Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Battlefields&Distances

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Terrible Turk Member Little Legioner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Somewhere in Balkans. Collecting younglings for the Janissary corps. Preparing the troops for upcoming war.
    Posts
    206

    Default Battlefields&Distances

    Ave

    Fellas, i think larger battlefields and far distances between armies which in STW and MTW were better than RTW. Why? Coz distances gives many tactical opportunities to the player.

    I think RTW battlefields too flat. When you fight huge unit option you will never make a proper manouver! Armies very close to each other. Its make me crazy.

    Why red lines? Why are you limiting playground? Where is positioning, hiding the troops, surprise element? STW-MTW battlefields had great potential for tactical operations...

    Our primary point is:
    1- distances between armies.

    2- weak foliage and geographical elements of battlefields.
    * just compare historical battles and campaign battles. first cleverly reflected and enriched with many forests (gergovia), heights (trasimene), river passings and hills . Just remember Telamon, Trasimene and Trebia nearly all of them was really perfect and wisely designed...

    3- small battlefields for huge/big sized armies. no proper maneuvering. you could just ramming to your opponent. clash of the titans nothing more!

    So, if the designers made ordinary campaign maps like historic battlefields... We don't need to write such as this topic...

    TW Fan Cloudnine wrote that message as a Reply

    In this relevant old thread - forums.totalwar.org/vb/sh...ge=1&pp=30
    Jerome Grasdyke of CA claimed the battlefields were twice the size of those in MTW. This is simply not true for normal battles - the usable area is in fact smaller. I`ve measured them at 1KM square, with a deployment zone only 800 metres wide.
    (Jerome Grasdyke of CA)

    "The viewable area is a actually a little larger than 9 battlemaps though - it's actually a grid of 17x17, with the playable area at the center, and the battlefield size is currently 2km x 2km... make 'em much bigger and it just gets too hard chasing down the enemy, make 'em smaller and the larger cities don't fit"

    "As with many other things about games prior to release we're still experimenting with this, so take it all with a grain of salt, but right now the playable area is a little less than double Medieval's size - 2 x 2 km rather than 1.2 x 1.2 km.

    The battlefield size is a pretty important gameplay balancing thing - smaller battlefield = quicker, more intense battles, larger battlefield = more realistic, but slower paced, and occasionally annoying when enemies go missing. It's a question of tweak, tweak, tweak until it's right"

    The problem is with a battlefield only 800 metres wide, and the enemy about 300 metres away from you at the start, there`s simply no room to manoevre larger armies on Huge unit size.
    When I saw Time Commanders I was really impressed by the large battlefields, troops marching up and deploying into position before engaging etc. The retail game bears little resemblance to what I hoped I`d be getting - hope falsely boosted by the programme and Jerome`s claim that battlefields would be twice the size of Medieval TW. They are in fact 1/4 the area claimed (1 square Km not 4 square Kms)

    The crazy thing is that for seiges, Tuetoburg Forest and multiplayer(?) we can have the large 2Km square battlefield. So why not for normal campaign battles? It doesn`t make any sense that they are deliberately limited, although Jerome`s comment on "smaller battlefield = quicker, more intense battles" is an indication.

    Small battlefieds + fast moving units + fast kill rates & routs = battle over in a couple of minutes, which is what CA seem to think we want
    .

    lt1956 form TOTALWAR.COM
    I agree Larger maps are needed, I always play Huge settings and in SPQR HUGE is the optimized setting for the game. I too noticed lack of room for movement, unless you are righti n the middle of a forest there usually isnt anywhere to hide forces etc, because the maps are very small for 6000+ men even 4000. It would be nice to see in the expansion the following.
    I could say one thing many of fans especially who plays TW series since STW they don't like RTW battle system. I'm one of them.

    So, mates what do you think. Especially i will be happy if i get a official satement from CA staff.

    Sincerely


    Finest goods and lowest prices in all Cyrodiil.

  2. #2
    Keeper of Glyphs Member [DnC]'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Netherlands, Flevoland, Lelystad
    Posts
    561

    Default Re: Battlefields&Distances

    I too was disappointed in the rather boring terrains and small size of the battlefields, especially the terrains. The armies could indeed be a bit further from eachother. The rebels seem to place them farther away in certain battles, but I can't recall any "factions" doing that. Either change the last part or make them start a bit more in the back, but then the battlefields need to be a bit bigger. Anyways, many terrains are usually one big slope or such and not very interesting for exciting battles. They should have more diversity in landscape for more tactical deployment and maneuver. They way it is now is just that they are tad dull and makes playing battles somewhat repetitive.

  3. #3
    One of the Undutchables Member The Stranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Nowhere...
    Posts
    11,757

    Default Re: Battlefields&Distances

    true, but bridge battles are awesome

    We do not sow.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Battlefields&Distances

    The small size of the battlefields, severely reduces the potential tactics of your army or the enemy army, you can see the enemy army straight ahead of you so anything they do you can see so battles usually end up in being boring slogging matches that because of the crap AI and the fact battles last about 30 seconds makes me feel like throwing RTW out the window or wasting my time.

    If maps were larger, thered be not as much need for ambushes on the world map, as you could set up your own (assuming the AI doesnt see ambushes even when they are apparently hidden abit like in MTW) itd just make the battle more interesting. Aside from map size maps need detail badly, not just a basic hill bang smack in the middle, but proper geography, gorges, valleys, marshland, passes through woodland.

    I think also at some points if an enemy is nearby but not quite close enough to engage your army in pitched battle that you abit like in Teutoburg forest have to march your army to the other end of the map to carry on the march, your enemy can harrass your army or race after you and attack you on the march.

    The ambushes on RTW now are so daft and basic that in reality very basic recon would have foiled them.

    Theres alot of work that can be done with the battlefield and world map in general, coupled with improved performance of the AI and battles and campaigns could be much more interesting.

  5. #5
    robotica erotica Member Colovion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Victoria, Canada
    Posts
    2,295

    Default Re: Battlefields&Distances

    So far I've only seen the "rolling hills" and "flat land" and "forest" battlefields. THere aren't really any "broken land" or jutting rocks which form a ridge or well - it all seems very mutes and smoothed off into a hill that is easily traversed aside from a few rocks or trees here and there.

    Though the maps look amazing, they could be improved upon. Do I expect they will before the XP? No. But they should be before the next 'Evolutionary' release.
    robotica erotica

  6. #6
    Idiot Slayer Member bubbanator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Look behind you...
    Posts
    161

    Default Re: Battlefields&Distances

    You have to take into account the fact that, with the large fatigue penalties, very large maps would give an advantage to the player who wasn't moving. Also, large "civilized" battles in Roman days were usualy set up in a clearing where armies could move around without rocks and trees messing up formations, movement, or communication. Unless it was an ambush, the battles were fought in a clear, fairly flat spot of land, granted there were usualy nearby forests and the such for concealing archers or calvalry, but the bulk of the infantry fighting was usualy fought in open ground. Another thing, the phalanx would lose much of its value with trees and hills and gorges all over the landscape because of the disrupted formations. I do think that the maps need a bit of work, but making them massive areas with many terrain features is impractical without modding the game to decrease the penalties for fatigue and broken formation. However, that would cause an imbalance in flatland battles. The battle maps aren't perfect, but they are very good concidering all of the factors that you have to take into account.
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups...

    "Incompetence - When you earnestly believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do. "

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