Battlefields

[HoreTore]

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.

Well, not mountains in the normal sense, mountains in the Danish sense... "hilly" would probably be a better word. And there are almost no hills in Denmark... It should be almost entirely flat, I can accept slopes and the odd hill, but not the up-and-down terrain in the game...

[Didz]

Well, not mountains in the normal sense, mountains in the Danish sense... "hilly" would probably be a better word. And there are almost no hills in Denmark... It should be almost entirely flat, I can accept slopes and the odd hill, but not the up-and-down terrain in the game...

Well as I said, it probably looks more bumpy than it really is simply because of the adjusted ratio between ground and vertical scale.

I mean I just tried to fight a battle outside the western wall of Zaragossa and quite honestly the mountain shown on the map there produced a feature on the battlefiled that was almost vertical.

I agree that sometimes it does look odd, but compared the the realistic approach used in Napoleon 1813 I'd settle for the inflated hills any day.

[Empirate]

If only height advantage weren't figured so heavily into missile attacks then! It's so ridiculous sometimes: Archers firing hundreds of meters with the same accuracy as their usual max range. REITERS firing bullets that travel for 150 meters or more, their max range being 45! And Crossbowmen firing every second bolt straight up because of a little bump in the slope...

[Didz]

Trouble is I can think of much worse ways they could have handled all this. How many of us have played games where missiles magically avoid hitting your own troops, or casualities are determined mathematicaly regardless of the animation.

I agree that missiles fired from a height do travel a lot farther and that must be affected by the fact that the ground to height ratio is exaggerated. If the hill is three times higher than it would be in real life and the trajectory of the missile degrades at the same rate as it would in real life, then it will travel further than it would in real life because of the additional height of the firer above ground level.

I suppose CA could try fiddling with the rate of kinetic energy loss on the projectile but personally I think that would create more problems than it solved. Not least for missiles fired from battlements where we actually want to get the value from the full hieght of the walls even though they are too high in relation to the true ground scale.

Its like everything really, we all have our pet hates. Mine is undoubtely the over-powered cavalry, but I recognise that this is a game and that people like to see men thrown through the air as a reward for their efforts. Personally, I quite like watching my enemy suffer because I was clever enough to grab the hill before they did. The higher ground advantages have been a feature of CA's games since STW and its always been the primary battlefield tactic.

[crpcarrot]

agree with didz and would like to add fatigue and weather affects were also a major feature in MTW & STW its a shame they nerfed it in this version. units take too long to tire and even when exhausted seem to fight reasonably well whereas in MTW you had to protect your tired troops even if they were high end troops figtinng militia. i remmeber having to withdraw them to the back of my battle lines and keep them there for a breather before i send them back in. and also remember using the exhaustion factor as a tactic when fighting with inferior troop quality. so far in M2 i haven't had to worry about my men getting tired.

edit:
that was also another reason for taking the higher ground. any unit that had had to trudge up a steep slope would be pretty tired by the time it reached the top so u didnt need to be of similar quality, troop wise, to defend a hill. still to notice any significant affect of this in M2 as well as the above

2nd edit: correct my horrible typing

[Didz]

I remmeber having to withdraw them to the back of my battle lines and keep them there for a breather before i send them back in. and also remember using the exhaustion factor as a tactic when fighting with inferior troop quality. so far in M2 i haven't had to worry about my men getting tired.

Thats so true, why on earth did they nerf that it was brilliant feature.

I can remember cavalry used to just refuse to go into a gallop once they were exhausted and if you could catch them in that state you creamed them. Resting horses used to be a major factor in battlefield success and you only got two or three charges per unit during a battle. Heavy cavalry were especially fragile because their horses just didn't have the stamina, which was why you had to employ light cavalry for pursuit work.

Do, you know I'd forgotten all that, and now you've reminded me I'm really dissapointed that its all been lost.

I don't get this, though. This was a good feature in RTW, but whenever I've been attacked while laying siege in M2TW, I can't seem to spot the city I'm sieging anywhere.

Not sure I understand what your saying.

Surely if your attacked whilst seiging the result will be a sally battle, so not only should the city be there but the enemy army should appear through its gate.

However, I suspect you talking about is being attacked by another enemy army from outside the city whilst you conducting a siege. In which case the battlefield terrain is probably going to be based upon the map location of the attacking army (I think the assumption being that as the relief force approached you would be forced to lift the siege and march to meet it) which may, or may not, be within sight of the city. For example, intervening hills, forests or other terrain features might be hiding it from view.

Bear, in mind. btw, that its probably going to be behind you if your being attacked by a relieving army, so if your expecting to see it on the horizon behind the enemy army you are going to be dissappointed. The other factor which might be relevant is whether the city garrison has sallied to join the battle.

Nevertheless, its an interesting observation, I'll have to check it myself next time I end up fighting a relief force, or indeed attacking a besieging force.

[Didz]

@Temujin

Well I stand corrected, I did some tests this afternoon and you are absolutely correct. The cities are missing from the battlefield backgrounds.

I used Hotseat mode to take control of every faction and then engineered a number test seiges to determine if the city appears and under what conditions.

Seige of Hamburg

If you check the inserted image of the campaign map, you will see that the City should be more or less directly to the rear of the HRE army. The river is there, but the city isn't.

A close up of the edge of the map clearly showing the river but no sign of the city.

Seige of Sophia

If you check the insert you'll see that this battle actually takes place across the north-eastern corner of the Sophia castle, so the city should appear just off to the right flank of the Hungarian Army. But it doesn't.

Again a close-up of the map edge just in case its hiding in the distance, but nothing.

Seige of York

This seige deliberately involves two English Armies, one in the city and one attacking from outside. York should therefore be directly behind the English reinforcements shown in the picture. No sign of it, although typically for Britain it is raining.

Seige of Cordoba

Final test. Again two Moorish armies involved this time the Portuguese are clearly sandwiched between the Moors to the North, the City to the East and the river to the South. So, plenty of reference points to plot the location of the city in the background.

A closer look to the East, the river is clearly visible, but once again no city.

So, I've proved myself wrong, and I'm really disappointed. I'm sure cities appeared in the background of the RTW battlefields and I'm really surprised to discovered that MTW2 has taken a retrograde step and exclused the background detail.

[Temujin]

And there are almost no hills in Denmark... It should be almost entirely flat

This is not true. Apart from the southern part of Jutland and the smaller isles, Denmark is covered in hills. I have a nice view of some big rolling hills, that were undoubtedly much more rugged a thousand years ago, from my office window.

Danish hills may not look like much next to the mountains of Norway, but you try biking around Hobro, Vejle or Silkeborg and then tell me that Denmark has no hills!

I've only played a couple of battles in Denmark so far, all near Århus of course, and the maps look very much like what you see going south down the E45. If anything, they should have more trees, streams (where are the streams?) and lakes, not fewer hills.

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.

I don't get this, though. This was a good feature in RTW, but whenever I've been attacked while laying siege in M2TW, I can't seem to spot the city I'm sieging anywhere.