Big provinces or small provinces? Your preference

[Epistolary Richard]

As we've seen from screenshots, Barbarian Invasions looks like it's going to have fewer, larger provinces than RTW.

I know many people jumped on this with annoyance, that they expected more provinces from BI, not fewer - and yet in the past I have also come across people railing against the game for being "Rome Total Siege" as they resented the number of cities they had to conquer - even more so in the mods that take the number of settlements to their limits.

So, people like field battles, people like their sieges to be significant and not just one in a chain, yet people still like to have individual territories as closely defined as possible.

Which do you prefer, and why?
.

[The Stranger]

i like medium, i do think that the map of RTR and EB are to big but in someway it is also cool. i think the vanilla map was the best though.

i always autoresolve sieges (when i'm the attacking side) and i fight in a way that i deplete the defending side by luring them into an openterrain battle, it always work. i have a cool battle somtimes outnumbered 1:20 (physicly) and i dont have to fight in a town.

[RabidGibbon]

I prefer a larger province in general, but having said that I can't play the Sarmatians, because theirs just too much ground to cover between each city.

Yet Siegeathons are remarkably dull. A happy medium for me would be Gaul and Iberia.

[The Stranger]

yeah.

[bubbanator]

Yes, I would have to agree. I can't stand playing as the Numidians just because it takes five turns to get anywhere at all. However, if I was fighting field battles in those five turns...

But I think that the size of the provinces in Iberia in vinilla are nearly perfect size. Not too big, not too small.

[gardibolt]

Larger territories would be fine if movement weren't so ridiculously slow. But it is, which makes big territories a serious annoyance (especially since they tend to be impoverished anyway, which makes it a lot of movement for little gain).