Battlefields&Distances

**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.

**pezhetairoi** · 05-12-2005, 05:16

for that, movement speed would have to be way slower, or we should all just play the SPQR mod where armour levels are jacked up uberly high to ensure soldiers survieve longer, don't break so quickly, and the fight will last longer. And I think we should need longer battle time limits too.

**IliaDN** · 05-12-2005, 05:21

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

And I think we should need longer battle time limits too.

I think time limit gives more interest to battles, maybe just because I never had problem with " not enough time " !!!

**Reverend Joe** · 05-12-2005, 05:34

I think we don't need time limits at all. The terrain does need more features, true, but this would be mainly by drastically expanding the battle map. Frankly, I think the battles worked much better in MTW because the soldiers were tiny.

**professorspatula** · 05-12-2005, 05:51

There's no point in expanding a map if it's just going to be more of the same.... more big open spaces. Marshland, ditches, gorges, valleys, supermarket shopping trolleys... we need obstacles and variation.

As to the previous titles' tiny units, you're right there. Some of the battles felt almost epic, despite their small size, because it took the little critters an age and a half to move across the map and engage the enemy. And when they did get stuck in, damn they were exchanging blows for a good few minutes. Well compared to RTW, a long time.

To be fair to the maps in RTW though, when you have more than two factions fighting (in custom battles anyway) the map is expanded so there is more room for fighting and running away. If only the AI wouldn't waste its energy chasing routers all the way across the map though.

**pezhetairoi** · 05-12-2005, 08:00

Originally Posted by professorspatula

supermarket shopping trolleys...

...the hey?!? XD

Obstacles would be nice. It would, for example, be much more pleasant to have brush and undergrowth on the ground, such that hoplite formations would be broken up like they were at Pydna. I would like the terrain features to be finer, so that we can actually see hoplite formations losing their neat dressing as they march over it. Right now terrain features are too large compared to the armies it must support.

**Little Legioner** · 05-12-2005, 14:27

I am looking for a official statements. Coz my point are very clear and simple.

So:

1- Fast battles, flat grounds, basic land, high kill rates, close armies, small map. (Current Situation)

2- Long battles, non-flat grounds "broken land", slow kill rates, far armies, bigger map. 2kX2k.

Like Teuteburg...

Dear CA staff please make a comment or decision. Battlefields and combat philosophy is everything about the game. Community could make perfect mods for skins, musics etc etc but they cannot modify what we are talking for. Situation directly related on your decision and behavior.

**Marcus Maxentius** · 05-12-2005, 23:13

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

...the hey?!? XD

Obstacles would be nice... so that we can actually see hoplite formations losing their neat dressing as they march over it. Right now terrain features are too large compared to the armies it must support.

I was hoping for that. Right now, you have to whittle them down a lot before the wall starts breaking down. I wanted bodies to hamper the integrity, too.

**Marcus Maxentius** · 05-12-2005, 23:27

I want to try Medieval now that it's so cheap. But it sounds like the previous TW games played like this PS game called KESSEN based during the Tokugawa period. Great game that let you pick units and assign generals, but the battles were tediously slow. I have ADD and I gave up because even simple battles would take 30 minutes because the maps were huge and the units moved slowly. It was agonizing to try to save a losing battle and waiting for my reinforcing units to march across the map like it was the state of california.

The maps don't have to be huge, just big enough to allow enough tactical movements so that one "gets the idea" so to speak. And have enough terrain to use ancient war tactics. I don't want to play a game where it's like a Dragonball Z episode where both sides posture and decieve and posture and deceive before the big apocolytic battle. Just fight already.