Guess I'm not getting this game...

**Andy Shadows** · 02-27-2006, 08:36

So rome style map is enough for somebody to skip the game? I quess is that many of this complaining suddenly dissappears when the game comes out. ;)

**Antiochius** · 02-27-2006, 10:00

MTW or STW style, oh no! I prefer the Roman style.

**Powermonger** · 02-27-2006, 11:08

I would like to see a melding of the two but as long as they do away with the smurfland campaign terrain. The RTW campaign screen lost all sense of scale and made Europe feel even smaller.

I think the best way forward is to create a new 3D relief map based on DEM data, which would look a lot more realistic and allow for greater flexibilty on what can be done with the map, let alone a greater level of detail.

The general tone of the map that would be suitable would be something like the following

As you zoomed in you would get greater detail such as this relief map of France

Zoom in further and there would be even more detail...

I think provinces should also be reinstated but splitup more into duchies and counties, it would allow for a compromise between the large provinces found in MTW and the free-form used in RTW. Armies could control regions again but it wouldn't be the large tracts of land as seen in some of the larger provinces found in MTW.

Example of French counties in 1100s.

It does return somewhat to the Risk style gameplay but it means your army can only control small parcels of land and would require a splitting up of your forces to deter enemy invaders or investing alot more money in army recruitment and fortifications. Basically you cannot control a province until you control all the counties belonging to that province.

As counties are smaller, the terrain faced when battling in counties can be specialised more and they themselves could be split into smaller areas again to allow greater choice on where you want to position your army for defensive or offensive battles.

That's the basic gist of it which I believe would make a good alternative between the two.

**QwertyMIDX** · 02-27-2006, 16:35

I've always felt that the 3D map lends itself better to a Zones of Control system than a province system. Basically dynamic (buildable and destrucible as well as captureabel) cities, castles, towns, forts, etc would control a number of spaces around them as would field armies. Such a system would allow for things like the Marches and more conventional border disputes.

**NagatsukaShumi** · 02-27-2006, 17:10

Personally as long as watchtowers are demolisable I'll be happy, make them buildable yes, but make them demolishable too, it annoys me having to put up with Eastern Watchtowers on grasslands.....ugh.

**Orda Khan** · 02-27-2006, 17:24

What about the ridiculous 'path blocked' that we see in RTW? You know the one, you have just plundered a city and you want to move your army on. You can see the movement zone and when you click on the proposed destination your army walks into the corner of the plundered city!!! OOPS!!! Sorry ... path blocked. Now that is dumber than anything seen in the previous games

.......Orda

**IceTorque** · 02-27-2006, 19:49

I would prefer a return to the commander/risk style strat map.

Because, the RTW map just gets too busy. Every turn you need to scan your entire empire for unrest, rebels, agents and wandering enemy armies. With too many small time wasting battles and sieges. Combined with the need to micro-manage and manually move every piece on the board is too much tedium and not enough fun for me. So after I have conquered 30 or so provinces I get tired of it all and stop playing.

With the risk style map I could easily form a front line and hit the shift key to check my empires status in regards to unrest. Simple agent control, drop on target and forget. Infrequent and huge decisive battles, the option to fight or flee when a region was invaded, This made for a faster and imo a more fun game. I lost count of how many times I conquered the entire map in STW and MTW. I have not completed one RTW game as yet, and I have been playing it for well over a year.

-IceTorque

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 03-01-2006, 05:14

I really want to get from France to Palestine in under 4 years. They did it all the time in real life. MTW - dozens of years. Rome - half dozen, maybe? Never needed to do that.

**Rosacrux redux** · 03-01-2006, 06:41

Going back to the Risk style would be a huge step back and would destroy the franchise. I am quite sure they won't touch this prospect even with a stick.

**kataphraktoi** · 03-01-2006, 09:15

"Because, the RTW map just gets too busy. Every turn you need to scan your entire empire for unrest, rebels, agents and wandering enemy armies. With too many small time wasting battles and sieges. Combined with the need to micro-manage and manually move every piece on the board is too much tedium and not enough fun for me. So after I have conquered 30 or so provinces I get tired of it all and stop playing. "

Now you know hard it is to rule an empire

Some people want realistic games without the realistic drudgery of the small things :P

You conquer an empire in a day do you? (unless of course in games :P) hehe

**screwtype** · 02-27-2006, 19:19

@Powermonger - personally, I'd be happy with a nicely done 2D map. And I agree with you that the giant armies towering over the other landscape features looked pretty weird.

As for the zoomable 3d map - no, it's overkill. That's what we got in Civ4 and the system overhead was scary. (Although now that it occurs to me, the RTW map was already zoomable, wasn't it? Oh well...)

The "county" concept has occurred to me as well. It might have some advantages. But I think there are probably heaps of ways to achieve the same desired result.

**Powermonger** · 02-28-2006, 06:30

Originally Posted by screwtype

@Powermonger - personally, I'd be happy with a nicely done 2D map. And I agree with you that the giant armies towering over the other landscape features looked pretty weird.

As for the zoomable 3d map - no, it's overkill. That's what we got in Civ4 and the system overhead was scary. (Although now that it occurs to me, the RTW map was already zoomable, wasn't it? Oh well...)

The "county" concept has occurred to me as well. It might have some advantages. But I think there are probably heaps of ways to achieve the same desired result.

I agree that it might be overkill but as a compromise between those wanting to move back to more of map and those who demand 3D, I think it suits both parties well. I also think it allows for greater expansion and inclusion of features in future versions.

The MTW map was superior though, not so much cosmetically (although that's debatable I guess when it comes to RTW) but just functionality. As IceTorque said, it was simple, fast and direct and suited a wargame perfectly. You actually felt like you had accomplished something as a ruler when you saw your colour spread across the map.

Perhaps CA will surprise us with the MTW2 map and deliver something that is agreeable to all.