived. Thus the army positions shown on the strategic map would show the location of enemy armies several hours or days ago rather than where they actually are.

[ellinelle]

The biggest problem here is the sheer scale of the strategic map as it would not make sense if a battle could start in Sparta and end up in Patavia. Having said that there is a lot of scope here if you create a suitably large map that looks sensible when zoomed out so that cities, roads and general terrain is still visible as on the strategy map.

Firstly you don't make things currently on the strategy map work in real-time. Real time strategy is an oxymoron (or nearly so). Strategy occurs over large periods and does not involve instant decisions so pausing for decisions is essential and makes the games more playable. But...

Suppose all orders for both building and movement were issued at leisure. You then un-pause and wait. At this stage things become event driven. When a building is finished the game pauses and you are zoomed to the appropriate city. A unit reaches it destination. You are zoomed to it and give it a new set of orders. A unit detects an enemy unit and you zoom in for combat. Note that the strategy timer is stopped while in combat to save you being in two places at the same time but the terrain is a simple zoom. Now here's where the fog of war comes in.

Any large army marching will have scouting screens. Those with better scouts learn more about the enemy including the direction its going in. The detection is what triggers the pause event. So combat does not start immediately. While paused you can zoom in on the terrain and try to force a battle where it suits you while your enemy does the same. Supply could become a significant issue here as large armies cannot camp in one spot without running out of supplies.

Of course this could be also done with the strategy map making a hybrid RTS/Turn-based system but there is something nice about zooming in on the terrain until units are in focus.

There are other advantages to realism with this sort of system. Movement can be at much more realistic rates so that you could march from one end of the map to the other in a matter of months without the problem of enemy armies advancing through several of your regions and laying siege to your capital with detection. Any enemy army entering your territory would trigger an event and allow you to respond. Of course you need proper scouts to determine how big that army is...

(off-topic) Actually I'd love to have event-based pauses in the battles. I get really pi**ed with infantry charging my cavalry. I usually make the cavalry retreat rapidly but occasionally I get distracted by the other side of the battlefield. It's fine for missile cavalry as the evade but any unit should be able to evade a slower unit.

[AntiochusIII]

A Real-Time Total War is not a Total War.

However, the system of almost Real time strategy game has been done successfully years before. It's an old space-conquering game Imperium Galactica 2. This game is real-time in terms of strategic map but the time "stops" when a battle occurs. Oh, and most enemies of that game got only one main fleet not a ton of captain-led armies (or fleets, in this case.)

Unfortunately, it will NOT work with Rome or any other Total War games for 5 years or so or probably a decade. One needs a super computer twice as powerful as Time Commander's to run the entire battle map that includes all Europe and the Mediterranean world. That IG2 game has a simple space map with planets as almost dots not elaborate cities like in Rome's battle map.

I normally hate Turn-based but this game is cooler than Warcraft 3 itself!

[Bhruic]

On the contrary being aware that an enemy army is marching towards your city

a) as soon as your scouts spot it,

and

b) its exact position and direction of movement minute by minute,

is unrealistic.

I don't believe I ever said that was realistic. In fact, I don't think I ever said that the game should work that way. As it's possible to have a real time system that doesn't work that way, I don't think you've helped your argument any.

The turn based system at least only tells you where it was at the end of the previous time period when your scouts spotted it and then forces you to guess what it will do during the next.

I see, so the fact that an army is perfectly stationary for a fictional 6 month period, allowing you to march up and attack it whenever you choose is fine, but having the army actually able to move about and do things on its own time is not? What kinda of logic do you have to back up that argument? Certainly not the "reality" defense.

Ideally, of course its position would be where it was when your scouts first dispatched a report and it would not move until another scout arrived. Thus the army positions shown on the strategic map would show the location of enemy armies several hours or days ago rather than where they actually are.

Perhaps. It's not an area that I explicitly disagree. However, there is nothing about a real time system that would make that idea unfeasible.

Bh

[IceTorque]

I'd rather have salt rubbed into my eyes than see the total war series go the sad and shite way of age of empires and other assorted crap and boring games

AOE style play was the last thing i was thinking of when i started this thread
IMO RTW strat map is very similar to AOE and most other RTS games i.e.

build que/ build building build unit...... deep eh.

i would imagine resource gathering in a "battle map game world"
to be mostly automatic.
i.e your income depends on how much territory/population under your control.
so no little wood choppers.

i would much prefer making more "real" decisions
e.g should i send Varrus to reinforce a besieged garrison ? or march to thier aid myself. as opposed to which building/unit i should create next.
plan a detailed campaign {troop routes, blocking/encircling etc. } on a detailed local area map.
as opposed to what "tactics" the strat map offers.

[Didz]

I don't believe I ever said that was realistic. In fact, I don't think I ever said that the game should work that way. As it's possible to have a real time system that doesn't work that way, I don't think you've helped your argument any.

Well, all I can say is that if it is possible to have a real time system that offers a strategic level of play I have yet to discover it. Every RTS I have played has either ended up been little more than a tactical level click fest, even LOTR3 which was originally based upon a decent pedigree, or simply failed to work becuase the gimmick got in the way of decent programming, like 1813.

Personally, if TW had given me a choice and asked.

Do, you want a real time historical simulation?

or

Do you want the ability to play Roman Totalwar against other human players?

I would have chosen the latter option every time. I would quite happily lose all the real time aspects of this game in order to be able to play it PBEM with my friends.

[Sir Toma of Spain]

I don't know what everyone is complaining about. Personally i think it would be a superb idea.

[Tocca]

Personally I want the strategic map to get even MORE strategic. By the time I'm done, the game would be a mutant form of Civilisation. :D

Agree! I'd like much more strategic decisions, much more complex economy and so on.
The battle map part of RTW is good (apart from some tweaking of unit strength/speed and so on) in my view, but the strategic map part is by a long shot not up to the same standard.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Agree! I'd like much more strategic decisions, much more complex economy and so on.

No you wouldn't. That way, everyone's favourite battle simulator would become everyone's most hated economic simulator. I mean, who wants to play Rome: Total Micromanagement?

[derF]

I think itd be a good idea. You'd really get a sense of land. I hate the fact that you CANNOT go past the borders of map.

[Didz]

Well quite clearly this debate is splitting the community down the middle.

I for one would not buy a game which worked like EU or AOE as I think both suck big time. I'm sure that others would never consider buying a game like Civilisation because its too boring.

The fact that both groups find themselves on this forum arguing about it actually shows that CA got the mix just about right.

[Duke John]

Mighty good conclusion Didz. I would hate to see a continuous RTS like map and I would hate to see Civilization like complexity.

I do like to see a system where you can give orders to your governors. It's already a bit in R:TW with the settlement settings (balanced, financial, etc.) but I would like to see it less abstract. Give me back the S:TW throne room and add visiting governors, messengers that give orders to far away provinces, emissaries.
I would like to see less of the player controlling/overseeing everything but more of being dependable on your minions.