My eventual ascension to MTW2 Your comparisson?

[caravel]

I suspect people's preferences may ultimately boil down to their attitude to the abstract Risk-style map of STW/MTW and the more representational one of RTW/M2TW. For me, I greatly prefer the RTW style one - I am a historical wargamer, not a Chess player.

Sorry but I'm not sure how you can somehow relate the MTW/STW Risk style map to chess? Chess is absolutely nothing at all like Risk or the STW/MTW campaign map. The main differences between the basic functionality of both types of TW map are the open borders and movement points system used in RTW onwards. With the STW/MTW style map, army stacks will move one province at a time, with the RTW style map they can wander about on the roads within the provinces, the provinces do still exist but are largely cosmetic, as holding the city is the key to holding the province. Other factions crossing your borders can do so unhindered. In many ways this system is better than the MTW system, in many other ways it is worse. I for one can't see the real benefits of movement points in the current model being fully exploited. The movement of agents is also a major annoyance. Another myth is that the movement times are somehow more realistic as a result of movement points, even though it can take years to march an army from northern Italy into souther Spain. MTW's was indeed no better, but that was the older game, and based on the provincial map and movement. This style of movement is restricted in that it takes a turn to do anything. The biggest problem with MTW was the switching to years from the STW seasons, which was by far the better system. I think CA did it as a quick fix, after realising that the game would be very long drawn out otherwise (which is very true - It would have taken 4 times as long to get through the early era).

I also fail to see the "historical wargamer" part. I cannot work out what makes RTW or M2TW more of a historical wargamer's kind of a game? Animated giants instead of non animate Risk pieces, movement points and open borders? Visual trade routes? Roads? All objects that would not be visual on a map of that scale, thus, as with STW/MTW, abstracted. I also can't see what makes it less abstract and more realistic, apart from the aforementioned movement points system. Both types of map are less than perfect, but the RTW/M2TW map is in no sense better for historical wargamers.

[econ21]

Most historical wargames use something like the RTW/M2TW a movement point system. Risk is not a historical wargame and that style of map is less common in the genre. I made the Chess analogy, because the more limited options of the Risk style map make it easier to programme a challenging AI but IMO (I know you disagree) make it feel less like I am commanding armies on the move. I suspect that the Risk style map is one reason (along with the Civ style buildings and the geishas, STWs equivalent of flaming pigs) STW was not initially recognised as a historical wargame despite its wonderful battlefield model.

I agree the potential of the movement point system is not exploited, but it could be the basis of a pretty decent historical wargame at the strategic level (just as the battles are good historical wargames at the tactical level). There are some nice touches at the moment - mutually supporting armies, ambushes, campaign terrain appearing on the battlefield, the relative position of the armies reflected on the battlefield, better treatment of reinforcements, movement speeds varying by army composition and general traits etc. But it could be improved by a larger "zone of control" or some system of reaction moves to limit the IGO-UGO abstraction. Some modelling of supply, attrition and command n control would also be good.

[caravel]

Most historical wargames use something like the RTW/M2TW a movement point system.

Ahh, that explains it. I don't really have an experience of historical wargames outside TW.

Risk is not a historical wargame and that style of map is less common in the genre. I made the Chess analogy, because the more limited options of the Risk style map make it easier to programme a challenging AI but IMO (I know you disagree) make it feel less like I am commanding armies on the move.

I actually agree with that. The risk map is not really about commanding armies on the move as an entire amry is located in a province and that's it. You can't see your army moving through terrain or progressing towards it's objective.

My own "ascension" to RTW is going ok so far. I still need to take the time to download RTR or EB again (I've formatted and reinstalled since then). The main issue, is that despite the mods available for MTW, one cannot continue playing the same game forever. Moving from STW to MTW was a similar experience.

[Deus ret.]

Actually the one-year-per-turn-system of MTW makes the game more realistic in the end than most other contenders can claim to. the reason is simple: warfare was mostly a costly and well-considered issue, so drawn-out wars or even conflicts on a large scale were quite uncommon. In that MTW is no more realistic than, say, RTW (which I know), as giant standing armies become a common sight some time into the game

BUT

because movement is rather restricted in MTW, the resulting rate of territorial change is more at ease with historical realities. Historically, borders didn't alter often because of warfare, but much more frequently because of some kind of diplomatic agreement (or dynasty arrangements/...), and if the movement system of MTW makes warfare slower overall: Thumbs up! In RTW (even in RTR), it's possible to steamroll most opposition within 30-40 years....which means 60-80 turns, but 30 years feels just too short a span of time for the creation of a giant, well-structured and lasting empire.

Besides, up to now no-one has mentioned the re-appearing issue. I deem this feature one of the most important aspects of MTW because it helps keep campaigns vital and interesting even at a later stage. In RTW, factions either become superpowers or disappear forever if they are vanquished, in MTW the last word isn't yet spoken upon the extinction of the royal line....

[Caerfanan]

Well, just pushing a coin!

I haven't played much with the RTW/M2TW style, but just wanted to answer one point about the battles being mostly sieges without real possibility of defending the province itself first.

I think that if you put an army at the right place in your province, it will block any other army's progression. So an army in the south of your province on the road will avoid invasions from the south. I more feel like you have to defend all your roads instead of 1 province, but that you can defend it.

But well, I love MTW:VI and have played hundreds of hours, and I don't have 10 hours yet onr RTW...

[caravel]

I think that if you put an army at the right place in your province, it will block any other army's progression. So an army in the south of your province on the road will avoid invasions from the south. I more feel like you have to defend all your roads instead of 1 province, but that you can defend it.

The problem with this is that an army has to be actually in the city to affect loyalty If I could place a few stacks in blocking positions and nothing inside the city itself that would be a lot better. As things stand I would have to support a large army in the city itself and a few more to secure the borders. This makes it much more cost effective to keep one stack in the city and simply allow the siege, then just sally or fight the defense if the AI assaults.

[Caerfanan]

The problem with this is that an army has to be actually in the city to affect loyalty If I could place a few stacks in blocking positions and nothing inside the city itself that would be a lot better. As things stand I would have to support a large army in the city itself and a few more to secure the borders. This makes it much more cost effective to keep one stack in the city and simply allow the siege, then just sally or fight the defense if the AI assaults.

Uuuuh, OK, I got your point! I'll post some more about this when I've finished a campaign!

[Caerfanan]

Besides, up to now no-one has mentioned the re-appearing issue. I deem this feature one of the most important aspects of MTW because it helps keep campaigns vital and interesting even at a later stage. In RTW, factions either become superpowers or disappear forever if they are vanquished, in MTW the last word isn't yet spoken upon the extinction of the royal line....

A very good point, indeed.