Turns per year?

[hellenes]

Exactly.

The actual game probably isn't going to be like that, but if there is any way to mod it to manually divide up the campaigns, perhaps the community can make this happen in the future.

I cant see a single campaign running from 1080 to 1530, I think people whouldnt base their expectation on RTW too much its almost certain that there will be periods, 4 of them actually now that the time is extended to 1530.
For myself I hope that they make it moddable so people that want 4 tpy and the rainy Autumn and Spring with the harvests influencing income have what they want.

Hellenes

[Dooz]

I cant see a single campaign running from 1080 to 1530, I think people whouldnt base their expectation on RTW too much its almost certain that there will be periods, 4 of them actually now that the time is extended to 1530.
For myself I hope that they make it moddable so people that want 4 tpy and the rainy Autumn and Spring with the harvests influencing income have what they want.

Hellenes

I wouldn't have even assumed it would be one campaign, but the statements are based on an interview where the CA guy said there will be one campaign. I'm pretty sure this is the case, at least that's what was stated. I do hope it's not the case.

[Orda Khan]

I voted 4. The 1 in MTW and 2 in RTW have not impressed. Each season would add so much IMO....and I would prefer to see a longer, more immersive campaign too

......Orda

[SirGrotius]

I would like 1.5 turns per year, i.e., 1 Spring/Summer turn, and then one Autumn/Winter turn, where campaign map movement for armies would be severely limited. I think it's a little corny that armies are able to move so much during the Winter as in RTW. But I do like to see the snow, so maybe an abbreviated Winter turn is in order.

To simulate exceptional circumstances, perhaps a trait can be added for certain leaders which would allow increased winter movement and troop performance.

So army movement limited to about one turn per year, but agent movement two per year. If this is too confusing, then one turn per year is best.

[Antiochius]

I prefer 4 turns per year because if you want to go with your army from, i.e. spain ti the HRE you General becomes 2 years older. but with 4 turns, only the halt of it. I don`twant that my general needs the most of his time for goingthrogh the provinces

[Geoffrey S]

I rather liked the EB system. There were more turns per year, armies moved at a more realistic pace, but crucially it was quite possible due to the large number of turns to finish a turn very quickly since the 'end turn' button was hit more frequently; or at least, I did this. To achieve this, there should be fewer battles but when they do occur more crucial, with larger armies rather than the incessant skirmishing of large portions of the original RTW campaign.

[Dooz]

I rather liked the EB system. There were more turns per year, armies moved at a more realistic pace, but crucially it was quite possible due to the large number of turns to finish a turn very quickly since the 'end turn' button was hit more frequently; or at least, I did this. To achieve this, there should be fewer battles but when they do occur more crucial, with larger armies rather than the incessant skirmishing of large portions of the original RTW campaign.

Well... yeah... if we lived in Perfectland...

[Cesare diBorja]

I currently play a game that is twelve turns per year. It's great. I actually get to know and have some(duh) affection towards my family members. When one dies I am actually kinda sad(meef). In twenty-two years, I have had almost 175 battles. As the Dacians, I have conquered most of the Slavic lands I hace Germania, the Romans, the Greeks, and the Sarmations/Scythians as enemies and my other allies have abandoned me. I hold the line with veteran units as my income is way down. It's like, yeah man, survive or die. Most generals have been with me from the beginning but they are getting up there and new blood is arriving. I have two really remarkable young generals and they whip on everyone. My game rocks socks and if you feel my game is too long(270B.C.E. to 366C.E.) you know what to do.

Don't knock it 'til you try it.

A game without season's is dumb.

diBorgia

[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.

[Orda Khan]

I currently play a game that is twelve turns per year. It's great. I actually get to know and have some(duh) affection towards my family members. When one dies I am actually kinda sad(meef). In twenty-two years, I have had almost 175 battles. As the Dacians, I have conquered most of the Slavic lands I hace Germania, the Romans, the Greeks, and the Sarmations/Scythians as enemies and my other allies have abandoned me. I hold the line with veteran units as my income is way down. It's like, yeah man, survive or die. Most generals have been with me from the beginning but they are getting up there and new blood is arriving. I have two really remarkable young generals and they whip on everyone. My game rocks socks and if you feel my game is too long(270B.C.E. to 366C.E.) you know what to do.

Don't knock it 'til you try it.

A game without season's is dumb.

diBorgia

I would have no problem with this at all. The seasonal turns of STW have been the best IMO so far. One turn each year sees the game fly along at too great a speed to form any 'relationship' or become really immersive. RTW and two turns each year was a little better but still the years can fly and every decision feels like cramming. By ending each month as you suggest it becomes very realistic and I am all for realism. I doubt this will be the case, most gamers are impatient, but at least with four seasonal turns you get greater control and of course, your best generals and family members do not come and go in the blink of an eye

.......Orda

[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.

[LorDBulA]

1 turn per year? You must be kidding right?
I for once would like to make crusade playing as for example England.
With 1 turn per year this would mean one of two things:
1) My king would spend half of his life traveling to holy land and no hope for him to ever coming back to England with glory.
2)Armies will be speeding from Spain to Poland in one turn bypasing 10 armies on its way.

4 turn per year is very good compromise betwean unit movment rate and game lenght. I hope that MTW2 will be divided by periods.
If it plays like RTW then you will be done afther 200-300 years anyway eaven with 1 turn per year.

And this simple consequence of 1 turn per year its just a tip of iceberg of problems that 1 turn per year presents.

Others simple consequences: Siges that last up to 2 turns. 3 at most (its streeching). Who wants to assoult cities?
Total lost of Roleplaye layer of game. You want eaven be able to know you characters before they are dead.

Moderator comment: edited out bad language.

[A.Saturnus]

I'm not sure I understand Saturnus's point about more turns for the RPG elements. I would have thought a faster turnover of kings and generals will allow for more variety of characters and thus more RPG elements. I find the quality of kings and generals seems to matter more in 1 turn per year MTW than 2 turn RTW and least in 4 turn STW (where you were only the shogun and maybe one heir).

Characters need time to develope. What I meant with RPG elements is the fact that characters change due to game events. Ancilliaries and V&Vs introduce an element of character developement. If a character appears for about 40 turns, it's not easy to get V&V's that are actually meaningful (reflecting actual game events). This RPG element was hardly present in MTW 1 and somewhat more emphasist in RTW. With the ability to start night battles linked to character trait, BI increased it a little more. I expect that MTW 2 will increase it further (especially since they will (re)introduce new character variables as chivalry and dread). If the lifetime of personage is too short (in playtime) this feature would be wasted.

[gunslinger]

4 turns a year wouldn't necessarily make the game 4 times longer. If it sitll takes 4 years to build a port, for example, and one year to train some knights, then you aren't going to be spending any more time managing your provinces than you did before. What you get is added flexibilitiy and strategy with unit movements, which is what I think everyone who wants 4 turns is looking for. You could even have one turn per year where you can make economic and business decisions and 4 turns where all you're allowed to do is move units.

None of this matters though, because surely the game is already completed, an they are just working out the bugs at this point.

[TB666]

I found the 2 turns per year in RTW ok and I think it would be alright in MTW2 as well.
4 years wouldn't hurt if the AI can provide a challenge.

[Zain]

I think 4 years per turn is more realistic because the weather can hurt or help the movement of units. It will also make the game longer.

-ZainDustin

[Cesare diBorja]

Yeah, at twelve turns per year, you might have a good year or two of mad progression and take 4 or 5 territories and make bank, then for five years you might contend with a larger foe who has more allies than you and has them also attack you, disrupting your trade, causing your allies to abandon you. Your fleet get destroyrd in two major battles and you lose three generals, two of which were real superstars and won a dozen victories each. Now you aren't making so much money and the rebels are depleting your armies, say this lasts ten years(120 turns). Imagine the pressure you feel when you need something to happen. A miracle and then it happens. Your big foe meets another big foe and his alliance defaults and he is the persecuted for a while allowing you to find allies, strengthen your position, build trade, build forts and refine your defense force. Then, with subterfuge after a twenty year period the big foe comes back and he has spies and assasins and diplomats which cause havoc to the stability of your cause(whether it be to conquer or maintain the state) and you have to contend with this problem as the rebels come back and civil war breaks out. Then he invades with armies with great experience(some silver and few gold) and then you must call out your veteran generals now in their fifties to hold the line. You also have some younger generals who need experience and from their traits are just spoiling for a fight or want to cower behind the walls. That's a real story, gentlemen, and you can't get that kind of detail from a 1,2,3, or a 4 turn game. I am fifty years into my game and it's the greatest game I have ever played in life. Sometimes you win sometimes you lose but you don't get to play it all in a weekend. this game has been going since Xmas. I could go on and on about battles that would seem epic. Four faction battles, Diplomacy gets better albeit in the same guise by the level of complexity the game is allowed to develop. If you manage to get rich your allies will ask for aid, you may give them money. They are more willing to give in to letting you march across their territories. The game fleshes out and I cannot explain it anymore than to say you'll have to try it out for yourself. BAAAM!

diBorgia

[King Yngvar]

Hopefully it'll be 4,

Yes, please!

What would be even cooler would be if there'd be desertion and disease for armies on the march, with those factors increased dramatically in the winter turn. Has there been any information on the number of turns per year yet?

Hopefully not... Have you ever tried playing Europa Universalis? How annoying that atrittion is!

[Rodion Romanovich]

Hopefully not... Have you ever tried playing Europa Universalis? How annoying that atrittion is!

Nope, but I've been looking for a demo like crazy. Well, not like crazy, then I'd probably have found it. As I learnt recently, google is the place to find it... Anyway I know it's annoying and all that, but that's the very point of it! It would add more depth to the game. Plus they could make it so that the desertion etc. work like this:
- in province you own - o%
- in province you don't own, not winter - 3% (or 5% on higher difficulties)
- in province you don't own, winter - 10% (or 15% on higher difficulties)

I'd like it a lot! Then you'd never launch a new offensive in the autumn unless you have a strong superiority in numbers and troop quality and would try to besiege only cities/castles you could assault early unless you have open supply routes for reinforcing your troops. Would also make the keeping open supply routes more important and make for more realistic strategy.

Now I'm off to see if I can find a demo of Europa Universalis. I've been curious for a long period about that game.

[City walls]

Im more of a hardcore TW player. If it was possible i would rather have a dynamic weather/season/day night cycle/realtimeworking clock system

and every battlefiled would be different depending on season,weather

Rather then next turn,next turn,next turn etc until its 300bc or so

[Cesare diBorja]

Right on(recht gut)!, City Walls!

diBorgia

[King Yngvar]

- in province you own - o%
- in province you don't own, not winter - 3% (or 5% on higher difficulties)
- in province you don't own, winter - 10% (or 15% on higher difficulties)

If there were ever to be included atrittion in TW, I would prefer they do it more like Knights of Honor than Europa Universalis. Where each your armies have a stack of food they need to resupply in cities, if they run out of food they start starving, but not before.


And back to the turns... If there is supposed to be 4 turns a year, they should perhaps add much more provinces, so it will be harder to conquer the whole map within a few years, the more provinces, the more to defend...

[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.

[Antiochius]

If there were ever to be included atrittion in TW, I would prefer they do it more like Knights of Honor than Europa Universalis. Where each your armies have a stack of food they need to resupply in cities, if they run out of food they start starving, but not before.


And back to the turns... If there is supposed to be 4 turns a year, they should perhaps add much more provinces, so it will be harder to conquer the whole map within a few years, the more provinces, the more to defend...

Yeah, that`s right, but i think Ca won`t make so much provinces. Perhabs the modder community will help here

[TosaInu]

4 turns a year and preferably even 12. More turns give more depth. 1 turn a year is something I don't like at all, may sound silly, but it's the main reason I never completed any campaign in MTW or VI.

RTW added a new layer to this game that had originally two layers: real time battles and season turnbased strategy. It's the movement point thingy. Very interesting as this allows for manoeuvring with armies in the province to fight battles. This creates the illusion (I'm guillable) of week/month turns.

I read in a review that M2TW would be one campaign spanning some 500 years. I fear the worst for even 2 turns a year. I hope the player will at least be given the option to say how he wants to play his campaign: the whole 500 years in one go or cut it in three parts? Continue part 2 where part 1 stopped or start fresh? One turn a year, two or four turns a year (dare I say twelve)?

It shouldn't be a problem for recruiting and constrution times: just use values in months and have the program 'ceil' those to the tpy used.
Examples recruiting

[Orda Khan]

Yeah, at twelve turns per year, you might have a good year or two of mad progression and take 4 or 5 territories and make bank, then for five years you might contend with a larger foe who has more allies than you and has them also attack you, disrupting your trade, causing your allies to abandon you. Your fleet get destroyrd in two major battles and you lose three generals, two of which were real superstars and won a dozen victories each. Now you aren't making so much money and the rebels are depleting your armies, say this lasts ten years(120 turns). Imagine the pressure you feel when you need something to happen. A miracle and then it happens. Your big foe meets another big foe and his alliance defaults and he is the persecuted for a while allowing you to find allies, strengthen your position, build trade, build forts and refine your defense force. Then, with subterfuge after a twenty year period the big foe comes back and he has spies and assasins and diplomats which cause havoc to the stability of your cause(whether it be to conquer or maintain the state) and you have to contend with this problem as the rebels come back and civil war breaks out. Then he invades with armies with great experience(some silver and few gold) and then you must call out your veteran generals now in their fifties to hold the line. You also have some younger generals who need experience and from their traits are just spoiling for a fight or want to cower behind the walls. That's a real story, gentlemen, and you can't get that kind of detail from a 1,2,3, or a 4 turn game. I am fifty years into my game and it's the greatest game I have ever played in life. Sometimes you win sometimes you lose but you don't get to play it all in a weekend. this game has been going since Xmas. I could go on and on about battles that would seem epic. Four faction battles, Diplomacy gets better albeit in the same guise by the level of complexity the game is allowed to develop. If you manage to get rich your allies will ask for aid, you may give them money. They are more willing to give in to letting you march across their territories. The game fleshes out and I cannot explain it anymore than to say you'll have to try it out for yourself. BAAAM!

diBorgia

Now THIS sounds like a truly immersive game. 4 seasonal turns were good but this is even better and I agree with the point about finishing a campaign over the weekend. Add better diplomacy, realistic allegiances (allies that will assist in real time battles etc) The more realistic the better IMO

.......Orda

[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.