Larger and better battle map...

[Dutch_guy]

We all know that compared to MTW, Rome has a very small constricted battle map - not even going to start about the detail the Rome maps have...
Which I've always found a waste, considering there was no room for any movement without breaking your line and getting stuck in the advancing enemy and even worse no tactical manouveres and redeployment of your troops.

Also all in all getting from your side of the map to the enemy - on the opposite side - would take you about 3 minutes, in medieval it would take you at least twice that amount.


So anyway, what would you all like to see changed in the MTW2 battle map - other than hope it's just bigger ?

Would you like CA to go back to Medieval or do you like it the way it is in Rome/ BI ?

[aw89]

It is MTW2 isn't it

I'd be nice if they would be more like the MTW maps too. (Hills etc)

[Ibn Munqidh]

I like it the way it is in RTW, I hate chasing off routing men for half an hour. Yet I do want more detail.

[Quietus]

We all know that compared to MTW, Rome has a very small constricted battle map - not even going to start about the detail the Rome maps have...
Which I've always found a waste, considering there was no room for any movement without breaking your line and getting stuck in the advancing enemy and even worse no tactical manouveres and redeployment of your troops.

Also all in all getting from your side of the map to the enemy - on the opposite side - would take you about 3 minutes, in medieval it would take you at least twice that amount.


So anyway, what would you all like to see changed in the MTW2 battle map - other than hope it's just bigger ?

Would you like CA to go back to Medieval or do you like it the way it is in Rome/ BI ?

They should even go back to Shogun-type maps, which were way better than MTW maps! :)

On the positive side, the large trees in RTW are nice but practically useless because of the high unit speeds and small battle area. And units no longer get stuck on cliff edges (as in STW).

You can't spring an ambush in RTW because before you do, your units who are supposed to hold already engaged and routed. Also due to the speed, the archers are made stronger, further destroying the balance.

In MTW, I normally position a cavalry unit in the extreme flank (especially for flanking or capturing nobles). In STW, the army can be subdivided for an effective ambushes and flanking.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Larger battlemaps, pleeez! ...and somewhat larger deployment areas.
.

[Zatoichi]

It's been said before by myself and others, but I'd like to see the battlemap size directly related to the number of units in the engagement - so 20 huge scale units apiece would play out on a huge map, but 5 small scale units apiece would fight on a small sized map.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Good idea! Also to the total number of men involved in the battle...
.

[Furious Mental]

I'd certainly welcome larger maps.

[Dutch_guy]

It's been said before by myself and others, but I'd like to see the battlemap size directly related to the number of units in the engagement - so 20 huge scale units apiece would play out on a huge map, but 5 small scale units apiece would fight on a small sized map.

Interesting idea Zatoichi though would that not limit the tactical possibilities of the small armies ( say 5 -6 units owned by yourself and the AI ) ?

These seemingly minor clashes are as we all know, vital to early survival,don't know if giving them a smaller map would please me - though that is of course my own oppinion.

[Zatoichi]

Yeah, I guess maybe refine the idea to be map size tied to the number of actual soldiers involved in the battle rather than just the number of units. You'd still get the problem with skirmishes being played out on smaller maps, but if the smallest map was the size of the current RTW map, then that'd keep me happy!

[Trajanus]

It's been said before by myself and others, but I'd like to see the battlemap size directly related to the number of units in the engagement - so 20 huge scale units apiece would play out on a huge map, but 5 small scale units apiece would fight on a small sized map.

This is perhaps the perfect way to solve the problem. In early battles with only perhaps 5 or 6 units on a huge MTW map it took ages just to come into contact with the enemy, let alone actually fight the battle and chase the enemy off the map, (or let him chase you if you weren't so good )

[Ludens]

This is perhaps the perfect way to solve the problem. In early battles with only perhaps 5 or 6 units on a huge MTW map it took ages just to come into contact with the enemy, let alone actually fight the battle and chase the enemy off the map, (or let him chase you if you weren't so good )

While I agree that it shouldn't take long to engage in small battles, skirmishers actually require more space than melee units. Therefor, I would rather have an uniform map size. Instead, armies should be placed closer to each other if they do not contain many units.

[Oaty]

It's been said before by myself and others, but I'd like to see the battlemap size directly related to the number of units in the engagement - so 20 huge scale units apiece would play out on a huge map, but 5 small scale units apiece would fight on a small sized map.

Can I be the seventh or so to quote you.

Anyways if the A.I. is much better improved, these smaller battles may be much less common, ruling out the need for this idea. Also smaller an especially heavilly outnumbered armies should have better options of retreat/withdraw, wich would/may lead to much more decisive battle(s) instead of many uneeded skirmishes.

Gealai, as for autoresolve, let's hope it really is'nt needed as much as it is in RTW

[screwtype]

On the positive side, the large trees in RTW are nice but practically useless

The large trees are not merely useless, they are a downright hindrance to play. When you're tracking over the battlefield, they force the camera UP and over the trees so you have to keep readjusting the camera to your preferred height.

I found this to be a particular problem in city centre battles where the centre was surrounded by trees.

The solution is really obvious. When you pass over a high obstacle like a building, wall or tree, the camera should bounce up over it and then RESUME THE HEIGHT AT WHICH YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY SET IT. This way you wouldn't have the constant annoyance of fiddling with the camera in built up areas all the time to get it to back to your desired height when you could be otherwise occupied in commanding your troops, which is what the game is supposed to be about.

[screwtype]

Bigger maps. Definitely. For those who like the smaller maps, then have an option to set the size of the battle map, so that everyone can have the experience they want.

And while I'm on the subject, can we PLEASE have a lot more options in general for tweaking the game to our liking? A choice between "RTS" and "Realism" mode just doesn't cut it.

One option I REALLY want to see is the option to select for either quicker battles as in RTW or slower ones as in STW and MTW. A LOT of grognards were deeply pissed off at the "instant rout", "machinegun kill rate" of RTW.

PLEASE GIVE US A FEW MORE OPTIONS THIS TIME AROUND CA. Hide them away in a config file if you must, but DON'T GIVE US THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY TREATMENT AGAIN.