Turns per year?

[Craterus]

I´d like to play a long campaign with 2 turns per year though, I want at least summer and winter time.

I agree with Husar.

[Cowhead418]

Definately one turn per year. I don't get much time to play MTW and the campaigns are already long enough. Two turns would make it waaaaaay too long for me. The campaign lasting 500 years is long enough. One turn per year is the best.

[Samurai Waki]

Maybe the player should get the option of choosing between A Short Campaign (1 Turn Per Year), An Medium Campaign (2 Turns Per Year), and a Grand Campaign (4 Turns Per Year), that way it will appeal to the people that want a really quick game, or the people that want a reeeeaaaalllllyyy long game.

[Monarch]

Maybe the player should get the option of choosing between A Short Campaign (1 Turn Per Year), An Medium Campaign (2 Turns Per Year), and a Grand Campaign (4 Turns Per Year), that way it will appeal to the people that want a really quick game, or the people that want a reeeeaaaalllllyyy long game.

A nice suggestion, but it appears to me that the driving force between people wanting multiple TPY is the things like hunting bonuses, troops movements etc etc. It would be very hard to make a game with all that, then provide a game without any of that stuff for a shorter game.

[x-dANGEr]

A nice suggestion, but it appears to me that the driving force between people wanting multiple TPY is the things like hunting bonuses, troops movements etc etc. It would be very hard to make a game with all that, then provide a game without any of that stuff for a shorter game.

Agreed. I think the winter/summer difference would take too much effort for too little resuly. 1 year a turn is fine for me.

[Gen_Lee]

I dont have any pbls in playing with Mtw 1ty.
But being playing Rtr with 4ty and I must say it makes a lot more sence that way.
At least I dont feel the need for rush as I did with Mtw or Ntw.

[ivoignob]

Seasonal effects on army movement (slowing down, desease etc) could be implemented in a two seasons turn game too. I think that therefore a four seasons turn game isn't needed for that. Though I never played STW with the four seasons I voted for two seasons. I think thats the optimal solution. If there was a much shorter timespan than they may put 12 turns per year, thats fine with me but please not, when a campaign lasts 500 years :-)

[mfberg]

4/year, there were reasons such as harvest, road conditions, weather, that there was a campaigning season.

In a perfect world I would like 1 turn per year, AI based movement with paths. You would put in the moves of all your troops, and the AI would move your troops and everyone elses at the seasonal rate. You would have interruptions during the move when two armies got close enough; to call for reinfocements (and run or fortify), or to start a chase, or start a battle.

mfberg

[Zatoichi]

I voted for 1 turn per year a la MTW - but only because it seems from the interviews/info I've read they're sticking with one grand campaign starting in 1080 and ending in 1530. I'd rather have 4 seperate campaigns split into Early, Late, High and Reneissance and have 2 turns per year, incorporating winter travel penalties and the coldness/snow affecting all but those troops who are used to such conditions (in the same way they treat heat for troops raised in arid climates). But it seems that won't happen - so with any luck they'll implement some kind of random weather generator like in MTW to give us some different effects on the battlefield.

450 turns is a fair old number to contend with. I just hope they can pace things right - no discovering gunpowder in 1105 just because you've built the highest level of barracks or somesuch thing.

[Sjakihata]

We need to go back to our roots, mahn. 4 turns à year. It's silly that it takes a year to go from London to east england and other sillyness. This should of course be reflected in building time and so on, so it is going to be a longer and more strategic game.

[Taurus]

It seems as though I agree with the majority here in hoping it will return to it's roots with 4 turns per year.

Or what would be even better would to have an option when starting a campaign to choose how many turns per year you would like, 1, 2, 3, or 4.

[Akka]

Four turns per year is far too much.
I like two turns per year, allows for seasonal changes, but I admit that it could be really annoying on a 500 years era.
One turn seems the most likely, just because of the span of time, but I do prefer the two-turns principle.

[Voigtkampf]

I could go for two turns a year tops, but would still prefer to have only one turn per year, as in Medieval.

Some respective members seem to forget the time span of Shogun and Medieval. While latter is being far longer, it is also one that spans over a bigger map with far more armies, provinces and opportunities and dangers. Just remind yourself, while the turns go fast in the beginning of the game, later on you may as well play for several hours to make one turn.

[Hobgoblin]

Hello all, I would really like to see 4tpy because of the winter factor, I havent played rome, only vanilla MTW & shogun and i really miss those winter fights. also I hope when you take over a province it isnt so destructive to the buildings in it, 1 or 2 being destroyed is fine but 7 or 8 is too much.

with all due respect to the 1 and 2 turn folks , whats your hurry ? if you beat the game in 100 turns thats great and all, but Myself I like to take my time and build up really spiffy units, in a Mtw Byzantine campaign I got into a very defensible position even though I could probably could have won after about 1250 A.D. I used the cheat (blasphemy I know) to see all the rest of the map. and I just sat there for about 100+ turns watching the other factions dukeing it out. Except when I had wars declared on me.(crusades were bouncing of me like hail on a roof.) AND I Loved it ! I'd still be playing it but someone told me the game ends in 1430 or something

MtW has eras maybe you could just pick your starting year, so the folks who like working under the time crunch could make it as tough as they want, but the players who like to savor the flavor could take year 1

Btw if I could give allies money troops mercs or even turn over provinces to them for free or in exchange for money troops mercs ect. that would rock.
I own a electronic monopoly game where you can wheel and deal and I love it.

[JR-]

what can i say, 1800 turns split into seasons would be a dream come true for me.

4 gets my vote.

[Avicenna]

Four is too many turns as everyone's said, and one is too short: your assassins would die of old age before getting 10 subterfuge..

[Ultras DVSC]

Four is too many turns as everyone's said, and one is too short: your assassins would die of old age before getting 10 subterfuge..

I don't think, that assassins and their "subterfuges" would decide the length of the turns. It will be one, cause 900 turns are also too many. If you think about it in this developed (?) system each turn could be 15-20 minutes, which multiplied with that number is about 15.000 min, so 250 hours without battles! And that's only one campaign with one nation.

Maybe ca's gonna put in an option, that can change the turnlengths or in a late period campaign it will automatically switch to two-turn counting.

[magnum]

In RTW my average turn is about 1 minute. 2 minutes is a long turn because I'm moving;/building a lot. What takes a lot of time is the battles and I probably fight 2 of those a turn on average. The average of those depends on whether or not I fight the battles myself or if I auto-calc them. I tend to auto-calc most rebel battles and fight most non-rebel battles. Auto-calc takes seconds to do, but fighting a battle could be anywhere from 15 minutes to 1 hour. Average is probably closer to 20 minutes as most battles tend to be the little 400 vs 800 size battles.

That puts turn length at about 22 minutes. In the 225 turn campaign that they are talking about that puts a campaign at a little over 80 hours to play. That is assuming that it takes you the full 225 turns to complete the game. Rome, if I wasn’t turtling, I generally won in about 150 turns.

80 hours is a long campaign but at the top end of acceptable to me. If they work at the game play and pace it better than they did in Rome, than that will work ok. Not that I’m thrilled about it. I’d still prefer to have 3 eras/periods and 4 turns a year. Cut down on the number of battles a turn (since they are seasons) and a Era campaign would be near the 80 hours that CAs current 225 turn game is heading for. It’s the battles that take the time and there’s really no way around fighting many/most of them. Reducing the number of battles fought, and hopefully making the battles fought more significant, would reduce the campaign length noticeably.

Bottom line: Depending on game play balance, 225 turns could very well be acceptable, its just not what I’d prefer (4 tpy with 1 or 2 battles a year and 3 era’s with the option of continuing at the end of the era.) So I guess at this juncture I’ll have to wait and see how it plays.