Number of turns per year?

[BoyarPunk]

As Zarky touched on, I wonder how aging will be programmed in ETW.
Will factional leaders/generals/agents/admirals age the normal 1 game year = 1 aging year or will it be at the warped rate that they age in M2TW?

[Praxil]

4 turns per year for me please. 240 turns is just too short and quick for me. I like just to sit back, relax, trade and build up the faction under my control. I like advantage at the pace I want to, I love to micromanage my towns to their perfection. In general I want deeper campaign map experience.

[Daveybaby]

As Zarky touched on, I wonder how aging will be programmed in ETW.
Will factional leaders/generals/agents/admirals age the normal 1 game year = 1 aging year or will it be at the warped rate that they age in M2TW?

In m2tw the default turn rate was 2 years per turn. If you'd had generals/etc age at that rate you'd only be able to use them for about 20 or so turns before they died. Its a bit hard to get much training up done in 20 turns, its also very hard for players to care about keeping their best generals alive in battle if theyre going to be dead soon anyway.

So CA decided to decouple the aging rate and the turn rate. No, its not realistic - but it makes sense in terms of making the game more playable. And its a game, not a simulation. Games are supposed to be fun.

It still staggers me that people dont understand this - and that there are still people, even now, complaining about the 'unrealistic' movement rates in M2TW. All i can say its that i'm thankful these people dont make games - they'd be as much fun as a watching paint dry simulator. Reminds me of a quote: "I hate tetris - it's so unrealistic".

Anyway, thankfully this shouldnt be a problem in ETW - its 120 years timescale, Assuming 2 turns/year this will give you plenty long enough to get plenty of use out of your generals etc (i.e. 40 years active service at 2 turns per year = 80 turns) without having weird aging rates. So hopefully thats one less thread topic to see posted to the forums anew every day.

[pevergreen]

Things like this, when confirmed, will be posted in the summary thread.

Lets hope people can read.

[Rodion Romanovich]

If we can vote, I vote 4 turns a year and several starting dates!

Starting date ideas:
- Great northern war
- 7 years war
- French revolution

[Bijo]

If we can vote, I vote 4 turns a year and several starting dates!

I concur.

[Tratorix]

I'd like to see 4 turns a year. 240 turns just seems like to little time to me. I don't like to feel rushed when playing strategy games, which is probably why I suck at RTS games.

[challengethesea]

I vote 4. And who is to say that those of us who want realism are being ridiculous? I understand it is a game, but my enjoyment of it would be crippled if it took me two years or more to simply get a fleet from France to Egypt. In this time period things moved at such a pace that a two turn per year system simply cannot convey the nature of the era. For me, immersion is something I seek in games. I am particularly interested in seeing things portrayed somewhat believably in this game, as the era has been a favorite subject of mine for several years now. So that's my take on it. If we're concerned about different types of gamers with different preferences (which I think we are) a great way to deal with the issue would be to expand the aspect of campaign goals, and what constitutes a victory. My biggest complaint with nearly every grand strategy game I've ever played is that the wars are nearly always total, and to achieve victory involves the complete conquest of the map. To have more realistic and limited criteria for a campaign victory would appeal to people who are interested in shorter games, I imagine. So hopefully we could all be satisfied.