Turns per year?

[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.

[Divinus Arma]

4 Turns a year with:

Seasonal campaigning restrictions depending on climate.

Very slow development.

Very expensive units and a very slow economic build system.


But I think they already said 1 turn a year, didn't they?

[Ironside]

BS: The grand campaign will span four and a half centuries of history, from the year 1080 to 1530. These years are significant because it was a particularly turbulent period and because of the milestones that took place. It begins with the golden age of chivalry and the crusades, spans the Mongol invasion and the invention of gunpowder, and finally ends with gun-toting professional armies, the renaissance, and the discovery of America.

The campaign will feature summer and winter turns as in Rome, but we're trying to get away from the idea that a turn represents a specific amount of time, since it's impossible to reconcile the scale you need for army maneuvers with the scale you need to cover a decent slice of history. The history of the period will unfold in around 225 turns.

Well the most complete answer yet.

Although is the 225 turns for a minor period or for the hole campaign?

[econ21]

I should have put in an option in the poll for one turn per two years. My reading of the article is that there are 225 turns for the whole period - around one turn per two years.

Personally, I'm happy with that. I never played a MTW campaign from beginning of the early period to the end of the late period - it's just too long - but I think it would be more fun than being always stuck in the early/high periods as I ended up being.

[TosaInu]

1 turn for 2 years? gasp.

That will work (for me) when the moving points intermediary layer is largely expanded.
-Economy - 2 years turn.
-Diplomacy and army manoeuvring across the whole of Europe within 1 turn.
-Real time battles.

[JR-]

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

4 gets my vote.

[Quietus]

I don't know can they pull a '1 turn per 2 years' campaign . The movement range is going to be huge for two years, allowing the players multiple battles, multiple units to train and even multiple sieges.

Pro:
- The Campaign will be a less predictable.
- With a good AI, enemies can string up a decent campaign (strike multiple times least a player can do about it nor know where to expect it).
- Large Buildings can finally be built in ~10 year durations.

Con:
- The AI can only make moves within the turn. This gives the player more advantages.
- With a weak AI, the Campaign can turn chaotic, with AI armies running all over the place.
- Supposed for 100 provinces (not that it was announced), you can take 1 or 2 provinces per turn. That's a bare minimum of 50 to 100 turns.

The game should have been divided in eras with 4 turns per year.

[Dead Moroz]

So who is the winner in this poll?

[Divinus Arma]

1 turn for 2 years? gasp.

That will work (for me) when the moving points intermediary layer is largely expanded.
-Economy - 2 years turn.
-Diplomacy and army manoeuvring across the whole of Europe within 1 turn.
-Real time battles.

I don't see how moving a diplomatic piece across the entire map helps gameplay. In fact, it makes diplomatic pieces irrelevent. Why send a piece halfway across the map in one turn when you can have a static diplomatic simulation?

So, the major problem with 1 turn per 2 years, or even 1 turn per year, is one of movement. With the new engine's dynamic interaction, movement and turn time are closely linked.

[Divinus Arma]

So who is the winner in this poll?

Vote and it will show you. Right now 4 turns per year has a significant lead.

[TosaInu]

I don't see how moving a diplomatic piece across the entire map helps gameplay. In fact, it makes diplomatic pieces irrelevent. Why send a piece halfway across the map in one turn when you can have a static diplomatic simulation?

The same is not true for armies. It could take me 4 years, or more, to move a reinforcement army from the south of my regions to the north army and launch and attack there.

Diplomats in France may go to Russia to forge an alliance, that's a long walk, but nowhere near 2 years. With a movement point system, they'll have to deal with the dangers (?) along the road.

So, the major problem with 1 turn per 2 years, or even 1 turn per year, is one of movement. With the new engine's dynamic interaction, movement and turn time are closely linked.

Oh, I agree. I don't like 1 tpy and wouldn't like 1tp2y either. But something nifty may be done with splitting things more. Will make things complicated and I rather see a 4tpy with movement point and real time battles. The huge era should be split in 3-4 parts.

Other people prefer other things, and that's their right: they have to play it. Ideally the game should have mechanisms to make the player decide how to play, without the need to do 'difficult' modding things.

[A.Saturnus]

BS: The grand campaign will span four and a half centuries of history, from the year 1080 to 1530. These years are significant because it was a particularly turbulent period and because of the milestones that took place. It begins with the golden age of chivalry and the crusades, spans the Mongol invasion and the invention of gunpowder, and finally ends with gun-toting professional armies, the renaissance, and the discovery of America.

The campaign will feature summer and winter turns as in Rome, but we're trying to get away from the idea that a turn represents a specific amount of time, since it's impossible to reconcile the scale you need for army maneuvers with the scale you need to cover a decent slice of history. The history of the period will unfold in around 225 turns.

That means that building up traits and ancilliaries will become irrelevant. You either have them or you don't.

[Martok]

As I put it over in the .com forums, I suspect Bob Smith might have gotten his math turned around when he said 225 turns. Since he specifically said winter and summer turns, I suspect it will be more like 900 total. I can't imagine it would be the other way around, as 1 turn being equal to 2 years is quite frankly pretty absurd (at least for a Total War game).

[cannon_fodder]

I don't know can they pull a '1 turn per 2 years' campaign . The movement range is going to be huge for two years, allowing the players multiple battles, multiple units to train and even multiple sieges.

I doubt the movement speed will change much from Rome's. The movement speed in TW games has always been screwed up- in Shogun it took 3 months for an army to march about 50km. Though the movement speeds varied throughout the series, they were always unrealistically low.

Anyway, as was said in that interview, CA are trying to move away from the idea of a turn representing a certain amount of time. It was said that it'll take a few turns to cross the Atlantic- probably around 6 years then, if you take the time per turn to be actual.

Anyway, I'd like 1 tpy with 2 alternating seasons. A 225 turn campaign sounds a bit short, and a 900 turn campaign sounds a bit long.

[Quietus]

I doubt the movement speed will change much from Rome's. The movement speed in TW games has always been screwed up- in Shogun it took 3 months for an army to march about 50km. Though the movement speeds varied throughout the series, they were always unrealistically low.

I see what you mean. In MTW, any unit can go to any beach so long as there is a clean sea link. In STW, all it requires is a port.

I'm just wondering what's maximum movement one can do per turn.

Anyway, as was said in that interview, CA are trying to move away from the idea of a turn representing a certain amount of time. It was said that it'll take a few turns to cross the Atlantic- probably around 6 years then, if you take the time per turn to be actual.

Quite a weird concept then of a 'my turn, your turn' chess game. Unless, the campaign map has a real-time element in it, I can't see how they can make a turn not a constant.

Perhaps the turn time will be proportional to how much 'Activity points' is used (for a lack of a term). IE. if a player only moved for a short distance, then that distance will have an equivalent 'campaign time' and will be charged against the total campaign duration.

That's the only logical implemention of the calibrated 'turns' that I can see. :)

[Gustav II Adolf]

I think this will make the hole game evolve more quicker. Units will soon be out of date. The transition from mostly melee to some gunpowder will be a standard game experience. Compared to MTW you will get through the whole game. I would have liked to have more turns and an early and a late period were you could choose the latter for more gunpowder experience right away. This would please melee lovers and gunpowder lovers.

[A.Saturnus]

Well, I for one did get through the whole game in MTW.
Gunpowder played only a role during the last 100 years of the covered period, that would only be 50 turns with 0.5tpy. Also, consider that the whole conquering of America would have to happen in about 20 turns.

[screwtype]

I don't care how many turns per year the vanilla game has, but what I would like them to do is include the option for four turns per year, with differing graphic, weather and combat effects for each season, so that those effects can utilized in mods.

[Divinus Arma]

Unless, the campaign map has a real-time element in it, I can't see how they can make a turn not a constant.

Actually, this is a very good idea. The question would be on how to implement it. And I think I have just the thing:

(1) The campaign map as it is now need not change in appearance whatsoever. The dynamic interaction and fluidity of the board is a necessity to implement the following:

(2) Eliminate turns entirely. Make the campaign map real-time, with a sliding scale of speed. In this way, army and diplomat movement can be realistically linked to time AND the player retains control over how fast he or she wants events to unfold. Months, seasons, and years all pass at a speed designated by the player. So, the time it takes to train a unit or build a structure all remain. In fact, very little of the constant campaing map need change. Only the campaing engine msut change, but it is entirely doable!


So, consider this example from an RTW perspective: You start the game as the Julii. You move the time control all the way to very very slow, a speed at which a year takes maybe twenty minutes or so. With the campaign speed this slow, you see minor changes in the movement of your allies and enemies. You set which units you want to train and which structures to build. You also decide to set your army North for a nearby barbarian settlement. Finished with decision making, you set the speed to slightly faster then before- a speed where you can watch all map pieces move and still have time to react. On your way north, you see a barbarian army moving to intercept you. Deciding that you cannot fight both the settlement garrison and the field army, you direct your army south.

Do you see? How can this not be possible?!?!? CA where are you now?!?!?! STEAL MY IDEA PLEASE!!!!!!

[econ21]

I don't really want an EU real-time type campaign map, but making turns "fuzzy" as regards years makes some sense. In real life, many years would be relatively inactive for a faction but then specific campaigns would see armies covering large distances in short periods of time. Breaking a tight link between turns and years might help represent this.

At one stage I thought TW should have an intermediate level between the strategic and the battle - call it an operational level. At the grand strategic level, you would invest, recruit, build etc. But when war is declared, you zoom into an operational map and maneouvre armies. When they meet you zoom to the battle map.

[cannon_fodder]

(2) Eliminate turns entirely. Make the campaign map real-time, with a sliding scale of speed.

Just wondering, have you played Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds? It was very similar to the Total War games, and must've been an inspiration for CA with STW. Anyway, it was split into campaign and battle maps. Unlike the TW games however, the campaign map was set in real-time with a sliding scale of speed as you describe.

One large problem with a real-time campaign map is that there needs to be ways that the player can easily see what's happening, at all times, and at all corners of their empire. Certainly not an easy task, but it's possible.

[Divinus Arma]

One large problem with a real-time campaign map is that there needs to be ways that the player can easily see what's happening, at all times, and at all corners of their empire. Certainly not an easy task, but it's possible.

I think this can be solved by slowing things down to a degree where everything is manageable. Of course, their would be a learngin curve here, but this could be done without difficulty. Even the "building complete" alerts would work inmuch the same way to your benefit...

[screwtype]

I'm absolutely against a "real time" map. There are too many games like that out there already, and I don't like any of them.

There's a crap old game called Theocracy which has a kind of interesting system. You can give all sorts of orders to your units with time stopped and then you can drag a time slider out to your desired level to let time run until the next significant event occurs, in which case time stops again and you are informed of the event.

A system somewhat along those lines might work...

[A.Saturnus]

There's a crap old game called Theocracy which has a kind of interesting system. You can give all sorts of orders to your units with time stopped and then you can drag a time slider out to your desired level to let time run until the next significant event occurs, in which case time stops again and you are informed of the event.

That's pretty much how a real time scenario would work. But I consider it hopeless. The idea was brought up several times after Medieval and maybe even before. The fact that they haven't implemented it yet means for me they won't.

[dagiz]

wouldn't mind either 1,2 or 4tpy. As long as certain things are taken care of, like everyone else here, the AI.

I actually enjoyed starting in early in MTW and going through to the end. and with RTW right now, it took a little while to get used to the 2tpy (I rushed a lot for the first few years, forgetting that it was 2tpy) but once I did, I've had a really nice game going.

4tpy would be great as far as extending the game paly - however, I can see how it could be too long. There would have to be a lot more going on on the campaign map as I think battles would be far and few between in terms of time between turns. unless of course you attack everything in sight...

[Dragon20]

If it is 2 years per turn, I will have serious doubts if wether I am going to buy it.
I don't think I could stand it that my king lives for just 10 turns and then dies
And developing your generals is not doable anymore too then.

[TosaInu]

If it is 2 years per turn, I will have serious doubts if wether I am going to buy it.
I don't think I could stand it that my king lives for just 10 turns and then dies
And developing your generals is not doable anymore too then.

That's something that hurts me too (even 1tpy is too little for me).

However, RTW introduced a 3rd time layer (STW and MTW had only two: real time battles and another for everything else). This 3rd layer is really neat and M2TW may do more with it. How I don't know, but it's quite possible that I won't miss the 4tpy for emotional/gameplay/realism reasons. (I'm using Myrddraals turn per year script now to play 12 tpy Julii on hard ).

Regardless of how splendid this 3rd layer may become (or whatever else it will be), I hope for user and mod flexibility. 0.5 tpy and even 4 tpy will be a pain for Holland:Total War mod, the interesting 2004-2004.2 era where Duke Tosa marched from Zeeland to Groningen.

[mfberg]

Medieval had the periods as well as the years, so you could start in the Early, High, or Late. RTW has the Marius event to divide the game, but it is only in game, not two seperate periods. If the new Medieval has periods it would make games started in the later periods shorter than full games.

Of course I have only played one game to the end of years in MTW, all my other games I got bored and bum-rushed to victory.

mfberg

[Trithemius]

I'd like four seasons per year, with some incentives (or disincentives) to campaign based on the particular season.

I think that this approach simply has more benefits than the others offered, and is certainly superior to the two years a turn that some people seem to think we'll be getting.