STW/MTW or M2TW/RTW style campaign map?

[Ciaran]

In MTW, the first key of any battle was to find the best terrain to fight and everything that you said applied. When you were on higher ground your archers had greater range, your infantry were more effective and your cavalry picked up that much more speed on charges. These things haven't been that significant starting from Rome because when I started RTW I applied MTW tactics and realized immediately how they made little difference.

The most important change that was made between MTW and RTW was removing the line of sight rule for ranged weapons, in MTW a missile weapon which has no direct line of sight to their target suffers a severe accurracy penalty, so missile weapons have to be deployed either in front of the army or on a steep enough hill. This penalty is gone in RTW, sadly.
One thing I noticed in M2TW, however, is that even crossbows are able to arch their fire. In RTW they cannot (that is, in BI they cannot, in RTW it´s the slingers who can´t shoot over their comrades´ heads), something which a) completely defeats the purpose of having archers, since crossbows can do their job as well plus they´re armour-piercing, and b) it looks utterly stupid, the crossbowmen holding the weapon level and the bolts going up like skyrockets.

But this is all battlefield stuff, not concerned with the campaign map and therefore off topic.

[Wardo]

STW/MTW system with improvements. Hearts of Iron/Europa Universalis III for example could export some elements that would fix the problems and simplicity of the map.

[Powermonger]

Definetly the old style. The Rome/M2TW style map has too much unneccesary guff, it no longer feels like a generals map and is too busy to look at. All I want is a simple map to view with tokens to move around, not animated avatars everywhere I look. There is no need to have a winter/summer either.

Yes the old risk style map did need a rework to bring it up to par, but instead of over engineering it with animated trees and silly giants walking about, they could've taken a more reserved, cartography stance and modeled the strategy map off the relief maps sold in map stores. An example of the path they could've gone can be seen below.



Maybe it's just nostalgia for MTW but the old map felt more atmospheric, was simple and worked. The new map just over-complexes the strategic component.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Powermonger

Definetly the old style. The Rome/M2TW style map has too much unneccesary guff, it no longer feels like a generals map and is too busy to look at. All I want is a simple map to view with tokens to move around, not animated avatars everywhere I look. There is no need to have a winter/summer either.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

What you show is one of the many alternatives they could have taken. There were definitely marketing/commercial reasons for the map change however too. I find it very hard to believe that it was done on grounds of game design and functionality only.

As for nostalgia as i see it, it has nothing to do with it. The strategic element is quite downgraded in the new map; its quite hard to lose and there is no need to coordinate many parameters both in short and long term. Instead there is plenty of micromanagement.

[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.

[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.

[ChaosLord]

Since most RTW/M2TW battles end up being seige battles you still end playing the same maps alot of the time. The variation you gain for the rare RTW/M2TW field battles aren't worth the AI getting crippled.

[JCoyote]

The variation you gain for the rare RTW/M2TW field battles aren't worth the AI getting crippled.

Yet another guy who holds a good map responsible for a bad AI. As I've said, facing off against other human players, which would you prefer? I'd say new style every time.

The MAP is great. The AI has problems, but it has problems everywhere. IF you removed everything the AI wasn't so great at, you wouldn't have much game left.

[ChaosLord]

What does the campaign map have to do with mp? CA will likely never add the campaign mode to MP so it doesn't matter there. If you're talking about the battle-map variation for MP the default maps and mappacks for the older games seemed to help that just fine. I didn't say to remove the map, just pointing out that the Risk-style map served the AI better. It could more easily gather its forces to put up a better assault or defense.

[JCoyote]

You're thinking so... narrow you missed the point entirely chaos. You don't judge a feature by how well the AI uses it. Any feature. Would you say we shouldn't have buildings because the AI doesn't know the right thing to build? We shouldn't have army stacks cause the AI doesn't know how to balance them? We shouldn't have flaming/exploding artillery shots because the AI has no idea how to use them right? We shouldn't have merchants because the AI has no clue what to do with them?

You don't base a feature's virtue on the AI's ability to use it. Ever. The map is good, but the AI is mediocre, across the board the AI is mediocre.

The AI will grow to accomodate new features in time anyway. IMAGINE you were playing against another person. Would the new map be better then? It would be a lot more interesting. As for AI, the goal of AI, any AI, is to be able to play similarly to a person eventually. When that happens, which map would you rather play on? That's the point... buildthe playability as involving and robust as possible, let the AI catch up. It will in time. Til then, you can always mod in campaign multiplayer if you really want. But that had nothing to do with the argument.

[grinningman]

You're thinking so... narrow you missed the point entirely chaos. You don't judge a feature by how well the AI uses it. Any feature. Would you say we shouldn't have buildings because the AI doesn't know the right thing to build? We shouldn't have army stacks cause the AI doesn't know how to balance them? We shouldn't have flaming/exploding artillery shots because the AI has no idea how to use them right? We shouldn't have merchants because the AI has no clue what to do with them?

Yes to all those questions.

It's a single player game. Every time the developers think up a new feature, they should ask the questions (1) Can we make the AI use this feature effectively, and (2) will this feature give a huge advantage to the player over he AI? If the answer to (1) is no and (2) is yes, then they shouldn't put it in.

There are always some things that you can put in that add flavour or are just fun, like traits and ancillaries. But in a single player game, the actual game should take precedence over everything else. Don't get me wrong, I love eye candy just as much as the next guy, and I think that it counts for a lot more than some crotchety old TW veterans give it credit for ;-) But my reason for playing TW games is ultimately to make interesting strategic and tactical decisions in order to defeat the computer players.

[Fookison]

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

[dismal]

You don't base a feature's virtue on the AI's ability to use it. Ever. The map is good, but the AI is mediocre, across the board the AI is mediocre.

Why not?

You can't neatly separate the benefits of a feature from the AIs capability to use it when it comes to the overall enjoyability of the game.

[Puzz3D]

In Shogun and MTW you had the very same battle maps time after time.

MTW chooses randomly from a set of maps for a particular terrain type. Maps can be added to these map sets. The attacker/defender are also oriented four different ways depending on the orientation of the border on the strategic map.

[Nelson]

MTW chooses randomly from a set of maps for a particular terrain type. Maps can be added to these map sets. The attacker/defender are also oriented four different ways depending on the orientation of the border on the strategic map.

That’s true but my (perhaps spotty) recollection is that if I crossed the same border going in the same direction repeatedly I got the same battle map each time. But it has been years since I played it.

Back in the day, I never held the Risk style strategy map system against Shogun or Medieval and I still don’t. They work well.

Regarding AI and its’ relationship to the map style, well, the assumption always seems to be that AI should mirror a competent if not brilliant human opponent. Yet history is chock full of kings, emperors, generals, consuls, chiefs, warlords, etc. who were miserable commanders. For every Black Prince or Richard Lionheart there was a guy who didn’t know his helm from his chamber pot. The AI can simulate him with admirable fidelity! The player meanwhile suffers very little from these knuckleheads in his own employ.

[dismal]

Regarding AI and its’ relationship to the map style, well, the assumption always seems to be that AI should mirror a competent if not brilliant human opponent. Yet history is chock full of kings, emperors, generals, consuls, chiefs, warlords, etc. who were miserable commanders. For every Black Prince or Richard Lionheart there was a guy who didn’t know his helm from his chamber pot. The AI can simulate him with admirable fidelity! The player meanwhile suffers very little from these knuckleheads in his own employ.

The issue to me is when the bad AI makes the game less enjoyable.

A great strategy game should give you the feeling you have overcome mighty odds and accomplished greatness only because of your fantastic managerial genius. It should not make you feel like you just beat a six year old at basketball.

M2TW gives you some of both.