Strategic map Vs. bettle map

[caesar44]

What is more important to you ? that the Total war series should be focused on the map , that is , better faction's AI , complex diplomacy , more internal problems etc' or on the battles , that is , the skins , the amount of soldiers per units etc' ?

[Epistolary Richard]

Moved from Modding forums to Colosseum at request of poster.
.

[IceTorque]

I only play TW games for the 3D battles.

[Zenicetus]

I enjoy some aspects of the strategy part of the game, but I do lean a bit more towards the tactical battles. I like some eye candy at ground level, to help with immersion in a game. And I like having to think on my feet under stress, and deal with a quickly-changing situation (at least in the best of the battle scenarios... they're not all that fun).

Actually, I wish that a future version of this game could somehow do away with the two separate modes and just use a seamless zoom. Why should you have to click a separate button on a drop-down menu to zoom in and look at your cities? Why does the zoom-in have to stop at a certain level on the strategic map, when you're looking at your troops? I don't love the look of the colossal army figures striding around the countryside. I'd be perfectly happy if armies were replaced with an icon when zooming up to the "strategic map" level, and we saw the actual armies when zooming down.

I guess I just prefer games like Warcraft or Kohan II (the last strategy game I played) that are "modeless" and don't break out the strategy map as a completely separate interface. Of course with games like the Warcraft and Kohan campaings, you lose any real sense of the higher geographic/strategic level (where you are in the world), and you're just plunked down in different scenarios. So RTW does much better in that respect. But I still think the interface could be revamped as a single mode, where you seamlessly zoom in or out to get to your "tactical" or "strategic" planning levels.

[Viking]

Actually, I wish that a future version of this game could somehow do away with the two separate modes and just use a seamless zoom. Why should you have to click a separate button on a drop-down menu to zoom in and look at your cities? Why does the zoom-in have to stop at a certain level on the strategic map, when you're looking at your troops? I don't love the look of the colossal army figures striding around the countryside. I'd be perfectly happy if armies were replaced with an icon when zooming up to the "strategic map" level, and we saw the actual armies when zooming down.

Hmm..yes, being able to zoom down from strategical map to battlefield would be real fun, but not possible for TW4 I guess. So therefore I like it as it is now.

[Little Legioner]

Better battlemap is everything which make any totalwar game an epic experience! My vote goes to it...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Better battlemap. Strat map is sufficient.

Mostly, however....

TOUGHER AI, battle and strat. I want a medium setting that fights competently, and a hard setting that will whack my carrot if I don't do well. Even without an improved strat AI, improved battling would make it harder to do some of the silly things that get done. Conquering everything in less than 100 years should be more difficult if not impossible.

[Come Together]

Better battlemap. Strat map is sufficient.

Mostly, however....

TOUGHER AI, battle and strat. I want a medium setting that fights competently, and a hard setting that will whack my carrot if I don't do well. Even without an improved strat AI, improved battling would make it harder to do some of the silly things that get done. Conquering everything in less than 100 years should be more difficult if not impossible.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.
Oh, but i voted better strat map, as it kinda sounded like civil wars and influence/loyalty could be included in it ;].

[bodidley]

Both. As it is, the auto-gen. battlefields are too generic and the terrain is almost beside the point in battles. The change in style of strat map is good theoretically but so often you just spend most of your time snail-marching an army across the continent, and when you get to the enemy, armies don't do much contending for strategic position, they just sorta run into eachother at chokepoints or random places when there aren't any choke points. The "movement" style of campaign could offer so much more in future releases.

[BrandywelBhoy]

Both. As it is, the auto-gen. battlefields are too generic and the terrain is almost beside the point in battles. The change in style of strat map is good theoretically but so often you just spend most of your time snail-marching an army across the continent, and when you get to the enemy, armies don't do much contending for strategic position, they just sorta run into eachother at chokepoints or random places when there aren't any choke points. The "movement" style of campaign could offer so much more in future releases.

Man The battlefields are too generic????? Have u played the Campaign??????
When u enter the battle its like ur on the campaign map, Eg Mountains that u saw on the campaign on ur army right flank will be on ur right flank in the battle map!!! i have rarely come across the same battlegroud twice, and if i have there because im fighting in the exact same place

[caesar44]

I want a better strategy map to include as much as one can about all the political situations in ancient times , and with reason behind every movement of the machine , simple as that (?) I don't mind having only 10 to 20 types of units but as much Ai on the battlefield

[Mongoose]

Man The battlefields are too generic????? Have u played the Campaign??????
When u enter the battle its like ur on the campaign map, Eg Mountains that u saw on the campaign on ur army right flank will be on ur right flank in the battle map!!! i have rarely come across the same battlegroud twice, and if i have there because im fighting in the exact same place

Yes, but the mountain are mere "eye candy" they are out side of the red line and have no effect on gameplay. Also, please don't use more then three "?" 's.


can you see how that could be annoying???????????????????????

complaining aside, welcome to the .org.

[Zenicetus]

Regarding terrain... I do like the "atmospheric" stuff outside the red line, and the way it's more or less geographically correct. I had a battle recently with Aetna smoking in the background, and that kind of thing is cool. But I know what y'all are saying about lack of tactical terrain. It's mostly open field battles. I think I've only had a few battles where I was able to use a large pile of boulders, or a small farm, to anchor one flank of my army and help funnel the enemy where I wanted him.

It would be fun to have small ravines, hedgerows, cliffs, and other obstacles on the field... something that would make me go "hey, I want to defend over THERE instead of here".... or "They're really in a good position, this is going to be tough." Seeing the enemy perched on top of a very gently rolling hill in open terrain doesn't exactly strike fear into my heart.

On the other hand, maybe one reason the terrain is so sparse is that the AI can't handle anything more complex than open field battles.

[pezhetairoi]

I agree about the tactical terrain bit. My pet grouse is that there's too little uneven ground, none in actual fact. We don't see phalanxes breaking up as they move over broken ground. We don't see maniples on mountainsides or broken ground actually breaking up into groups and fighting among the rocks. Rocky ground is just flat ground. We don't see cavalry charges negated on mountainsides (Let's face it, for get the charge of the Rohirrim at Helm's Deep, such things never happen.) or archers taking cover where possible. Large piles of boulders, may I add, are pointless in battle manoeuvres since you can't manoeuvre through them or fight -in- them, you can only manoeuvre around them, and I daresay no general worth his salt is going to choose a battlefield whether as attacker or defender with such a terrain feature. Generals choosing rivers and mountains for flank protection are fair and good, but generals choosing a big lump of rock that sits right in the middle of his formation breaking up his line like a gigantic turd is a turd himself as far as I'm concerned. But sadly that's what the AI makes all generals turn out to be at one time or other in their lifetime.

[Ludens]

I agree about the tactical terrain bit. My pet grouse is that there's too little uneven ground, none in actual fact. We don't see phalanxes breaking up as they move over broken ground. We don't see maniples on mountainsides or broken ground actually breaking up into groups and fighting among the rocks. Rocky ground is just flat ground. We don't see cavalry charges negated on mountainsides (...) or archers taking cover where possible. Large piles of boulders, may I add, are pointless in battle manoeuvres since you can't manoeuvre through them or fight -in- them, you can only manoeuvre around them, and I daresay no general worth his salt is going to choose a battlefield whether as attacker or defender with such a terrain feature. Generals choosing rivers and mountains for flank protection are fair and good, but generals choosing a big lump of rock that sits right in the middle of his formation breaking up his line like a gigantic turd is a turd himself as far as I'm concerned. But sadly that's what the AI makes all generals turn out to be at one time or other in their lifetime.

I second that. What we need are more varied battlemaps and an AI capable of making use of them.

[Little Legioner]

Geographic conditions was affecting the battles result in older series. Actually everybody accept that fact is RTW maps slightly dull and flat. When we examine to decisive battles of antique warfare era or only historic battles of RTW we see the same reality is that every battle critically bounded with battlefields structure... We had writen that kind of messages of tons. But somehow CA denied or didn't want to think about it dramatically.

We loved STW and MTW too much. They had Risk style Strat maps but we did'nt mention that as a problem coz battles were satisfying us beyond expectations. It was simple and enaugh to reflect strategic game ambience. In RTW 3D strat map has come a revolutionary feature us but lost older battlefield experience sadly. Generated maps instead of prepared maps idea has never tried by CA and it was first move. It could be great thing if they made support some geographic elements such as hills, elevations or rivercrossings. With unhistoric units, fast kill rates and flat and featureless battefields that result was a great sad disappointment. Wasn't it?

My vote always goes to battlemaps first. Strat comes second.

[ToranagaSama]

What is more important to you ? that the Total war series should be focused on the map , that is , better faction's AI , complex diplomacy , more internal problems etc' or on the battles , that is , the skins , the amount of soldiers per units etc' ?

Your question is rather inane, and consequently the poll is impossible to answer.

First, the Total War series is NOT about either/or, but about the INTERGRATION of the two. Get it?

There is no need for an either/or, though, at times there may be need for an emphasis upon one or the other.

Second, you reduce the battle*map* to, skins and unit size. This is the least of what the battlemap is about.

Using the "Battle Map" as a category header, then there are is LOT of work needed to get it up to speed-----A LOT!

First and foremost is the Battle AI, frankly it should never have been released. Nuff said.

Second, the auto-generic, oppps, -generated maps have got to go. Hire VERY GOOD Artists and Designers and get to work. That's it. That simple. PERIOD!

Terrain, Terrain, Terrain, Terrain, Terrain!

Let's put the meaning ot Terrain back into the maps. Please!

Thank you.

Screw it, just make it simple, just adapt (ACCURRATELY!!! FASTIDOUSLY!!!) the old Shogun maps and those MTW maps which are significantly different. I'll settle for that.

Oh, excuse me. That is, adapt the engine so it can render those maps. Thank you.

Now, in regard to the Campaign Map:

Visually it is a masterpiece. Unfortunately, I do not believe it serves its Strategic purpose, as well as the 2D Parchment map of STW/MTW.

RTW's Campaign is not truly Strategic, its nature a good bit more focused upon the tactical. Grand tactics perhaps, but just short of true strategy.

You know, I just thought about this, I believe this is what should be done:

I think the Parchment Map s/b brought back as the Grand Strategic Platform. Of course, this needs a bit more thought, but off the top of my head, unit Stacks would be moveable from Province to Province on the Strat Map. The Strat Map would relate the provincial viewpoint of Politics and War---GeoPolitical.

Double-click on a particular Province(, or drop a stack onto an enemey stack) then the Player is brought to a 3D (RTW-like) Map of that particular province.

The *war* is then brought from the Grand Strategic (GeoPolitical) stage (the stage of Kings, Queens, Presidents, Damiyos, and Chiefs of Staffs) to a sort of Grand Tactical stage (the stage of Generals 2 and 3 stars), the Pattons, Gregorians, Rommels and Montgomeys, etc.

This is where the manuevering of Armies is done, seeking advantage. Where bridges, forts, forests and high ground are taken. Positioning is the key and purpose. Where an enemy must be trapped, pushed or compelled into battle (much like reality).

Finally, the Battle Map, itself, where the battle is fought on a unit to unit level, a pure Tactical Stage, the stage of Majors, Colonels and 1 Star Generals.

Is anyone picturing this?

[Coldfish]

I spend more time on the campaign map....therefore i voted the campaign map

In my campaigns i avoid unnecessary wars...and i play a lots with diplomats...i go to war where is really important

[IceTorque]

ToranagaSama- yes m8 i can picture it, now if only the powers that be could too, then perhaps we would have a true evolution of TW games.

[ToranagaSama]

IceTorque, thank you for having the vision.

Maybe, I'll expand on the thought and post next week.

[Little Legioner]

Toranaga i can picture it too and mate i opened several topics about battlefields for several times before on TWC. ORG. and COM. forums. I completely sharing your opinions to teeth.

[bippukt]

My vote goes to an improved strategic map, with an improved AI.

[Marcellus]

My vote goes to an improved strategic map, with an improved AI.

Same here. When I voted for an improved strategy map, I meant improving the AI, diplomacy, etc., not the map itself.

[bodidley]

Is anyone picturing this?

I've been thinking of something along similar lines for quite some time. It would also make supply-lines, march speeds, and blockade a whole lot easier to simulate, and it would eliminate the annoying snail-crawls across the map. One could do it with a Risk style board, or one could simply make armies stay put whenever they clash in the campaign mode until the end of the turn, and then have all nearby armies participate in this "war-of-manouvre" mode.

[Slug For A Butt]

Maybe YOU want to code all thatTorenaga? They get enough shit for the work they have done already
Personally I want a strat map that changes movement dependant on whether a battle I just fought there was heavy rain or bright sunshine (obviously harder to move as far in a waterlogged terrain).
I want family members that suddenly develop contrasting traits due to schizophrenia.
I want some navies ships do be less seaworthy because of the woodworm inherant in that part of the world.
As well as seeing the whole battlefield MTW/RTW style, I want to be able to zoom in on each mans wounds and decide if I want to withdraw him individually because he has a nasty gash on his thigh which will stop him charging efficiently.
I want to be able to give my own rousing speech to my men before a battle so that I can influence their morale myself.
I want a centrally heated toilet seat.
I want a guaranteed lottery winner every week.
I want a microwave meal that tastes better than the packaging it came in.
I want...etc

I think they've done a good job, and for £25 we've got a sweet deal. We can all wish for more, but it's still the best game of it's genre on the market at the moment. Some people are never satisfied, this game is lightyears ahead of any other on the market unless you can correct me, so why are you trying to fundamentally redesign it?
Wishlists are one thing, but trying to post them as constructive criticism is just plain wrong.

[bodidley]

Just plain wrong? And here I thought waylaying travellers and feeding their remains to unsuspecting dinner guests was "just plain wrong" Apparently there's a whole deeper layer to morality! Suggestions? On A forum? You're right, that kind of talk belongs in the gutter.

I seriously doubt that RTW is "lightyears" ahead of its competition. Try "a" year. The world keeps on turning, why should we expect RTW as it is to be the most refined game CA, or another company could possibly come up with?

[Little Legioner]

Maybe YOU want to code all thatTorenaga?

Before speech maybe YOU want to play older series for getting a clear picture. Toranaga's route was on the traditions which make older series so successful. As a tactical stage the battlefields was most important platform to reflect your developed economy, diplomacy and military talent. If you put unhistoric units such as German moaning girls and Briton rugby hurlers to make some fantasy and fun? Let me continue, if you make the grounds so featureless so flat, old buddy TW spirits goes and ordinary 3D wargame nightmare comes. That's not TW way. We love this game too much, what are you assuming ourselves? Bunch of troublemakers? I play TW series for years and we will defend our cases getting it's power from traditions to till the end. Many of fans and me think like Toranaga. We want to see back old TW spirit again and i'm not seeking a personal satisfaction. CA knows better what they created before and what they make them a legend before. If you put aside "realistic-epic" battles, farewell to legend and buddy don't try to give us a lesson. Bye

[Divinus Arma]

Better Strategy Map with broader and more complex options, outcomes, and possibilitites. That said, the tactical decision making of the battlefield AI needs improving alot.

[Puzz3D]

I think if the tactical battles were improved then the strategic game would become more challenging, so I would look at improving the battlemaps. It has been noted by players that the AI doesn't value hills in RTW. I clearly recall, around the time that RTW was relased, someone from CA saying that the combat bonuses for being on a hill were reduced because new players would be confused by it. It's quite possible that decision messed up the AI because now the hill bonus is so small that the AI doesn't recognize it as an advantage. Other parameter values being plugged into the game could be messing up the AI as well. The parameter values chosen should be re-evaluated because it's difficult to believe that the AI forgot how to fight open field battles as well as it could in the previous games. Also, this high level decision by CA to change battlefield parameter values in an attempt to make the game more suitable to new players is unnecessary. The game has an arcade mode which is there for that purpose, so they could have simply put the reduced hill bonus in the arcade setting.

[Little Legioner]

For the best result that just compare the same measurement for the older series. STW and MTW didn't have improved 3D campaign map. They had a simple Risk style table maps but they were perfect and they made their own style in Strategy genre. What was the most promoted part of them by game portals and especially fans? Epic&Realistic battles. I don't deny strategic map side but it can't be never a majority. Whatever you do in your cities and campaign map your glory and real challenge against your enemy lies in the battlefields.

My suggestion to CA if they want to learn certain stance of fans you just make a survey on Battlefields. "Did you satisfied from RTW battlemaps? Yes or no" so simple as i written.