Campaign Map (STW/MTW Provinces or RTW ones?)

[Voigtkampf]

I was wondering whether the majority of TW players would prefer Medieval 2 to have provinces like there were in M:TW, or should the army movement be handled as it was in Rome, i.e. the armies and agents would move in regards to the specifics of the terrain?

Although I appreciate the exact art of moving over landscapes, tactical possibilities coming from the ability to build a fort on a mountain pass to secure a possible approach line from certain direction, I have loved the provinces and chess-like system of movement of the old M:TW and would prefer it over the system Rome has utilized.

What are your respective opinions?

[boastj]

use Romes i like it and its much more detailed

[TB666]

I say Rome.
It will be a great system if CA manage to get the AI to use it properly.

[The_Doctor]

I would like an improved version of the RTW. eg no right-angles on river.

[Templar Knight]

I would prefer Romes dynamic map only a lot darker, with trade routes, areas of political influence, the building of strategic castles and the such. It would also allow you to out maneuver your enemy.

[IrishMike]

I prefer the MTW style system. It allowed larger battles than the maneuvering of the RTW system.

[ThijsP]

I also would choose for a more province like gameplay, which in my opinion would allow a more smooth gampeplay wich I like. Diplomats and other agents in RTW were just too much work, i'm too lazy to direct them every turn. And like coldnight said it allows bigger battles!!

[TinCow]

I would prefer a combination. Use the far superior RTW campaign map system, but allow friendly armies for both sides to join in the battles from much farther away. In MTW, you would often find yourself fighting with an ally or against an alliance of multiple enemies or even in a three sided battle. This is almost totally missing in RTW and it is a major loss.

[ShadesWolf]

A way to answer the question is. How many will be possible, we know that Rome has 90+, so if we used that as a starting position and expect the map to cover the same area + Central and South America, How many could we have ?

[Wardo]

A Province map with MUCH more provinces than in M:TW, like Paradox Entertainment kind of maps.

A province type of map with enough provinces would allow for supply issues, if your army gets cut off from friendly provinces you run out of supply, then you have X number of turns before your supply runs out, if the province your army is in can't supply all your troops they will start deserting and starving to death.

Of course, maybe this would be too complicated for the AI, so I guess I just want the type of map that allows for the best strategic AI.

[Oaty]

I'm more for the RTW style. Hopefully the A.I. will be revamped to handle this type map for MTW2.

[Come Together]

Well, personally, I prefered that in MTW. It was much more AI-friendly, and it allowed for larger battles/A LOT LESS SIEGES. If they are going to continue the system from RTW, it should be revamped a bit. Perhaps having a larger zone to intercept enemies, and if your soldiers are in your own province, it should count as garrison or something, just to discourage sieges and encourage larger battles.

[Steppe Merc]

There should be even more seiges than in RTW, since Medeival warfare was far more focused on castles.

I want the same sort of thing that RTW, but allow armies from farther away to participate.

[King Ragnar]

MTW style, i want to get back the fighting along side your ally, and fighting against 2 enemy armies, they rocked.

[NodachiSam]

Sieges, sieges, sieges! I prefer field battles.

[doc_bean]

Like I mentioned in another thread, a combination of both.

-Keep RTWs basic system

-Make borders, crossing borders means declaring war (a better diplomacy model is needed to implent this and make it an actual bad thing) unless you can negotiate a right of passage

-Several small towns and castles per province to raid, something like the Civ4 cottage/village system for the towns and the keeps should be like upgradable forts

-Give armies and castles a radius of control, if another army comes within range you get the option of either attacking or letting them pass

-If you click on a destination several routes should become available: the most direct one, the one that passes the least enemy armies, the one that crosses the least borders, etc., you should be able to select the one your prefer, or just choose another destination.

-Armies should be able to move faster within your realm because supplying them would be easier (and it sucks to have to micromanage your defenses)

-some fast and easy menus for scrolling through agents and armies, so we don't have to go looking for each one, I'm thinking two small arrows on screen somewhere, if you click on an army they allow you to cycle through armies, if you click an assassin you could cycle through assassins, etc. a button so you can easily switch between armies/agents would also be appreciated


I have given this game way too much thought already

[Mount Suribachi]

Shoulda made a poll Voigtkampf

Anyway I really, really like the RTW map. So that, with some improvements, like Doc Bean suggested.

[KukriKhan]

Old Fogey here; provinces, please, Sir. :)

[Lord Armbandit]

Perhaps having a larger zone to intercept enemies, and if your soldiers are in your own province, it should count as garrison or something, just to discourage sieges and encourage larger battles.

Hit the nail on the head, Come together. A large ZOC, with the immediate surrounds of your army (e.g. one 'space' on the Rome map) stopping enemy movement, a further space around representing scouted areas where you have the option to meet enemy threats by moving towards them, or aid your allies if they are attacked, (plus the option of whether to aid or not- always the best time to leave an alliance, when your ally is about to get slaughtered and you want to run away!).

If you are going to get battles alongside allies, you will need better AI and the option to have your armies march alongside them (e.g. your AI ally lets you know it is going to attack 'x' region or city, and you can have one of your armies follow to join in)

Maybe thats more revolution than evolution though....

[Salazar]

When it came to battles, mtws system was actually more interesting, because you almost always had a field battle, and then normally a longer siege, as assaulting a castle was much too costly.
Of course, strategically, rtws system is a lot better.

[Kraxis]

Nooo... who can be so cruel to ask such a question?!?!?!

I loved to have battles against several enemy factions, perhaps with an ally of my own. Eventhough the ally often sucked it was great fun.
I loved the predictability of the buildup (not the battles themselves). I loved the tenseness you could get along the border where a small garrison was able to repel several factions from invading in a few turns.

In RTW I loved the ability to move about as I liked. Hide and wait, or attack. Seek out the enemy, or retreat and harry. The potential was superior... But the AI often failed to grasp the chances.

I simply don't know what I want, but if the AI was to become able to use the map, then I would have to say the RTW map would be better.

[Martok]

In RTW I loved the ability to move about as I liked. Hide and wait, or attack. Seek out the enemy, or retreat and harry. The potential was superior... But the AI often failed to grasp the chances.

I simply don't know what I want, but if the AI was to become able to use the map, then I would have to say the RTW map would be better.

I second this. The only thing I can think of to add to all that is the ability to fight alongside my allies as we did in original Medieval. I rather like Lord Armbandit's idea in regards to this.

[Kraxis]

Yes, it would be real nice to be able to coordinate assaults on enemies. But that also demands that the alliances are actually kept sane. No more one province factions backstabbing a 20 province faction while it's armies are sitting next door.

[sapi]

I would prefer Romes dynamic map only a lot darker, with trade routes, areas of political influence, the building of strategic castles and the such. It would also allow you to out maneuver your enemy.

When it came to battles, mtws system was actually more interesting, because you almost always had a field battle, and then normally a longer siege, as assaulting a castle was much too costly.
Of course, strategically, rtws system is a lot better.

Perhaps using rome's system for movement, but having much harsher destruction penalties (when an enemy army is in your province) in order to force field battles?

[Claudius the God]

I was wondering whether the majority of TW players would prefer Medieval 2 to have provinces like there were in M:TW, or should the army movement be handled as it was in Rome, i.e. the armies and agents would move in regards to the specifics of the terrain?

Although I appreciate the exact art of moving over landscapes, tactical possibilities coming from the ability to build a fort on a mountain pass to secure a possible approach line from certain direction, I have loved the provinces and chess-like system of movement of the old M:TW and would prefer it over the system Rome has utilized.

What are your respective opinions?

I would love to see it similar to RTW world map, but without it looking like squares on a chessboard with the right-angle river directions, there should be diagonal river points at the very least.

a more three-dimensional map with higher areas leading up to mountains and mountain ranges, and movement points reflecting that as well as the landscape (snow and swampland should be more difficult to travel across, marching uphill should be more difficult than marching downhill)

one personal thing I would absolutely LOVE to see would be more than one settlement in a province, I would love to see the development of minor villages (and coastal seaports areas) within a province as well as the province capital. So when an enemy army moves into the province, it can raid minor villages, seaports, and maybe even other resources (like mines or trade routes) than are not located in the capital city. This would also be great to see these sort of areas having their own minor garrison areas and minor defences.

for example... it would be wonderful to see viking raiders attacking coastal towns and pillaging them without going into siege warfare (and river-raiding using viking boats on major inland rivers would be a dream come true... it could also be something nice for moving armies over rivers using river-boats (slowly though...)

[sapi]

I would love to see it similar to RTW world map, but without it looking like squares on a chessboard with the right-angle river directions, there should be diagonal river points at the very least.

a more three-dimensional map with higher areas leading up to mountains and mountain ranges, and movement points reflecting that as well as the landscape (snow and swampland should be more difficult to travel across, marching uphill should be more difficult than marching downhill)

one personal thing I would absolutely LOVE to see would be more than one settlement in a province, I would love to see the development of minor villages (and coastal seaports areas) within a province as well as the province capital. So when an enemy army moves into the province, it can raid minor villages, seaports, and maybe even other resources (like mines or trade routes) than are not located in the capital city. This would also be great to see these sort of areas having their own minor garrison areas and minor defences.

for example... it would be wonderful to see viking raiders attacking coastal towns and pillaging them without going into siege warfare (and river-raiding using viking boats on major inland rivers would be a dream come true... it could also be something nice for moving armies over rivers using river-boats (slowly though...)

I agree.

[Martok]

one personal thing I would absolutely LOVE to see would be more than one settlement in a province, I would love to see the development of minor villages (and coastal seaports areas) within a province as well as the province capital. So when an enemy army moves into the province, it can raid minor villages, seaports, and maybe even other resources (like mines or trade routes) than are not located in the capital city. This would also be great to see these sort of areas having their own minor garrison areas and minor defences.

for example... it would be wonderful to see viking raiders attacking coastal towns and pillaging them without going into siege warfare (and river-raiding using viking boats on major inland rivers would be a dream come true... it could also be something nice for moving armies over rivers using river-boats (slowly though...)

I really like this idea as well. It kind of goes with my idea of building castles anywhere in a province (other than just the provincial catpital), and having small towns grow up around them....

[TinCow]

I think using minor settlements that can be built up in provinces would be a revolution in TW. I would love to see it implemented. I also think the current AI would explode trying to deal with it.

[Antiochius]

i`m for the Rome system

[Geoffrey S]

I'd love to support the RTW option, as long as the AI is up to utilizing the unique options this presents.