Choosing your ground

[Marshal Murat]

When I heard that RTW would have tiles to fight on, not provinces, I was overjoyed. I figured I could not hit the enemy hard, by choosing my own ground for attack and defense.
What usually happens is that I have a stack army, send it around the area beating off bandits with a stick, then while I'm resting, some enemy drops off a ship, hits me in the arse, and I could retreat, but I don't choose where, and decide to battle it out.
Never, ever, did I choose the battleground the whole two years.
Now I know it is a little hard to figure out what the tiles are, and how they correspond.
Anyway,
Has anyone, ever chosen ground for a enemy to come and fight, for the decisive battle, the war winner, has anyone ever done so, and how?

[Aegisthis The Infantryman]

I always try to get it on a bridge but it's always just a couple of kilometers off. It's quite annoying how I can't have a simple bridge battle on the campaign map.

[PseRamesses]

I always try to get it on a bridge but it's always just a couple of kilometers off. It's quite annoying how I can't have a simple bridge battle on the campaign map.

Just park your army on the bridge and if you want to lure the enemy to a bridge-battle just park one or two strong def units on the bridge and the rest of the army just behind them. The enemy will attack the small force on the bridge and you´ll get your large army as re-inforcements.

[Aegisthis The Infantryman]

Yeah, thanks and I suppose it might work with that tile thing only you can't, unfortunately, see where the tiles are. Maybe they'll include visible tiles in the expansion

[Deus ret.]

Tiles are not visible but you can localize them nevertheless: by selecting a stack, holding the right mouse button for the route to appear and then drawing it over the map. You'll notice that the route arrow moves not in the same way your mouse pointer does but has intervals; these intervals mark the tiles you are currently selecting.

Admittedly it's annoying.

As for selecting the ground, that's difficult if you don't stick to bridges where the enemy has no choice but to attack you. In other cases, they'll often pass your army and put themselves in a more favorable position, forcing you to attack -- on the ground of their choice.

Also, resting on steep hill terrain on the campaign map is not a guarantee for an opportune battlefield. It may well be that the enemy attacks you DOWN the hill, leaving you only with the valley as room for deployment. That's the point at which the game actually becomes somewhat challenging....

[Azi Tohak]

I just attack enemy cities, and I sit wherever I might like. The AI always comes after me, and then, I smack them for their temerity.

I like playin defense

Azi

[Lancome]

On my Greek Campaign I usually Put my units on the Hills. When the Enemy comes running Up the hill Just shower them w/ arrows and when they reach your forces just Poke them w/ you Hoplites.

[Marcellus]

I don't tend to bother with choosing which tile to fight on. I just attack the enemy and crush them. It's a lot more fun.

[Colovion]

I find that it makes no difference which place I choose to fight, it's nearly always the same. Bridges are an exception. For the most part though your army doesn't inhabit a large enough area for having a mountain pass really be all that strategic or much of a difference to fighting in an open plain as opposed to the tile between two mountains. Even if you choose to fight in an area and feel it's good enough for duking it out with your opponent, when the battle loads, you find your soldiers in the most awkward of places. And it isn't as if you have the time to skirt up a mountain pass and hold that, there just isn't the time or the terrain detail for that kind of thing. So basically I see no reason to choose the ground for the battle aside from the meagre area you can maneuver around in one the battle commences.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I have set up hoplite armies in the passes of Greece to fend off the Brutii and Macedonians, but they are usually attrition wars, not war-winners.

I have also used hoplite walls in sieges in the city of Tarentum to bleed the Romans dry in RTR while I fight my main abttles against the Thracians and Carthaginians, again mainly attrition not generally war-winners.

[Lord Adherbal]

RTW maps are quite a disappointment. Virtually no terrain features that offer any strategic options, only elevation (which results in a MUCH too big combat bonus) and forests (which are a bit bugged, projectiles shot from inside a forest at an enemy in the open dont seem to suffer any penalty).
If you see that creating impassible terrain is impossible even in the battle editor then you realise the terrain system is very simplistic.

[Deus ret.]

Virtually no terrain features that offer any strategic options, only elevation (which results in a MUCH too big combat bonus) and forests (which are a bit bugged, projectiles shot from inside a forest at an enemy in the open dont seem to suffer any penalty).

I think due reference is payed to the influence of elevation. Have you ever tried to fight uphill in battle gear? To face a charge down a hill? Or to shoot arrows with the hope of bypassing the enemy's armor, since the lower ground largely prevents it from punching through the cuirass? I haven't really, either, just went to some live role playing cons some time ago and learned a few basic things about combat. Yes, the higher ground does matter that much.

As for the forests, though, you're right. And indeed they could have added some terrain features which would make a difference to plain grass not only in the graphics.

[The Wizard]

Since RTW vanilla does not feature any terrain of importance, or very rarely, I don't choose ground. It's not needed. Just have some good warriors and charge. GGNORETHX, my 200th win with no losses!

Deus ret., what Adherbal is saying is that RTW vanilla does not have any terrain. Occasionally a hill, but the AI just leaves it. Terrain should matter like it did in MTW, but in RTW, due to such things as mountain passes having to be as flat as sea-level ground (probably having to do with the tile system), terrain never shows up in campaign battles. And territory listed as 'hils' when right-clicked is really just flat ground with slight elevation differences here and there. A world away from MTW's hills. A big pity that the new campaign map, perhaps inadvertedly, perhaps not, took away terrain as a feature of importance.



~Wiz

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The worst out there are some small hills. It's like, "Oh no. A small hill. Knoll? Oh, my soldiers will have to fly slightly faster to win in 5 minutes."

[pezhetairoi]

Not to mention that NO amount of uneven ground whatsoever will make your impregnable phalanxes lose formation, therefore overpowering them in their front. There has only ever been one battle that I choose my ground to fight on--that is the Rome sally battle that I will always fight--I land on the river ford just next to Rome, and besiege it. The next turn the combined Senate army comes pouring out (often at numerical disadvantage but qualitative advantage) and hits me. No matter where their field army is, it and the garrison will ALWAYS hit me both on the same side of the river, so I just form a semicircle and have fun. It's always a real slaughter, a real scream. Yeah. that's the only battleground I choose, because it's the only place that I'm guaranteed a battle in any campaign save the Senate campaign.

[Horatius]

I always try to get it on a bridge but it's always just a couple of kilometers off. It's quite annoying how I can't have a simple bridge battle on the campaign map.

I fought plenty of bridge battles, Egyptians just love attacking my armies no matter were they are, and so I fought a lot on the bridge outside Alexandria, were I send my armies for easy victories when attacking Egypt.

Also the hills matter a lot, I have never lost a defensive battle fought on a hill, the enemy army is always tired when it gets to me, and the archers are extra effective thanks to that, and the cavalry are all the more devastating.

[Papewaio]

8 Phalanx units (huge) in a circle, doesn't matter where my enemy fights me, I just chose a flat part of the ground. If I have weaker units in the Phalanx they are placed facing a forest and the good units face directly at the oncomming horde.

So Armoured at the front, flanked by Hopilites going around to the rear with Militia.

Sometimes I alternate Armoured/Militia.

In the gooey center sit Cretan Archers, General and if possible a unit of Spartans as reserves.

[Oda Nobunaga]

And you cant Incinerate anyone!!!! In dry weather, fire arrows launched into tall grass or dense forests should ignite the area, causing massive casualties for anyone stupid enough to stand around. Granted most Europeans didnt use fire attacks... well ever, but that doesen't mean you shouldent have the option to, afterall, if you had to follow history exactly, you could only win as the julii

[LestaT]

Well, we can choose and hope that the enemy will fall into the trap. It didn't happened much in real history. The only ones that makes into history books are few exception.

[pezhetairoi]

Papewaio: good tactic, I use that all the time. But be warned: it is weak against other phalanxes, and if you're not playing the Germans or a pike faction, the Romans also have a chance of forcing their way through the spear hedge, making your soldiers switch to swords, upon which they. are. dead.

[ToranagaSama]

I'm not sure I understand.

I dunno, I seem to be capable of choosing my ground most anytime I have the opportunity or inclination to do so. In this respect, RTW is superior to MTW/STW.

I have chosen whether to fight in a Forest (which I hate!); whether to fight on the beach, and, the *particular* beach. Most importantly (if you play with handicaps or, at least attempt to), thru a couple of methods I've chosen *placement* so that I have the downhill advantage. I've won at least two outnumbered battles this way. Downhill on the beach.

Regarding the *tiles*, you have to fight battles, and then REMEMBER the terrain. If you don't have a good memory, then I guess choosing ground could be difficult; but, as long as you remember the terrain you have fought on previously, then you know where to place your stack in order to gain advantage: Uphill, put a Forest to your flank, etc.

One thing that's for sure, if you're playing straight up Vanilla, that is the Vanilla version, with *vanilla* Rules, not to mention taking advantage of all the AI and game weaknesses---it really doesn't matter.

Playing so, Re Elevation, I haven't experienced it to be any real disadvantage fighting Uphill, unless you find some of units in a deep gully; and this only happens if/when the battles goes all willy nilly with units running all over the place and happend to get caught. Happens.

This thread is sorta depressing. What's happened to the TW player?

The thread is a testament to either the TW Player deteriorating or to the game's deterioration. Seems like the game had deteriorated to a degree that either the Player doesn't need to develop a Full/Real skill set; and/or, the Player doesn't really *need* to apply such.

Choosing ground: doesn't matter
Elevation: doesn't matter
Terrain: doesn't matter

To the Vets, can you imagine taking such an attitude playing STW???

Gosh, I can remember in STW taking my Army on long circuitous routes, pausing along the way so my units can refresh, to gain any and every terrain advantage before attacking.

The Wizard

A big pity that the new campaign map, perhaps inadvertedly, perhaps not, took away terrain as a feature of importance.

So true, so true.

One can only wonder if CA's decisions were based upon a valuation of Eye-Candy vs. Gameplay, or whether its a matter of immature code. My guess? CA has taken a different turn than what was previously. Just look (at the screenshots) and think about *Night-Battles*, which is PURE Eye-Candy! A LOT of effort went into creating night-battles, but acretive to gameplay will they actually be? I've afraid very little, much like the pretty 3D campaign map. Pretty, but not as functional toward gameply.

And you cant Incinerate anyone!!!! In dry weather, fire arrows launched into tall grass or dense forests should ignite the area, causing massive casualties for anyone stupid enough to stand around. Granted most Europeans didnt use fire attacks... well ever, but that doesen't mean you shouldent have the option to, afterall, if you had to follow history exactly, you could only win as the julii

Never happened in history; let's do it anyway.
Will cause **massive** casualties without ANY appreciative SKILL level; let's do it anyway.
Even if it makes absolutely NO sense; let's do it anyway.

EXACTLY **why** should this be incorporated?

Does it add to the Strategic skill level? Tactical skill? Gameplay? I mean it would take ZERO skill level to apply such a tactic.

EYE-CANDY, EYE-CANDY, EYE-CANDY, EYE-CANDY, EYE-CANDY.