Campaign map movement speed

**GFX707** · 11-15-2006, 21:58

Latvia to Prussia in 2 years?

Is that a realistic speed for a medieval army?

**parcelt** · 11-15-2006, 22:01

I hear you dude. Ridiculous movement rates.

And to add, you probably meant 2 turns, right? That then makes it 4 years!!

**Lusted** · 11-15-2006, 22:05

Yes, because having an army march from Caen to Rome in 4 years would be really fun in the campaign.

Siege-fest anyone?

**Willbreaker** · 11-15-2006, 22:06

How far can you walk per year, do you think?

/Breaker

**Doug-Thompson** · 11-15-2006, 22:27

You're absolutely right. It's completely unrealistic — most medieval armies would likely melt if it got more than 100 miles from home. Crusades were an exception, a holy cause, and they suffered from desertion, disease and attrition too.

Frederick "Barbarossa" started a Crusade with 100,000 men. He was not among the 5,000 who survived to reach Acre.

**Lusted** · 11-15-2006, 22:31

Yes its unrealistic, but its needed for gameplay. If armies could move realistic distances per turn, there would be no field battle,s just endless sieges.

**GFX707** · 11-15-2006, 22:54

Do you think a real-time campaign like Europa Universalis would be a better idea?

**Lusted** · 11-15-2006, 22:55

No, the way the campaign in the TW series is done it needs to be turned based. It allows people to sit back and take their time with things. Its the slow part of the game compared to the battles.

**Sheogorath** · 11-15-2006, 23:41

I think a real-time campaign would be fun, if it was done correctly.

Theres a Napoleonic-era game out there that has a VERY simple version of the MTW-battle system in place on a full-scale world map in real time. Its boring and complicated as hell, with oversimplified units and craptacular graphics (soldiers are represented as a coloured rectable with a black rectangle on top and a little tan square between them).
I think if the CA team got together though, it would be fun :P
Still, hard on the comp' though.

**Zort** · 11-16-2006, 00:22

I think armies are ok, gameplaywise.

What I would wish for are faster, or better much much much faster ships or another way to transport units fast per sea.

**The Wizard** · 11-16-2006, 00:30

Originally Posted by Lusted

No, the way the campaign in the TW series is done it needs to be turned based. It allows people to sit back and take their time with things. Its the slow part of the game compared to the battles.

Europa Universalis games are not fast-paced.

There are multiple speed settings for the passing of time (very slow -> slow -> below normal -> normal -> above normal -> fast -> very fast) and a pause function. Engagements in an EU engine game are fought out within the constraints of the time passage system, but that isn't necessarily the only way to go.

When armies meet in TW is ambiguous whether you have a turn-based system or a "clock/stopwatch" system like EU has. In fact, a system like the latter probably fits the entire idea of the three-dimensional campaign map a lot better than the old turn-based system, which was created for a Risk-like map.

**HighLord z0b** · 11-16-2006, 01:28

Are people saying that it's unrealistically slow or fast? A disciplined army could march quite a large distance relatively quickly.

**GFX707** · 11-16-2006, 17:23

Well, the Roman Army could march 20 miles a day.

That's 600 in a month, which equates to 14,400 in two years. That's obviously just a general idea. We could say in reality probably less than half that in that kind of long period. In this game we can get about 400 per turn which is 400 per two years. So basically the armies in this game can march about 1/2 a mile per day.

So, essentially, you should be able to march from one side of Europe to the other in one turn, which of course would be ridiculous in gameplay terms....which is why a real-time campaign would make much more sense, especially with a 3D map.