Guess I'm not getting this game...

[Gtafanboy]

I just read that the campaign map would be like romes. I was really looking forward to MTW risk style, and they go ruin it with Romes crappy system. I really wanted this game, now I just can't get it, because that MTW campaign map is SO much better then the Rome one. I hope that they decide to go back.

[lars573]

They won't ever. S/MTW risk style map was so limiting it's not funny. The 3D world map of RTW is light years better than the risk map. It would be a collosal step backwards and the wrong move to go back to the risk style map.

[Gtafanboy]

In some peoples opinions. Others will love it(I will...)

[Ragnor_Lodbrok]

I've only played RTW, what is the difference between these systems?

[lars573]

In some peoples opinions. Others will love it(I will...)

In anyone who wants a better games opinion.

I've only played RTW, what is the difference between these systems?

The difference between 2D and 3D, the difference between digital and ananlouge. The MTW map was 2D and digital (yes/no on/off), as compared to the 3D analogue (many degrees between yes/no on/off) map in RTW. In MTW you moved armies/agents on rails practically. You picked it up in province A and dropped it in province B. You could move an army from Egypt to Norway in one move if you had all the sea areas (oceans were divided up into areas of control) controlled. You could move an agent anywhere on the map that had a port in 1 turn. When you invaded a province the battle happened automatically the next turn. You couldn't evade them lead them around with 1 or 2 units. You could only move 1 province in 1 turn. I could go on. But lets just say that the MTW map to RTW's map is like a commodore 64 compared to a modern PC.

[Gtafanboy]

MTWs and STWs map is like risk, you pick up your armies and move them into provinces which you then can take over, or if you own it move. You obviously know Romes system, so I won't explain that. I don't really know why I like MTWs better, I just do. That's why I like MTW better I guess

[Gtafanboy]

In anyone who wants a better games opinion.


The difference between 2D and 3D, the difference between digital and ananlouge. The MTW map was 2D and digital (yes/no on/off), as compared to the 3D analogue (many degrees between yes/no on/off) map in RTW. In MTW you moved armies/agents on rails practically. You picked it up in province A and dropped it in province B. You could move an army from Egypt to Norway in one move if you had all the sea areas (oceans were divided up into areas of control) controlled. You could move an agent anywhere on the map that had a port in 1 turn. When you invaded a province the battle happened automatically the next turn. You couldn't evade them lead them around with 1 or 2 units. You could only move 1 province in 1 turn. I could go on. But lets just say that the MTW map to RTW's map is like a commodore 64 compared to a modern PC.

Maybe I like the Commodore better :) , but seriously, I just like MTW better in every way except graphics. And even then I think they are still good.

[Ragnor_Lodbrok]

The difference between 2D and 3D, the difference between digital and ananlouge. The MTW map was 2D and digital (yes/no on/off), as compared to the 3D analogue (many degrees between yes/no on/off) map in RTW. In MTW you moved armies/agents on rails practically. You picked it up in province A and dropped it in province B. You could move an army from Egypt to Norway in one move if you had all the sea areas (oceans were divided up into areas of control) controlled. You could move an agent anywhere on the map that had a port in 1 turn. When you invaded a province the battle happened automatically the next turn. You couldn't evade them lead them around with 1 or 2 units. You could only move 1 province in 1 turn. I could go on. But lets just say that the MTW map to RTW's map is like a commodore 64 compared to a modern PC.

Well, I prefer the new Rome map. :D

[Dutch_guy]

I understand perfectly well why Gtafanboy would want to have a risk style map, I myself fell in love with it the moment I played it - and I played Rome before I played Medieval.
It was easier for the AI to make choices, therefor it was able to produce a challenge, which is what makes Medieval, especially on the harder settings, a challenging game to play.
Yes, there is much room for improvement and a step to improve the map has been made with Rome.

Rome's map was 3D and was a ''living'' map, whereas Medieval had a static world map. Rome's map is prettier but harder for the AI, Medieval's map is not so pretty compared to Rome's but it is way easier for the AI to use.

I for one do not think we should go back to the Medieval /Shogun type of map, I deem it best that CA should perfect this type of world map... and yes there is a lot to be done in that area and I hope they start doing this right now, with M2TW.

So what can we hope for... In my opinion what we need is a 3D living map ( Rome) divided in to invisible for - lack of a better word - barriers which gives the AI limited choices as in Medieval. So as to not render it useless on the Campaign map.

[Servius]

Personally, I liked the MTW map more than the RTW map because in STW and MTW, you either owned/controlled a province or you didn't. In RTW, you only control the city tile and the tiles where you have an army in them. The whole province idea is basically non-existent because bad guys can come in and out of your province as much as they like, block your roads, etc. and you have to waste time chasing these stupid puny little stacks all over the place.

I also agree that, since the map was easier, the AI was better. But I also would prefer an RTW may IF CA could actually make an AI that knew how to use it properly.

One last thing, trying to take a pot-shot at MTW's map by saying that you could move from Egypt to Norway in one turn doesn't work. Why? Because MTW turns were 1 year long. So it's not silly to be able to sail from Egypt to Norway in a year.

What to know what is silly? An RTW turn is 6 months long, but RTW units can only move like 100 miles per 6-month turn. That's not even 2 miles a day. The average backpacker can walk at least 2-3 miles an hour. If you march for 8 hours a day (and ancient armies would have marched more than that), you'd average 24 miles a day, which is 4,380 miles in 6 months. The entire nation of Italy isn't even 600 miles long.

[screwtype]

Yes Servius you're quite correct, the movement speed in RTW is ridiculously slow. One thing I REALLY want in the new game is a strategic movement option, where you can move a unit say 6 provinces in a single turn provided they are all empty of enemy troops. An option like that really shouldn't unbalance the game unduly, and it ought to help the AI concentrate its forces against threats.

Unfortunately we've heard very little from CA so far about improved movement, which suggests they haven't done much to change the stodgy system we got in RTW.

BTW I agree the old STW/MTW style campaign maps worked better, but realistically we won't be seeing them again. The new 3D map has a lot more potential anyhow, they really just need to iron out the bugs and add more interest to it, which could be done in any number of ways.

[A.Saturnus]

Yes, the movement speed in Rome was very slow, but at least it was equally slow everywhere. In Medieval, moving through the Sahara was quicker than through France!

It's out of the question that M2TW will have a campaign map like in Rome. Going back would be like making units 2D again (which some people even seem to prefer). But it would be wise of CA to look at the merits of the old system and try to implement them into the new system.

[cannon_fodder]

I prefer a grid-based campaign map to a risk-style one. I'll quote PC Gamer UK:
"Your territory is thus harder to defend, mitigating against the Medieval tactic of amassing huge armies in a few vulnerable provinces, sitting back and lighting your pipe."

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I assume CA are sticking with the Rome system. However, I hope they could make it look more map like-a similar style to the MTW map-while retaining the Rome functionality.

The RTW map, while technologically a great leap, looked like a cartoon and was not atmospheric in the slightest.

[Samurai Waki]

If CA could incorporate a High-Res Europa Universalis-esque map that would be cool.

[Ryanus]

As I put in another thread, I think it would be a large improvement over the RTW campaign map if you could move large distances through your own territory but less in enemies provinces. This would symbolize supply lines, unfriendly natives, ect. This would allow you to move at a good rate though your own empire and yet not be able to rush enemy settlements. The disparity between attacker and defender movement points would also make it easier to intercept invading armies before they reach a settlement, creating more field battles

[Trithemius]

The RTW map, despite the odd pesky quirk, was a major improvement. In MTW you could "express ship" your armies from Britain to the Levant if you were so inclined (and maintained the integrity of your fleet-chains). The RTW system allows for operational movements - now a battle between the same forces can come out vastly different depending on the terrain on which it is fought. This makes it more varied, and more interesting.

One thing I would like to see is an expansion of the settlement "site radius" based on the level of 'government building' - on the assumption that higher levels of governance grant more honest and reliable reporting from more extensive networks of vassals and court officers. That, or they could make the watch towers (or "keeps" in MTW2 I suppose?) less hideously goofy looking than n RTW? :P

[screwtype]

As I put in another thread, I think it would be a large improvement over the RTW campaign map if you could move large distances through your own territory but less in enemies provinces. This would symbolize supply lines, unfriendly natives, ect. This would allow you to move at a good rate though your own empire and yet not be able to rush enemy settlements. The disparity between attacker and defender movement points would also make it easier to intercept invading armies before they reach a settlement, creating more field battles

I totally agree with your comments. It seems a very obvious thing to do to solve the problem of the unrealistic movement rates in the game.

And what is CA's solution to the same problem? Apparently, to "get away" from the concept of turns as discreet units of time. It's difficult to imagine a more superficial solution. Basically, they're just going to pretend that turns aren't really as long as logic says they are.

Edit: It occurs to me that the simple way to implement such "strategic movement" would simply be to allow units to have cheaper movement costs in undisputed friendly provinces. So for example instead of movement along a road costing say six movement points, it costs only one in friendly territory.

"Friendly territory" would be defined as any friendly controlled province (including allied provinces) that doesn't contain any enemy units. So for example, the appearance of a rebel army in a friendly province would mean you couldn't use the faster movement rate through that province. That would have the additional effect of making the appearance of rebel armies more strategically significant.

[screwtype]

The RTW map, despite the odd pesky quirk, was a major improvement. In MTW you could "express ship" your armies from Britain to the Levant if you were so inclined (and maintained the integrity of your fleet-chains).

What was wrong with that? Didn't bother me, it seemed perfectly logical.

The RTW system allows for operational movements - now a battle between the same forces can come out vastly different depending on the terrain on which it is fought. This makes it more varied, and more interesting.

In theory yes, in practice it didn't work very well, because the battlemaps are not very interesting anyway.

It might also work better if the defender were allowed a little leeway in where on the strategic map he chose to set up a defence. But that might require a lot of work for the AI. I suppose you could have hexes that were rated on their conduciveness to defence, so that AI armies could shift to an adjacent hex if it had a better defence rating...

One thing I would like to see is an expansion of the settlement "site radius" based on the level of 'government building' - on the assumption that higher levels of governance grant more honest and reliable reporting from more extensive networks of vassals and court officers. That, or they could make the watch towers (or "keeps" in MTW2 I suppose?) less hideously goofy looking than n RTW? :P

Yeah, that sounds sensible. But you'd still want watchtowers for less developed provinces.

[Trithemius]

What was wrong with that? Didn't bother me, it seemed perfectly logical.

It defies logic to imply that ti takes the same time increment to travel by land from Ille de France to Normandy as it takes to sail from Portsmouth to Antioch. :)

In theory yes, in practice it didn't work very well, because the battlemaps are not very interesting anyway.

I've had some good battles actually, perhaps I need to rely on the terrain more than some master commanders - but I always take terrain into account when planning my campaigns in RTW.

It might also work better if the defender were allowed a little leeway in where on the strategic map he chose to set up a defence. But that might require a lot of work for the AI. I suppose you could have hexes that were rated on their conduciveness to defence, so that AI armies could shift to an adjacent hex if it had a better defence rating...

That'd be quite interesting, although processor intensive I think.

Yeah, that sounds sensible. But you'd still want watchtowers for less developed provinces.

So long as they don't look like arse I won't complain too much. ;)

[sapi]

They won't ever. S/MTW risk style map was so limiting it's not funny. The 3D world map of RTW is light years better than the risk map. It would be a collosal step backwards and the wrong move to go back to the risk style map.

Need i say any more?

He's got it in one...

[screwtype]

It defies logic to imply that ti takes the same time increment to travel by land from Ille de France to Normandy as it takes to sail from Portsmouth to Antioch. :)

True, but in my opinion that is more a function of the unrealistically slow movement of the land unit rather than the excessive speed of the ship.

I've had some good battles actually, perhaps I need to rely on the terrain more than some master commanders - but I always take terrain into account when planning my campaigns in RTW.

Personally, I was usually just happy if my army could reach the enemy army. I usually only took account of the terrain if it was a steep mountainside and the troop match up was not in my favour.

That'd be quite interesting, although processor intensive I think.

Actually, you could just have some simple algorithms for it. Hexes could be rated for their defensive bonus for different types of armies. So you might have a defence rating for a horse army, a ranged unit army, an infantry army etc.

Then you'd have another simple algorithm to determine which army category the AI army fitted into, and the army would then move to the appropriate nearby hex based on its suitability for defence with an army of that type.

So long as they don't look like arse I won't complain too much. ;)

Personally, I thought the whole campaign map looked like a dog's breakfast (apart from the fact that it appeared to be processor intensive). Too dark for a start. Hopefully the new campaign map will be a bit more attractive this time around.

[Andy Shadows]

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]

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

[Powermonger]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[IceTorque]

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