Larger and better battle map...

[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!

[Cesare diBorja]

Maps should be huge to allow for proper skirmishing and/or tactical and strategic positioning. A small map just gives no proper perspective of what the potential of battle could be and all the little battles that lead up to the main fight. Not to mention civilian involvement and the positioning of villages( where are these in ROME?). There are many factors that go into battles that were lacking in RTW and even MTW. I would prefer something entirely new and improved not a return to a more finite system. Those who want to go back to the way MTW or STW were are, frankly, not rowing with all oars in the water.

diBorgia

[Quietus]

Maps should be huge to allow for proper skirmishing and/or tactical and strategic positioning. A small map just gives no proper perspective of what the potential of battle could be and all the little battles that lead up to the main fight. Not to mention civilian involvement and the positioning of villages( where are these in ROME?). There are many factors that go into battles that were lacking in RTW and even MTW. I would prefer something entirely new and improved not a return to a more finite system. Those who want to go back to the way MTW or STW were are, frankly, not rowing with all oars in the water.

diBorgia

Realistically though, MTW2 is based on RTW engine. Maybe they have something entirely new in the next engine. :)

[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.

[Orda Khan]

I like the idea of individual maps relating to the campaign map and the corresponding terrain features. Why do people suggest that RTW maps are featureless? There are plenty of features. MTW had silly hedgerows, remember, and you could march straight over them. Buildings on the battlemap or any other model type addition does nothing but hamper pathfinding of units. I would fault RTW for its poor scale, the trees are all Sequoias.
I made loads of maps for STW and MTW and I can say that the textures of STW were better and there was greater choice. However, both games had small, medium and large map choices. I always used large because my maps were generally aimed at 4v4 MP battles. Cesare diBorja raises a good point. Manoeuvre has always been lacking, but I feel this is more because the deployment zones are too close to each other. Most battles had minor skirmishes prior to the pitched battle and with this in mind a large area between opposing armies would at least offer the chance for this. I have never been one of those impatient, let's get on with it types and have always preferred a battle to at least resemble a battle as much as possible. Above all I want the AI to use formations as it did in STW and MTW, for some reason it insists on one line formation which is inherantly weak but does at least limit the space (even though it is easy to smash the centre or either flank)
Some nice additions would be 'surprise' terrain features such as marshy ground, things that will hamper progress and possibly cause defeat if your general does not study the overall picture

......Orda

[Vladimir]

Terrain features like bogs, fords and the like would be nice. What would also be nice is if the map "moved". The cheezy tactic I like using on the defense is having my Army butt up against the edge of the map to restrict flanking. I think the map should stay the same size and as the whole of one force approaches another, the map would move toward the defender. This would force the defender into the attack in less his rear/flanks were covered by impassable terrain. Now I'm sure there are additionally cheezy ways that I would prevent this (using my fast cav to "anchor" the far side) but I would still like to see it.

[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.