Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: The unwanted child: Campaign map

  1. #1
    Member Member sunsmountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    414

    Default The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Compare all you Medieval TW fans, the old campaign map with the new campaign map.

    Which, do you think is easier to use? Why the old one of course: it was much simpler.

    Now pause, and think of the effect this has had on your game. Now you spend much more time than you used on the main map, trying to get everything in your favour, which doesnt really work:
    - Traits appear randomly,
    - Management has a marginal (and temporary) effect,
    - Moving armies around, without action. Usually the action occurs around cities, leading to lots of siege battles. 2 siege battles for every 1 land battle, whereas in medieval it was more like 1 for 1.
    - Ships take ages
    - Spies have marginal effects
    - Total war isnt about diplomacy, so why make it so in-depth. Who wanted this?

    What are the advantages of all this?
    - you can pick the battle spot, based on the 'real map'.
    - command stars, influence, retainers and such give you extra stuff to do, sometimes rewarding, sometimes frustrating.

    In conclusion, the good does not outweigh the bad for the campaign map. Add to this the difficulties the AI has with the new degrees of 3 dimensional freedom & path finding, as well as an attempt at a new hierarchy of AI decisions, and you can begin to see why old TW fans do not particularly like Rome TW...

    (complaining about interface is a side effect. Rome looks stunning.)

    If you know forgiveness, you can enjoy both games (campaign map and battle map) anew. Newbies to TW find this easier.

    CA has willingly and knowingly sinned against Sid Meier's advice for game designer, and im paraphrasing (the interview was in 1991, when Sid became famouse with Civilization 1): "If you're going to make an action game, make a good action game. If you're making a strategy game, make a good strategy game.
    Trying to make a game that offers both, but excels at neither, can be a good game, but never an all-time great."

    Comments welcome.
    in montem soli non loquitur

    (\_/) (>.<) That's what happens with bunnies
    (x.X)(_)(_) who want to achieve world domination!

    becoming is for people who do not will to be

  2. #2
    Member Member Atreides's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    75

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    I see your problem. But I disagree. First of all; change of food does make you eat.

    More in-depth, I disagree with.
    · I really like siege battles here. This is one thing I did not have with MTW. Ending up in now playing really assaults.
    · Spies are here more useful. They can open those annoying gates.
    · Totalwar is about, strategy. Management, economics, diplomacy and WARFARE are the contence for me. Your negative point (diplomacy) is now a little more realistic (GOOD).
    · Ships actually are less irritating. Transport and guarding your navy are import. Not to build a very large connection over 100 year.

    My interesting points are:
    · Moving around take's (more) time (more realism).
    · Battles take's place according to the map. This is great! Once I looked a little 'stupid' and I had to fight the 'SPQR' army after crossing a (very tiny) river.
    · You can use the map in your favour (mountain pass).
    · You can ‘feel’ why nations came into existence.

    At the end of the day. I liked both. The realism item with RTW I strongly prefer.

  3. #3
    Spends his time on TWC Member Simetrical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,358

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Quote Originally Posted by Atreides
    Moving around take's (more) time (more realism).
    The RTW move rates are actually hideously unrealistic. It takes a year to get from the north of Italy to the south, for crying out loud! Even at a highly conservative 10 mi/day (16 km/day) average, that gives you over 1800 miles (3000 km) a turn. In other words, you could get from one end of the map to the other and back in a year, realistically speaking.

    -Simetrical
    TWC Administrator

    MediaWiki Developer

  4. #4
    Member Member oompalumpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    I never played medieval so I dunno if I can compare them, but I can try to rebuke some of your points about the RTW campaign map:

    -Management increases tax income. I hardly comsider that a marginal and temporary effect, epsecially in big cities.
    -Moving armies around without action. This is becuase of the movement system, IE armies going actual places, not just province to province like in medieval. In other words, in medieval you could get a field battle even if the your amry was at one end of the province and the enemy at the other. The movement system now is more realistic and fun (although, not that realistic, as simmetrical pointed out)
    -Ships take ages. This is a very good thing. it discourages you from loading up an army, running into greece, Sacking Athens for like a billion denarri, and running back to your homeland all in one turn like you could in medieval (from what I hear)
    -Total war is about diplomacy. If it wasnt they would have just made it all custom battle and not even bothereed with a campaign map. It is about, economics, management, diplomacy, etc.

    In conclusion, The RTW campaign map owns. Dunno if medieval was better, but RTW is great.

  5. #5

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Quote Originally Posted by Simetrical
    The RTW move rates are actually hideously unrealistic. It takes a year to get from the north of Italy to the south, for crying out loud! Even at a highly conservative 10 mi/day (16 km/day) average, that gives you over 1800 miles (3000 km) a turn. In other words, you could get from one end of the map to the other and back in a year, realistically speaking
    yes, but in MTW it would have taken 4 or 5 years to get from Venice to Sicily.

  6. #6
    Robot Unicorn Member Kekvit Irae's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    3,758

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Quote Originally Posted by Simetrical
    The RTW move rates are actually hideously unrealistic. It takes a year to get from the north of Italy to the south, for crying out loud! Even at a highly conservative 10 mi/day (16 km/day) average, that gives you over 1800 miles (3000 km) a turn. In other words, you could get from one end of the map to the other and back in a year, realistically speaking.

    -Simetrical
    He didnt say it was totally realistic. He just said there was more realism than MTW, where, as stated above, it takes a good number of years in MTW to get from Venice to Sicily if going via land route.

  7. #7
    One of the Undutchables Member The Stranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Nowhere...
    Posts
    11,757

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    i think the load/save bug is worse, this is nothing. i like the map.

    We do not sow.

  8. #8
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    I like the campaign map. The diplomacy actually works a lot better than in MTW, despite remaining quirks. The main problems are with the loadgame bugs. Traits are screwed up, but that is not the fault of the map. Instead, it is the result of ineffectual checking of the trait code to make sure traits are actually assigned properly. CA has been very sloppy about checking to make sure RTW features actually functioned as intended, and it is a real shame.

    Linking upgrades to population has some serious drawbacks. AI depopulating low population growth regions is one of these drawbacks. Another is that the tech tree structure is showing its age, and I think it needs to be reworked. (Working more as a support structures to maintain X number of elite units, or determine army compositions etc.) Once you get teched up, you can build all elite forces, and that is a problem. However, you will fight most of the decisive battles with low tech units early on. There is really not much point in the higher end units at the moment.

    The naval aspect needs work, mainly because it is not decisive enough, and naval transport is far too easy. There was a reason Hannibal took so long *marching* to Italy. Moving an army with a tiny fleet was not an option... Naval invasions should be a major undertaking as should blockades. Ports should play a bigger part in determining the size of navies, and effectiveness of blockades, etc. Navies were somewhat limited by friendly ports or an army land cooperation force as to how far afield they could operate. Storms should be a much larger factor for navies too far from friendly ports or friendly shore/or nearby friendly armies.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  9. #9
    American since 2012 Senior Member AntiochusIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lalaland
    Posts
    3,125

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    The map is good as it is and was good as it was.

    I love both of them, so different.

    However, Rome's superior in potential and depth. Yet, how unfortunate, the map's related functions (in other words, strategic aspects) are often broken or absolutely weak.

    I don't blame CA, it's the first map this way for them to release to public. I'm sure they'll do much better next time.

    Diplomacy is a huge upgrade from Medieval, but, still, are not in-depth enough. They should be much, much more important, and shouldn't be so broken... Still, I don't blame CA. They must be doing better next time.

    Naval aspects are something REALLY cool in concept and upgrade. Medieval's sucks. However, they, how unfortunate ;p , are broken, bad. Also, they're far from perfect, more like "under development." Better luck next time.

    Movement style improves greatly, yet, movement rate is annoying. I would've increased them drastically and provide more chokepoints to provide real use of forts. Oh, and no army-stopping diplomats either.

    Damn, I have high hopes for the expansion...

    P.S. Oh, and the battle maps related to the campaign's should be MUCH more colorful. May be they'll get in some ideas.
    Last edited by AntiochusIII; 04-04-2005 at 05:56.

  10. #10
    Member Member tai4ji2x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    again, the real problem is the stupid "one-patch" or "two-patch" policy or whatever it is. the RTW campaign map is a big step forward, but as with all such changes, there will be problems early on. a disgrace that CA's support is so pitiful, whoever's fault it may be.

  11. #11

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    I dunno. I found the campaign map absolutely BRILLIANT. like how you can ambush armies marching past, how you can REALLY take advantage of terrain when considering your defences. At least this way its a lot more realistic compared to MTW. Yes, MTW was good in many ways, but RTW has not only got a lot better graphics but its got a new system of movement, of using ports, an improved diplomacy.. everything.

    As some people have said before, new systems have inherently got bugs. and concerning the "two patch" policy, i would say blame Activision for it. After all, CA just wanted to create the game, and these games cost a LOT of money, and without support from larger companies you wouldn't even have had the game to play... Yes. many things can be improved, but some things you CAN fix yourself (yes, thats bad for a commercially released game, BUT at least you can fix it, and mod it to your hearts content up to a limit).

  12. #12
    Member Member tai4ji2x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    291

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadar
    BUT at least you can fix it, and mod it to your hearts content up to a limit
    yes, up to a VERY limited point. the siege-load bug is completely unfixable except by CA. same with the battle difficulty glitch. the infantry acting like cavalry has a workaround, but at the expense of testudo. AI behaviors in general are very limited in how much modders can "fix" them
    Last edited by tai4ji2x; 04-04-2005 at 11:20.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Senior Member Jambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Athens of the North, Scotland
    Posts
    712

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    There is a workaround for the battle difficulty bug - just posted a separate topic on this.

    On-topic though, I think the campaign map is a definite step in the right direction. Previously in STW and MTW, the "Risk" style of movement and conquering meant there was only ever a couple of decisive battles between neighbouring factions before a tedious mopping up process was instigated. The steamrollering effect was far too common and nations could be wiped out long before reaching the Middle period of the campaign. At least now territory takes longer to conquer (particularly in the barbarian lands) and losing a province or two doesn't always mean instant capitulation for the AI.

    I don't think it's the map that's bad per sé, more that sometimes the way the AI is programmed to operate on it can be. For instance, leaving cities close to enemies poorly garrisoned. With the move to a more complicated strategy map, the AI also needs to be comparably better, which I don't think it is yet.
    =MizuDoc Otomo=

  14. #14

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Quote Originally Posted by Simetrical
    The RTW move rates are actually hideously unrealistic. It takes a year to get from the north of Italy to the south, for crying out loud! Even at a highly conservative 10 mi/day (16 km/day) average, that gives you over 1800 miles (3000 km) a turn. In other words, you could get from one end of the map to the other and back in a year, realistically speaking.

    -Simetrical
    Yup. I've said numerous times I believe the movement system is in serious need of a complete overhaul. I've argued, for example, for the inclusion of a strategic movement ability, where units can move, say, up to six provinces per turn providing they neither enter or leave a province occupied by enemy forces.

    It would even be possible to create a system that didn't use movement points at all, but which allowed you to move your units any distance on the map in a given turn, with movement limited only by the presence of enemy zones of control - or perhaps enemy units in the same province. So you would plot your moves, setting waypoints if required, hit the end turn button and then all factions would move simultaneously. If one of your moving armies collided with the moving army of another faction, that's when a battle would take place.

    It would make the game far more dynamic and unpredictable, no province would be safe from attack and it would open the rest of the game up to all kinds of interesting possibilities. For instance, chokepoints and crossroads could become a lot more strategically vital to occupy and defend. You could also accelerate sieges (which are ahistorically long in the vanilla game) so that they would be resolved in weeks and months rather than years, with sieges progressing within a turn (depending on the distance your own units have moved) rather than from one turn to the next. Then if you didn't have a relieving force nearby, you could find yourself in a real race to relieve a siege before the city fell. And so on.

    But I think CA is too timid to fiddle much with what they believe is a winning formula. And quite frankly, after seeing RTW I have my doubts that the knowhow for creating a seriously good strategy game is there.
    Last edited by screwtype; 04-06-2005 at 09:00.

  15. #15
    Member Member Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    414

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Shadar,

    Blaming Activision for the 2 patch policy is misguided at best. CA could release a 'developer' patch, something commonly used in the industry, to address issues that the publisher didn't want to fund.

    CA could step forward and fund a developer patch but they have moved on to other things (Spartan Warrior for console). The people left holding the bag are the customers who bought the game and are now stuck with a game ruining bug.
    When you decide that servicing your core niche is no longer important, you might as well put a gun to your corporate temple. - Red Harvest -

  16. #16
    Needs more flowers Moderator drone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moral High Grounds
    Posts
    9,217

    Post Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    I prefer Rome's campaign map. I just wish the AI knew how to use it properly.

    The army speeds should be increased, but not too much. The logistics of moving a large force through possibly hostile territory would slow down the movement. Not sure how difficult it would be to program, but maybe add some stack size changes. The larger the stack, the slower it goes. And the larger the stack, the larger the visibility footprint, for both the stack and anyone searching for the stack.

    Ship speed should be increased, but only if troop transport limitations are added.
    The .Org's MTW Reference Guide Wiki - now taking comments, corrections, suggestions, and submissions

    If I werent playing games Id be killing small animals at a higher rate than I am now - SFTS
    Si je n'étais pas jouer à des jeux que je serais mort de petits animaux à un taux plus élevé que je suis maintenant - Louis VI The Fat

    "Why do you hate the extremely limited Spartan version of freedom?" - Lemur

  17. #17
    Senior Member Senior Member Oaty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    2,863

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo
    Shadar,

    Blaming Activision for the 2 patch policy is misguided at best. CA could release a 'developer' patch, something commonly used in the industry, to address issues that the publisher didn't want to fund.

    CA could step forward and fund a developer patch but they have moved on to other things (Spartan Warrior for console). The people left holding the bag are the customers who bought the game and are now stuck with a game ruining bug.

    Well noone can be correct unless they see the actual contract. A patch is a modification to a game. In the contract it could state all modifications have to be approved by Activision first. So if that is the case CA can't release a developers patch. And now with CA changing affiliates/companies, makes a mess on who supports the patch.

    Anyways back on topic:

    IT'S A GAME

    Armies have limited movement for game balance not for realism. I like the new campaign map much better. For 1 in MTW it was unbalanced I remember a game where Italy deployed 15000 troops early on in the game and abandoning every territory they had only leaving a few troops behind in each. Let me just say I lost the game due to total gayism

    As far as movement in friendly territory well maybe a 10-20 percent movement bonus would be nice but nothing extensive

    As far as diplomacy goes it works to a degree. If you want to keep good negotiations with a nation you have to have an occasion ceasefire, although ceasefires should have a lasting effect ESPECIALLY when tribute is involved and when the ceasefire is broken all tributes recieved should be cancelled.

    What is the most buggering part of the campaign map is it's size but some modders are releasing mini campaigns
    When a fox kills your chickens, do you kill the pigs for seeing what happened? No you go out and hunt the fox.
    Cry havoc and let slip the HOGS of war

  18. #18
    Robot Unicorn Member Kekvit Irae's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    3,758

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Quote Originally Posted by oaty
    IT'S A GAME

    Armies have limited movement for game balance not for realism.
    Exactly. What fun would it be if you could, as Simetrical says, march from Gaul to Parthia in a single turn. It wouldnt. There would be no tactical advantage for the defender. You would not be able to "pick your own fights" like you would in the campaign map. I'd rather have an unrealistic game that's fun than a game built solely on realism. If I wanted realism that wasnt fun, I'd buy the various civil war, napoleon, and (insert wargame genre here) games from those unknown developers.

  19. #19

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    What do you think of a possible not-so-real-time strategy on the campaign map? Say, 12 hours per second. Which makes it a year in about 12 minutes.

  20. #20
    Spends his time on TWC Member Simetrical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,358

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Quote Originally Posted by kekvitirae
    He didnt say it was totally realistic. He just said there was more realism than MTW, where, as stated above, it takes a good number of years in MTW to get from Venice to Sicily if going via land route.
    Actually, he said that moving around takes more time, and said that that was more realistic. I don't know about the former, never having played MTW, but the latter is certainly wrong if the former's right. And how on earth would you get from Venice to Sicily by land? That's a two-mile strait in between.

    By the way, I entirely agree that in the context of six-month turns, realistic movement rates are inappropriate. RTR could up the movement rate dramatically, but we haven't for good reason. Quite simply, for movement of individual armies on a quasi-tactical scale, turn length should probably be no more than a week or two to allow for realistic response times. In six months, a real ruler would conduct entire campaigns, or even entire wars.

    -Simetrical
    TWC Administrator

    MediaWiki Developer

  21. #21

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    I disagree. I believe the essence of Total War rests in the relationship between "action" and strategy.

    Only in TW is the player afforded the oportunity to have the best of both without losing the heart of either.

    What you, I, and the rest of the TW community dream of is the CA peak of effort; the day that these two concepts ("action" and strategy) can be synchronized perfectly as if each alone were worthy of a title, but the two together make an epic.

    With Shogun, they succeeded.

    With MTW, they succeeded.

    With RTW, they succeeded.

    We wait only for perfection.

    But gentlemen please remember: Excellence requires the pursuit of perfection. The CA team aspires to perfection, fails, but leaves excellence in the wake for our pleasure.

    It can only get better. My hat to CA.
    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Einstein

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    The Backroom is the Crackroom.

  22. #22
    Member Member Atreides's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    75

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Quote Originally Posted by Simetrical
    Actually, he said that moving around takes more time, and said that that was more realistic. I don't know about the former, never having played MTW, but the latter is certainly wrong if the former's right. And how on earth would you get from Venice to Sicily by land? That's a two-mile strait in between.

    By the way, I entirely agree that in the context of six-month turns, realistic movement rates are inappropriate. RTR could up the movement rate dramatically, but we haven't for good reason. Quite simply, for movement of individual armies on a quasi-tactical scale, turn length should probably be no more than a week or two to allow for realistic response times. In six months, a real ruler would conduct entire campaigns, or even entire wars.

    -Simetrical
    Idid played MTW (a lot).

    Well actually it's a two edged sword:
    - Landings from Asia-Minor into Scandinavia is disabled.
    - If you look at Greece in this game it's much much larger then it is in MTW (so more time).
    - Roads save time. This is a real realistic thing. In Germany when play with the Germans movement of troops feels like forever.

    Anyway. Time based it isn't that accurate. But hey; The game is not only about movement realism. Also other things are taken into account.

  23. #23
    Merkismathr of Birka Member PseRamesses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Birka town in Svitjod. Realm of the Rus and the midnight sun.
    Posts
    1,939

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    The camp map is a masterpiece, although I do feel that it´s to small. If the prov-limit is, what 230? provs, why the h_ll didn´t CA go for the full monty?
    I just have to wait for EB I think.
    Movement rates is set relative to other feats like build time etc. TW isn´t about Total Realism and the only thing to do to solve this is make the game run as EUII - in real time where you can increase or decrease the games running speed.
    What I really miss is attrition and ransoms and that traits should only be based upon what the caracther actually does. Another annoying thing is formations during sieges. Marching down a narrow street with a selected group of units I actually have to place them all individually or order a column formation or they will just move in one big mass. The AI should march them in formation IMO!
    I´m also annoyed with movement from A to B on the camp map when one of my own, or allied units, are "blocking" the shortest way, like a pass or bridge, and the AI thakes a huge way around them!!!

  24. #24

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Quote Originally Posted by drone
    IThe army speeds should be increased, but not too much. The logistics of moving a large force through possibly hostile territory would slow down the movement.
    Okay, but what about moving through friendly territory? Why should it take literally years of game time to move a couple of friendly provinces?

    Like I said you could make it so that you could move, say six provinces a turn provided none of the provinces you entered or left were occupied by an enemy unit. In other words, rapid movement only through territory that is exclusively held by or allied to you. You'd still have to move and deploy normally when entering an enemy occupied or enemy controlled province.

    With a bit of tweaking, a system like this could add a lot of dynamism and suprise to the game. As things stand, it's like World War I trench warfare. Your units creep along at a snail's pace and it all becomes very predictable. There must surely be a better way to simulate warfare than this.

  25. #25

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Quote Originally Posted by Simetrical
    I entirely agree that in the context of six-month turns, realistic movement rates are inappropriate. RTR could up the movement rate dramatically, but we haven't for good reason.
    You're probably right that just upping the movement rate would not work, because then of course you'd be able to move and attack any point on the map with your entire armed forces from one turn to the next, which wouldn't be much fun at all.

    What I suggested was a strategic movement ability, which is a different thing. If you could only utilize strategic movement in non-contested friendly provinces, then you would still have to move and deploy normally the next turn to mount an attack. Also, you couldn't switch units quickly from one engagement to another. It would take you at least three turns to (turn 1) leave a contested province (turn 2) use strategic movement and (turn 3) enter another contested province. And it might take you an additional turn or three marching out of/into each contested province before you could actually engage the enemy stack. So strategic movement through friendly territory would not just be a matter of instantly switching from one part of the battlefront to another.

    It would however make for a more dynamic game, and create a lot of new possibilities. For example, if along with strategic movement you added a feature that each stack you attempted to move had a variable chance of not receiving orders on time, and therefore not moving at all, that would add an element of tension to movement and strategy that is not there now. And it would be totally historical, in the sense that battles are often won and lost because of failure to get the news on time, or getting scrambled orders, or having logistic difficulties etc.

    Let's say each stack had a 33% chance of failing to move on orders, perhaps modifiable by the general's command rating, it would mean you could never be sure of getting to a battle in sufficient numbers, or perhaps at all. That would add a much needed element of unpredictability to this game IMO.

    Come to think of it, you could simulate this easily enough in the current game. Just roll a six sided die before moving each stack, on a roll of 1 or 2 it can't move for the rest of the turn. There's a little "iron man" rule for ya
    Last edited by screwtype; 04-06-2005 at 14:01.

  26. #26

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    The map is excellent. Forts, passes, roads, all good.

    Very nice, CA.

    I also like loading up a character with Quartermaster, etc. so they can move faster.

  27. #27
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    I disagree. The R:TW campaign map is the best part of R:TW compared to M:TW. If only the bugs (particularly the siege bug) would be gone, it would be almost perfect. I'd also like narrower passes in some places to make them more important choke points just like rivers, but those are small details.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  28. #28
    Needs more flowers Moderator drone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moral High Grounds
    Posts
    9,217

    Post Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Quote Originally Posted by screwtype
    Okay, but what about moving through friendly territory? Why should it take literally years of game time to move a couple of friendly provinces?

    Like I said you could make it so that you could move, say six provinces a turn provided none of the provinces you entered or left were occupied by an enemy unit. In other words, rapid movement only through territory that is exclusively held by or allied to you. You'd still have to move and deploy normally when entering an enemy occupied or enemy controlled province.
    Maybe implement a zone system. "Friendly" territory would comprise of internal provinces, but once you near neutral/enemy territory, armies would need to worry about ambushes and scout more. Granted, you could ignore those and just take your chances.

    It would also be nice if the movement was adjusted for the season/weather. Moving a army through snow and mud during the winter should be slower, even with roads.

    Overall though, I like the map. Unfortunately, it presents the AI with too many options.
    The .Org's MTW Reference Guide Wiki - now taking comments, corrections, suggestions, and submissions

    If I werent playing games Id be killing small animals at a higher rate than I am now - SFTS
    Si je n'étais pas jouer à des jeux que je serais mort de petits animaux à un taux plus élevé que je suis maintenant - Louis VI The Fat

    "Why do you hate the extremely limited Spartan version of freedom?" - Lemur

  29. #29

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    Quote Originally Posted by drone
    It would also be nice if the movement was adjusted for the season/weather. Moving a army through snow and mud during the winter should be slower, even with roads.
    That would be fine with me. And while we're at it, I'd prefer seasonal turns rather than biannual, as in Shogun.

    Quote Originally Posted by drone
    Overall though, I like the map. Unfortunately, it presents the AI with too many options.
    I *want* to like the map, but since it's made the game less rather than more challenging, I can't like it.

    Something needs to be done to revamp the campaign and make it more unpredictable and hard to beat. And I don't mean more frickin' rebel armies popping out of the woods

  30. #30
    Chief Biscuit Monitor Member professorspatula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Inside a shoe.
    Posts
    1,158

    Default Re: The unwanted child: Campaign map

    I think the new campaign map was a good idea - but sadly the AI is intrinsically stupid and really struggles to get to grips with it. All too often it has little armies moving around with little to no cohesion, whilst other armies invade and slaughter the confused critters. With massively improved AI behaviour, I'd probably prefer the new map to the old system, but really it's a draw in its current state.

    I'd have preferred to see a compremise until the AI coders have learnt how to improve the AI. Basically the provence/Risk based map, but with 3-4 mini-provences within each one. You'd still have lots more places to move than before (and lots more battlemaps), but it would be more linear and the AI would benefit greatly. Plus you could implement some kind of power-control system, whereby the more of these mini-areas in the provence you control, the more tax/trade and loyalty the current owner of the actual city would lose. You could therefore strangle the lifeline of the provence without having to lay siege to the city until much later. Sieges are so dire and poorly implemented that this would be a good thing in my opinion.

    Another thing I'm not convinced about with the current map system is the battlemaps. They are generated and based on the landscape in the current square, giving thousands of individual maps to fight on. Sadly 99% are featureless, being nothing more than open ground with a few thickets of forest here and there, some hills etc, but seldom are the maps in any way interesting. MTW maps seemed to be a little more thought out, and typically the defender could scout for a good defensive position beforehand. The maps in RTW seldom have any natural defensive positions or chokepoints which ultimately makes battles very similiar.

    In conclusion: new campaign map style was a nice idea, but needs improving or removing.
    Improving the TW Series one step at a time:

    BI Extra Hordes & Unlocked Factions Mod: Available here.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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