The unwanted child: Campaign map

[screwtype]

I was just musing for a moment. It occurs to me that the Romans appeared to have a maximum number of legions they could raise at any one time. (This is probably true of other ancient civs as well). At the same time, they eventually found that there was a more or less ideal size of empire, corresponding roughly to Western Europe and the Mediterranean coast.

Now suppose that there was a maximum cap on the number of units you could field at any one time. It would mean that the bigger your empire got, the harder it would be to both conquer more territory AND maintain control of the empire you've already conquered with a sufficient garrison.

This could be a good simple method of halting the "steamroller" effect and prolonging the campaign challenge. In fact with an army cap, the game could actually get *harder* as you expand instead of easier, which is how a good game should really operate.

You could probably link it up with your finance in some way as well. As your empire expands, and your garrisons get diluted, corruption increases, and you begin to get a decreasing amount from each province. This could prevent you accumulating too much gold. At the same time, the wealth stolen through corruption could be used to fuel more rebellion, as the local leaders who stole it become more powerful and self-confident in their own right. So then you would have a mechanism for faction re-emergence, a la MTW.

It could also throw other aspects of the game into greater relief, such as the importance of maintaining good governors in major cities. Heck, you could even have family members defecting and trying to knock you off and become Caesar themselves...

[professorspatula]

Exactly, controlling your ever-expanding empire should become more of a chore as the game progresses. You really should find yourself stretched, up to a point anyway. Sadly you can pretty much leave large regions alone once you've wiped out the opposing neighbours, and then you're free to carry on streamrolling your way across the map until you either win, get bored and start-over, or give your entire empire away to someone else and attempt to take Rome using nothing more than a bunch of pitch-fork wielding peasants and a donkey.

By the way - what type of screw are you? Crosshead?

[Nelson]

God’s teeth, the Rome map is a colossal improvement beyond the earlier area movement!

Let us remember that CA has always maintained that Total War games are not sims. They are games with historic flavor. I’m an old wargamer myself. SPI, Avalon Hill, Origins conventions, all that stuff. I want Rome to be a war game just like I wanted Shogun and Medieval to be war games.

They ain’t war games, folks. They are tantalizingly close in some respects and this fact serves to stoke the grognard desires within some of us. Nevertheless, we can only criticize CA so much for not making exactly the game we want.

[drone]

With Rome, CA decided to make a bold transition with both the strategic and combat engines. Both have a lot of potential, and they are definitely steps in the right direction. But this was also very ambitious, and given the time constraints, a lot of things were forgotten, overlooked, or just patched together. I think I found mention of duct(bodge) tape in the data files.

My hope is that R:TW was not CA's desired end-result of their efforts. Something has to pay for this vast development effort, and the delivery/sale/GOTY status of Rome should go a long way towards that end. The addition of RTS aspects and ahistorical units leads me to believe that R:TW was a money grab of sorts for ongoing development. I don't mean this in a bad way, it's just the economics of the industry.

With the current engine, SEGA's backing, and the time till the next full release (not the XP), I think CA have a very good base for what could be a brilliant game, well worth the $105 spent (50 for R:TW, probably 55 for the next one). This doesn't do us much good now, and only serves as a tease (the cause of much of the current frustration).

Or maybe I need to put down the crack-pipe...

[sunsmountain]

I am amazed by the many responses to this topic, and glad that most of you disagree with me: All the more interesting.

The main reason i wrote about the campaign map was to give some sympathy to Medieval TW veterans who felt betrayed by Rome:TW. Besides the obvious differences in looks, there were some fundamental changes in gameplay as well.

Now i'm a gamer, not a historian. If a game takes a lot of time before it lets you play, something can probably be cut out to make the whole better. Besides a better AI of course...


about the particulars:

I really like siege battles here. This is one thing I did not have with MTW. Ending up in now playing really assaults.

I agree the extra siege weaponry, and the true difference in walls (and size of city, but sadly no inner walls) really add to the realism effect. But how many times have you cursed the path finding? Ever tried placing troops near all the walls inside a city and then select all and order to town center? You'll laugh at the paths they take... and cry

I have to come back from what i said about spies and management. They can be fun, but the main point i am trying to make is the time they cost.

About diplomacy, there are some extra options. But how much do they add to the pleasure of battle? Can you properly gang up on a strong AI nation (for example, Egypt), or do you just need luck for them to declare war on Egypt as well? Sometimes they just dont trust you anymore, period, with no particular reason, other than a spy of yours roaming their domain. I mean wtf.

-Management increases tax income. I hardly comsider that a marginal and temporary effect, epsecially in big cities.

You need quite a high management (level 9 or 10), and the effect is temporal (i mean, your governors die dont they? especially the good ones, and they tend to be replaced by governors WIHOUT those cool management traits like intelligent, teetotal, spartan, etc.) level 5 academy retainers compensate though.
It does add up to 1000 but since money isnt really a challenge in the game, i slacked on management. Barbarians rarely have the settlements to boost in the first place (you need a big income base to begin with, kind of marginalising management inherently).

The campaign map is realistic, but is it fun? Do you want to play with it again and again? Or do you find your armies yet again roaming around without a battle to fight? How many of those 50 battles in 50 turns did you fight against slaves?

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.

sorry, i can't reproduce this. The only thing i notice when reloading is AI-siege being lifted. Traits changing? how?

I agree with allowing 1 boat to transport only 1 unit. That'll make you think twice before invading over sea.

I also agree the campaign map has potential, and that this is the first try. But i would have loved a somehow quick, responsive, and therefore addictive map like in MTW. This would ameliorate (soften) the pain from the mediocre AI somewhat.

the infantry acting like cavalry has a workaround, but at the expense of testudo

Is this still present in 1.2? how do you notice this? soldiers walking with the speed of horse?

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.

I remember those mop-ups. It's a little more difficult in Rome, if you want to remove their family by hand (combat). If you use assassins, however... barbarians have no defense (!)

However, those decisive battles did happen soon and decisively. Also, factions reappeared, and you had glory goals. So you did not need to wipe them out just to get your goal.

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.

Very true and well said. This also applies to the battle map i think.

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

I agree. I gave all the barbarians paved roads (sue me). much more dynamic, a force to be reckoned with, instead of: o, they're miles away.

What is the most buggering part of the campaign map is it's size but some modders are releasing mini campaigns

This is exactly what i mean: The campaign map is cool, but it takes time! Lots of it!

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

yes Divinus, a true fan. I believe this too, yet i observed a change in Rome:TW. The rules of the game changed...

But things could be better:

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 new idea - unlimited movement within your own borders - was achieved in Medieval TW exactly because ships allowed unlimited distance. As soon as ships were opposed however, the chain was broken immediately.

In Rome you can walk through enemy territory and just ignore them. In Medieval that's impossible, leading to more conflict, which is what total war is about.

However:

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.

No this is frustrating. It has been tried and tested, gamers hate this sort of thing. They just reload to get rid of the chance effect.

[iostream]

I for one don't like the campaign map. It's just not interesting at all, and an exercise in tedium. The only redeeming part about it is that it provides a context for your battles on the battle map. Though I hate it, I do micromanage each city's construction and recruitment (the game does a good job at automanaging taxes). I'm a sucker like that.

Seige battles are also almost unbearable for one reasona and one reason only - the horrible HORRIBLE pathfinding. I can't stand the clunkyness, unresponsiveness, unpredictability and sheer stupidity exhibited by units ordered to move around in cities. Other minor gripes are:
1. The camera does not navigate epic stone walls well, it is difficult to see the whole picture with epic stone walls in place.
2. Not much opportunity for tactics in street to street fighting, more like a slugfest. That is, when the AI is not running troops madly from one end of the city to the other, making them exhausted and letting your cavalry run them over from the back. But that is hardly considered tactics, but exploiting AI idiocy.
3. The AI fail bigtime in both seiging and beseiging. There are countless horror stories about their inadequecy in this regard.

[screwtype]

I for one don't like the campaign map. It's just not interesting at all, and an exercise in tedium. The only redeeming part about it is that it provides a context for your battles on the battle map. Though I hate it, I do micromanage each city's construction and recruitment (the game does a good job at automanaging taxes). I'm a sucker like that.

Speaking of "exercises in tedium", I have to wonder why the campaign map shudders so much when you scroll it, and why it scrolls so s-l-o-w-l-y. I also find it annoying how when you hit end turn button the AI units jerk around the map in a manner that is both unattractive and hard to follow.

I just can't understand why the addition of a bit of 3D has suddenly made all the action on the campaign map so jerky and unresponsive. Seems to me it's just naff programming.

Seige battles are also almost unbearable for one reasona and one reason only - the horrible HORRIBLE pathfinding. I can't stand the clunkyness, unresponsiveness, unpredictability and sheer stupidity exhibited by units ordered to move around in cities.

Yeah, I hate the sieges too. I dislike the way you can only click on the roads to move units and not the surrounding grass. What I particularly hate about sieges though is the way the camera "bounces" upwards whenever you have to take it over an obstacle like a house, wall or tree. You have to keep re-adjusting the camera height to get back to the height you prefer. Then you move the camera half a centimetre, it finds itself over another obstacle and bounces up again. The result is that it becomes that much harder to position the camera just where you want it in order to control your troops. Also, you end up fighting the battle way above the battleground with your soldiers as small as ants below which I find to be very uninvolving, because it's too much hassle to keep adjusting the camera.

There are two way I can think of that they could fix this: first, by allowing the camera to pass *through* tall objects instead of bouncing over them, based on the last height you selected (some games do this), or else by having the camera automatically return to the last height you manually set for it when it is no longer over an obstacle. Either method would make for much better control and for a more immersive experience IMO.

Oh, and one other thing I hate about sieges is that the dimensions of the buildings and trees all seem to change depending on the camera position. When the camera is low the buildings don't seem very big at all in proportion to your soldiers, and yet if you track over the top of buildings they seem to grow much taller and your soldiers really tiny by comparison. I find that these shifting dimensions really detract from the sense of realism and my immersion in the game. It's like they didn't work out the 3D properly, or that they used an older-style engine for creating the 3D that isn't up with the latest developments.

Oh, and why are the trees so unbelievably tall?

Not much opportunity for tactics in street to street fighting, more like a slugfest. That is, when the AI is not running troops madly from one end of the city to the other, making them exhausted and letting your cavalry run them over from the back.

Yes the street battles are chaotic, and only made worse by the control problems I've already mentioned.

The AI fail bigtime in both sieging and besieging. There are countless horror stories about their inadequecy in this regard.

Yes, definitely not polished enough, with many silly anomalies occurring.

[screwtype]

I agree the extra siege weaponry, and the true difference in walls (and size of city, but sadly no inner walls) really add to the realism effect.

I don't. Siege weaponry is too powerful and knocks walls down too quickly. There isn't much sense of achievement or realism there. And siege towers are clunky, slow, finicky, and bugged.

I have to come back from what i said about spies and management. They can be fun, but the main point i am trying to make is the time they cost.

Yes you should be able to build as many diplomats/spies etc as you want in a city in a given turn, without it affecting your ability to build a military unit at the same time.

About diplomacy, there are some extra options. But how much do they add to the pleasure of battle? Can you properly gang up on a strong AI nation...?

Speaking of ganging up, I think the most serious omission in the diplomacy logic is not to have AI factions ganging up on you when you take the lead in number of provinces. They can do this in Civ3, so there's no reason it can't be done in RTW. This would help a great deal in preventing the "steamroller" effect.

You need quite a high management (level 9 or 10), and the effect is temporal (i mean, your governors die dont they? especially the good ones, and they tend to be replaced by governors WIHOUT those cool management traits

There never seems to be enough family members to go around, does there? I think they should go back to the MTW model, where you could award a governorship to anyone.

I agree with allowing 1 boat to transport only 1 unit. That'll make you think twice before invading over sea.

I agree with the general principle, but one for one might be a bit harsh. Maybe two units per ship. Then you'd need 10 ships for one full 20-stack army - which is a lot more than you need now, but which wouldn't require you to build huge fleets.

However, those decisive battles did happen soon and decisively. Also, factions reappeared, and you had glory goals. So you did not need to wipe them out just to get your goal.

It really hurt to lose a battle in the earlier games. In RTW, it's of no consequence, you just whip the survivors back to the nearest city and rebuild at the rate of 10 units per turn.

I didn't like the faction reappearance in MTW, but mainly because it was totally random (should have been related to happiness and city management) and because they would always appear with units which were impossible to build in the context of the available infrastructure. which is completely silly.

This new idea - unlimited movement within your own borders - was achieved in Medieval TW exactly because ships allowed unlimited distance. As soon as ships were opposed however, the chain was broken immediately.

I never played MTW that much but I liked being able to shift troops around quickly via sea in STW. It made the game more dynamic. But you should also be able to move them more quickly by land IMO.

No this is frustrating. It has been tried and tested, gamers hate this sort of thing. They just reload to get rid of the chance effect.

Perhaps it's a matter of taste. And maybe a one third chance of not moving would be too much. But I like realism in a game, and the fact is that communications in earlier times were often sorely lacking.

You could link your chance of communicating on time to the quality of roads as well as the general's command stats. The point is that it would throw these aspects into greater relief, give them an added dimension. If a general's stars had a lot to do with his ability to get his army moving on time, then they'd become so much more valuable, wouldn't they?

What I'd like to see in the game is a much more comprehensive set of difficulty settings, like in Imperialism II, where you can set just about every feature individually. So if you wanted imperfect communications, you could set it. If you wanted fatigue, you could set it. If you wanted morale, you could set it. And so on. Then you could tailor the game to your exact preference. But you could still have a bunch of preset difficulty setting (Easy, Normal, Hard, Very Hard etc) for those gamers who don't want to bother with any of that.