Battlefields&Distances

**sapi** · 05-10-2005, 08:09

true, but bridge battles are awesome

Seconds - but one depleted unit breaking often triggers mass rout and the enemy rout to YOUR side of the bridge

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.

I got 4 in a row last night (two sets of two battles on the same ground), allowing me to just defend one area with my flanks covered by a ridge - it was great and should happen more often, the only problem being the ridge wasn't in my deployment area so i had to run to it once the battle started

The only thing I hate about that redline is when skirmishers get trapped there, and when you hit the withdraw button they go to where they came from and not for the closest redline.

My general tried that through the entire enemy army!
I'm no programmer, just a player, but could this be the cause of the enemy routing to your side of the bridge on a bridge battle? Just a thought, it's probably wrong :)

**Marcus Maxentius** · 05-11-2005, 00:18

I think the battle maps are pretty detailed for being auto-generated. It'd be nice if every square of the map was pre-rendered, but I can understand why they couldn't take the time from the scale of the game. The historical battles are self-contained "levels" and they can put in as much detail as they want. There are ways they could have done it better, but the maps seem big enough for me.

**Colovion** · 05-11-2005, 01:04

I'd rather have better AI and other features being fully fleshed out and FIXED rather than have them dally on the battlemap.

**pezhetairoi** · 05-11-2005, 01:06

correcto. My sentiments exactly.

**Aegisthis The Infantryman** · 05-11-2005, 21:00

I think the terrain in some places in rome total war is very interesting and adds slight tactical advantage but it would be good if there was more.

**HarunTaiwan** · 05-12-2005, 03:59

I think some of the Alpine battles I have played have overly steep mountains.

C'mon, we aren't billy goats in armor.

**pezhetairoi** · 05-12-2005, 05:05

It's also annoying when I don't know how to incline the camera enough to actually see the opposing army on a high ridge. Alpine battles are nuts. We're fighting in the passes and valleys, not on the peaks.

**professorspatula** · 05-12-2005, 05:10

The featureless terrain is certainly a disappointment in RTW. There's a few slopes here and there, a few thickets of trees and the odd rock outcrop, but generally every battle plays out much the same regardless - like it's one big open flat landscape. Even with massive mountain slopes, you can still attack from all directions (unless the red line prevents you), and there's barely a natural barrier in sight. In MTW I was forever trying to gain the high-ground or stationing my force near some buildings or forest for some cover. With the fast battles of RTW, terrain is often a minor consideration. For example: cavalry may be inferior in wooded areas, but you can charge them so quickly into the rear of the enemy and rout them, that it seldom matters.

I hope in the next installment of the TW series, the terrain generator creates more realistic and varied landscapes. Coupled with a larger map area, you could have armies defending a narrow moutain pass, with the attacker forced to attack the chokepoint whilst also sending another force on a long journey to get behind the enemy position (with the route also guarded). That type of thing. Basically having the terrain feature more heavily in our tactics would be great.