STW/MTW or M2TW/RTW style campaign map?

[grinningman]

Which campaign map style do you prefer? The risk-style map from STW and MTW, or the animated 'realistic' map from RTW and M2TW?

I much prefer the risk-style map. I think the RTW/M2TW style map has introduced more micromanagement (e.g. ships and sea travel) and less interesting battles (more sieges and more minor battles against rebels, etc). Worst of all it creates huge problems for the campaign AI. I don't think the advantages it provides - such as ambushing, picking your terrain and defending strategic points - outweigh the disadvantages.

I'm interested to see what other people think.

[part_time_player]

I'm torn, but overall I think I'd have to go for the Risk style. The extra micro management the campaign map has generated makes the late game much slower and it wasn't exactly speedy in the original style.

You could still fight bridge battles and defend mountain passes in the old style, the only thing I really prefer the current way is defending a region by sitting in your castle and resisting a siege as opposed to the risk style where defending your castle meant you'd already lost the region and small castles could only fit very small garrisons.

The things I'd love to see the back of in the current style are all the time consuming animations you get with spies, assasins, merchants, diplomats, armies laying siege etc. In fact I wondered if it was possible to mod these so that for example the animation for spying became the same as the animation for standing still?

[Garnier]

I would love an enhanced risk-style map. Or make the campaign real-time that would be even better. Just go really slow or pause all the time to decide things.

[Darth Nihilus]

The m2tw/rtw style map is better.............. but it was not implimented well at all. The ai can't handle it. The original style, or risk style if I may, is much easier for the ai, and thus the ai is much more challenging on those style maps at this point. I really do like the the newer style more, but the simple fact is that the ai doesn't know how to cope with it.

[Caius]

I should have selelcted the third option

[dismal]

I would definitely go for the RTW style map if the AI were up to the challenge.

I remember when RTW came out thinking how great it was going to be to maneuver the enemy onto advantageous ground to win battles against insurmountable odds. Hordes of barbarians ambushing Roman columns in the forests of Germany, etc. It just didn't work out that way.

Maybe there's an option somewhere in the middle. If each region had only 3-5 potential battlefields, and you didn't get the city until you had contol over all of them.

[todorp]

My preference is Knights of Honour style Real Time campaign map and diplomacy.

[Ulstan]

Definitely the RTW realistic map, it adds so many new layers of complexity and tactical choices in terms of picking your ground.

The upgrade to the new map, as well as seige battles that didn't look like utter crap, were two of the biggest improvements RTW made over MTW.

[sapi]

I prefer the RTW map, but there's no doubt that it causes problems for the AI

[clairvaux]

I prefer the RTW realistic style campaign map. Although its not without its problems. But there is so much more you can do. The ability to choose where you fight your real-time battles a great feature. And the amount your troops can walk is a great feature also (though no always accurate) thus building roads is not longer just abstract way of increasing trade. It carries your armies. It also helps that those little animations run on the road once trade links have been established.

And the campaign is overall better in terms of diplomacy and espionage. If you are still with the first gen RTS you'll probably not enjoy the turn-based system as much seeing as you just made the transition to Total War, but then again the turn base system isn't unique to Total War, Civ does it a hell of a lot better. And if I had as much control over my empire as Civ allows, TW would be amazing!

But I do agree this new map has its problems, generally I avoid large armies altogether in campaign simply because if I take out there castles or settlements first they simply turn into stoic rebels. And defeating large armies does nothing for you anyways, especially with the new unit pools you can replenish an army faster than mine can move across the battlefield, so as soon as I defeat that massive army and get a Heroic Victory, you just send another one at me next turn. I feel like King Pyrrhus: "Another such victory over the Romans and we are undone."

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Hmm, I love the M:TW map - it's much more of a challenge to play on. The AI is much more of a tough fight and everybody also always has wonderfully balanced and realistic empires - it is forced to attack on province before it goes for another one. Another thing I like about the map is the superbly realistic "antiquated style". It makes you feel as if you are actually the king deciding on strategies from your capital by moving the "chess" pieces around the map. Wonderful gameplay, pretty map, immense chalanges, what more can you ask for!

[Ciaran]

I´m undecided, since both versions have their pros and cons. The pro of the RTW style map is, quite obvious, that it gives you a great freedom of movement, you can choose when and where to fight. On the other hand, that doesn´t account for that much, a lost battle will not leave what´s left of your army huddling in the castle, praying for relief to come. As well, to retreat is almost completely useless, for if yu retreat, and the enemy follows, you have to fight to the death, while fighting at once, you can retreat from the battlefield, and though your army gets pushed back a long distance on the map, it doesn´t matter much.
That the AI isn´t really up to coping with the RTW style map has been said already, especially it doesn´t make use of one of the most useful features of the new map: multi-stack battles. In BI there was a bigger tendency of the AI to keep its armies together, especially the hording factions did that. Sadly, this cohesion has been lost for MTW2 again.

[grinningman]

And the campaign is overall better in terms of diplomacy and espionage.

I think the RTW map makes espionage and diplomacy much more tedious. I love the way an agent can travel between any two ports in a single turn in MTW. It makes it so much easier to use agents, especially diplomats. I find their slow movement rate in M2TW very frustrating.

[Cecil XIX]

Ideally, M2TW/RTW style should be better. But in reality, I think the MTW/STW style works better.

[DanMasey]

For me it’s definitely the M2TW/RTW style map. Whilst I loved Shogun I just think the new version is so much more enhanced… It’s just no comparable. Play Shogun after a game of M2TW and you’ll understand ;). Even with better graphics, the Shogun one would still be obsolete by far.

[grapedog]

I had a MUCH easier time defeating the AI on the old STW/MTW style maps.

I prefer the new maps, it makes it more difficult for both the Ai and myself. Just dragging and dropping stacks of armies was too simple. At least with the current maps, i have to plan my different armies timeframes for attacks. If I am using two half stacks and heading towards a castle with a full stack defense, I get one stack there too early and it can blow up all my plans...especially if it's in hostile territory with other half+ stack armies hiding out or marching around.

My only annoying thing is having to keep an eye on my civ's when moving them somewhere. If something gets in their way, they can't move around it without my attention. I would really like it if holy civ's of the religions could use their own religions ports for quick travel. An english priest could travel all the way to the Iberian penninsula in 2 or 3 turns just using French/Portugese/Spanish ports(1 per turn). Same thing with diplomats...while say spies and assassins had to move overland or with my own boats...that would be cool.

[dismal]

If I am using two half stacks and heading towards a castle with a full stack defense, I get one stack there too early and it can blow up all my plans...

I must say, I never feel the need to attack with more than one stack. Other than the Mongols/Timurids, there's not much the AI will throw at you that is a threat to a single stack.

Indeed, it would be more accurate to say I worry more about keeping my armies far enough apart so that I don't get let an attack against a second army drag a better army into an unwanted battle.

[Nelson]

I have enjoyed both map styles while appreciating the advantages as well as the shortcomings of each. I prefer the Rome/MTW2 strategy maps because of the far greater terrain variations for tactical battles. In Shogun and MTW you had the very same battle maps time after time.

[Slyspy]

The AI cannot handle the new free form map which is one reason why RTW is so easy. Can't comment in M2TW because I haven't brought it (I see too many unhappy similarities between the two).

[455trt43trg]

I like RTW stylish map.

[Fookison]

RTW/M2TW style hands down......