Battlefields

[Mithradates]

Does anyone else feel that the mountain battlefields are rediculous. It seems nearly impossible to have a vaguely level battlefield which i assume must have been the preffered battlefield of the time. Im fed up of having to march my men up a 45* slope. And when they satnd on this slope they seem the men appeared warped and out of proportion. I think a return to the rolling landscapes of Medieval would be nice. I understand that you can position yourself on the strat map to get the right battlefield but when chasing an enemy they always seem to run to the hills leading to a dull mountain battle.

(edited to be more specific)

[Moah]

when chasing an enemy they always seem to run to the hills leading to a dull mountain battle.

Erm....Is that not a sign of decent AI?

If I'm going to be fighting a defensive battle then I want good terrain (i.e. height)

You just need to expand further. Once you have 40+ cities you find yourself fighting battles in all sorts of exotic locales...

[rebelscum]

Yes in Medieval times they sought out cricket pitches and bowling greens to fight their battles on.
Terrain plays an important part in your battle tactics, aim for the high ground every time.

[Mithradates]

I wouldnt mind particularly if the hill were somewhat realistic im just saying fighting about 5 units of peasant archers on a huge hill gets tiresome needless to say when fighting a full scale battle around the alps.

[Tambarskjelve]

I agree with Mithridates, the Fields are just slightly too rugged.
If the Ai argument was true, How come he often positions himself in an awkward low position anyway.
Given, there are rugged terrain in the world, and some battles undoubtedly were fought in such, but the majority of battles (if not ambushes) were fought in pretty level fields. The tactical advantages of defenders were often of a more logistical nature

[rebelscum]

If the Ai argument was true, How come he often positions himself in an awkward low position anyway.

How come we don't think the AI is playing an impossibly stupid character, eh eh. Not all Generals are Napoleons or Alexanders

[HoreTore]

Why, oh why are there hills/mountains in denmark and the steppes?


Seriously, there is a reason why denmark is called the pancakecountry. It's flat. Why are the battlefields there "hilly", instead of flat? Same goes for the steppes...

Yes, armies sought out hills and such. But were they able to magically create them when they weren't available?

[Didz]

Seriously, there is a reason why denmark is called the pancakecountry. It's flat. Why are the battlefields there "hilly", instead of flat? Same goes for the steppes...

To be honest I've never played Denmark, but studying the campaign map it looks pretty flat. I'm surprised to hear that you are finding battlefields with mountains on appearing and if so it would seem to be a gliche as the campaign map doesn't suggest there should be.

[Didz]

Does anyone else feel the battlefields are rediculous. It seems nearly impossible to have a vaguely level battlefield which i assume must have been the preffered battlefield of the time.

Um! short answer is NO.

As far as I can see the terrain produced for the battlefield reflects the terrain that exists in that location on the campaign map. (or are you talking about MP battlefields)

Indeed, I've been repeatedly dissappointed to find my army defending exactly the sort of bowling green you seem unable to find when what I dearly hoped for was any sort of hill, or even a decent mound to deploy my pitiful army on.

Infact, I would go farther and say that I think the construction of the battlefield terrain is one of the best features of MTW2.

If you fight outside a city, then the city is there either physically as a feature of the battlefield or as a visual reference in the background.

If you fight on the coast the sea is there, and if you landed from ships, then the ships are actually there in the background.

I recently fought a battle against the English in an area of heavily cultivated farm land and was surprised to find the battlefield dotted with small farms, villages and enclosed fields which required my army to thread its way through village streets and along farm tracks to reach the enemy.

I think its excellent, that you can actually choose a location on the map and know that the battlefield will depict the terrain in the location you chose. It certainly, an improvement on the original 'This Province=This Battlefield' system used in STW.

Also, I would argue that the idea that Medieval, or any army, deliberately sought flat terrain to stage is battle is a myth. What actually occurs is that armies seek to find terrain that favours their situation, and that would only be a bowling green if your army was heavy in cavalry (or some similar troops) who needed clear open terrain to operate effectively. There are plenty of examples of battles throughout history being fought on hills/ridges/and mountains through choice.

[Mithradates]

I dont deny that the battlefield in Medieval are a thing of beauty particularly the ones you described. However i find that all to often u seem to be attacking an army half way up everest rather than on a ridge or slight hill. Sometimes it just feels like there is very little flat ground and the enemy never oblige to fight you on even the remotest amount of it.

[Didz]

I dont deny that the battlefield in Medieval are a thing of beauty particularly the ones you described. However i find that all to often u seem to be attacking an army half way up everest rather than on a ridge or slight hill.

Actually, this feature is a very important indication that the designers of the TW series know their stuff. In fact it convinces me that they have a background in actual wargaming rather than just being computer programmers and history buffs.

Anyone who has been a serious wargamer, and especially those who have designed wargames or modelled wargame terrain will be intimately aware of the awkward compromises that have to be made between figure scale, ground scale, vertical scale and timescale.

Get these wrong and what you produce is unplayable, even though it might be historically accurate and true to the real world.

The fact, is that sticking to real world accuracy produces an unplayable and unpleasing result. A classic example of a computer wargame designed by people who didn’t understand wargaming was Napoleon 1813.

Anyone who tried to play that game will remember that (apart from the games crippling bugs), all the battlefields looked completely flat and featureless. The reason for this was that the designers didn’t understand the adjustments necessary to vertical and ground scale when modelling wargames terrain. They simply adopted the obvious 1:1 relationship on the basis that it was real world accurate.

In reality, the correct relationship between ground scale and vertical scale needs to be 1:3 when modelling wargames terrain. Partly because typical figure scale results in troops who are too tall in relation to their surroundings, and the amount of ground they occupy, but more importantly because most battlefields are viewed by players from a ‘God-Like’ perspective 100’s of feet in the air above the terrain which creates an optical illusion that the terrain is flatter than it really is.

The Totalwar series follows this tradition of ‘best practice’ and so the vertical scale of all the terrain has been emphasised by what looks like a factor of 3. If viewed from a troops eye perspective this does look incredibly steep but most of the time we adopt the wargamers perspective when controlling our troops and if the CA team had adopted a realistic relationship we would be complaining that all our battlefields looked flat as they did in Napoleon 1813.

Incidently, whilst nobody has actually mentioned it, try comparing the height of tree’s, buildings and even grass in MTW2 against the height of your troops and the ground scale being used (as suggested by weapon range) and you will begin to see how cleverly these have been adjusted to make the relationships work without creating obvious and unplayable anomalies.

[crpcarrot]

if you are choosing to fight on mountains ground isnt it obvious that you will find lots of mointains in your battle??

although i'm probably dont play as much as most people i do play a bit and i see mountains only occasionally. nothing to complain about. I generally tend to autocalc meaningless battles anyway. no fun killing 5 peasant archers when u got a full stack.

[Shahed]

if you are choosing to fight on mountains ground isnt it obvious that you will find lots of mointains in your battle??

although i'm probably dont play as much as most people i do play a bit and i see mountains only occasionally. nothing to complain about. I generally tend to autocalc meaningless battles anyway. no fun killing 5 peasant archers when u got a full stack.