Big provinces or small provinces? Your preference

**Taurus** · 08-13-2005, 09:50

Originally Posted by sapi

yes - i think rtr provinces are damn near perfect - more to conquer, more challenging opponents

I agree with you. Although generally I prefer smaller provinces to larger ones owned by the likes of Scythia (vanilla) and Sarmatians (rtr)

- Vip3r

**PseRamesses** · 08-13-2005, 10:21

With only 20 factions present, 200 provinces available size doesn´t matter. RTW is clearly a total war game with a diplomacy feature that really doesn´t work so eventually you´ll be at war with everyone. To delay that, the more province there are the better for build up etc on your part.
Trying out different mods it´s evident that a map like MM, with fever starting provinces and more rebels around a "total war game" is distant. Now in the vanilla game it´s eminent from the start and with RTR some 10-15 into the game (unless you´re playing the Seleucids or Greeks, he he!) My personal playstyle requires build up and semi-pressure from the surrounding factions. I don´t like to go blitz on my neighbours just to prevent them fron doing it to me, it´s simply not realistic.
This is why I´ll go with the maximum amount of provinces any day.

**caesar44** · 08-13-2005, 12:26

A smaller map with more provinces , it will be more realistic .
Why we should have all these territories in Central Asia , Arabia and North Africa ? Huge territories with 1 or 2 factions with 3 or 4 provinces

To take Italy (a small territory) you must conquer 8-10 provinces in contras with Sarmatia . and to think about the army march per turn....damn !!!

**Shaun** · 08-13-2005, 12:57

well the BI map has a little too few provs eg.

Italy-4

iberia-4

the balkans-4 (greece=2, macedonia and greece)

anatolia(turkey)-5

middle east(not including anatolia)-10

north africa-4(inc egypt)

now i got this info from my BI map.

**ToranagaSama** · 08-13-2005, 16:38

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.

I'm one of those that think a name change would be appropriate.

I would like to see more provinces not fewer, but the true issue is not with the number of provinces, but rather the fact that Sieges are too great a part of taking EVERY province.

Taking a castle here and there is would be fun and interesting and a good break from the normal battlefield battles; but having to take a Castle *every* time is tedious, and not what i'm seeking in a TW game.

Lining up Army to army on the field of battle is what the game is about.

What might be a MUCH better effect is to give the AI the capability to *judge* the real potential outcome of a *siege* battle and judge the value of engaging in a siege.

For example, the game s/h the capability to compel the Besieged to surrender. Of course there s/b a good many varying factors to the outcome of a *demand-to-surrender*.

"Surrender you scum! or, I'll killer every last one of you. I'll rape your mothers and sisters. I'll cut off the genitals of your fathers. I'll burn the countryside, reduce your homes to rubble, and leave you naked to suffer, starve and recall my wraith. Surrender be your only hope. Surrender and Live."

Of course CA didn't make any significant improvements to the AI, so what is their solution? Reduce the number of provinces and reduce the number and tedium of Sieges. A *Kludge* fix if ever there was one. So be it, par for the course!