RTS vs. TBS

[Brian Mc]

I'm just curious about how feelings break down concerning RTS vs. TBS. It seems pretty clear that CA is interested as well given the survey question on the MTWII start up page. I've heard a few people making noise about RTS, someone on the official board said the game feels like it crashes to a halt when you finish a battle. Talk like that makes me sorta depressed so I wanted to see a poll result, see if you guys can reassure me that I'm not the only one that enjoys province building and grand strategy.

[Noir]

RTS TW in the campaign? Please God no - anything else but this.

[Xehh II]

I think RTS campaign map would be cool.

[Charge]

Just don''t make it like C&C, that's all.
But I'm seriously don't know anthing about it yet. Firstly I thought poll is about "towards RTS or TBS in a whole game"...

[Zenicetus]

I think we have a better chance of getting challenging AI opponents in a turn-based game, where the program can analyze a static snapshot instead of reacting to developments in real time. This is especially true when you're not up against a single opponent like Warcraft, but a large group of factions that should all be struggling against each other, as well as the player. If I'm playing as Spain and fighting a major war with Britain, I want the AI's full "attention".... not just a 1/50th slice of it, if there are 50 other factions in the game.

I'm also basing this on the fact that my current favorite strategic AI is in the turn-based GalCiv2, a really wonderful game if you're into pure strategy (no user-controlled battles). I've never seen anything like that in an RTS. RTS games are popular at least in part because it's the best format for multiplayer against human opponents. If the main focus of the TW series remains the single player campaign (and I hope CA stays with that focus), then it might as well be turn-based to give the maximum advantage to the AI. I'd rather see CA put whatever skills they have in realtime, reactive AI to work on the tactical battlefield.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Absolutely no. I have nothing against RTS, actually I come from RTS's and have recently made a partial return (getting addicted to EU3 ) but TotalWar should remain as what it is: TotalWar! Turn-based strategy is a vital element of the TW feel. Even the RTS-like features (moving things on the map as opposed to placing pieces) introduced with the RTW map alienated many old school TW players as you can see in various threads all around the place.
.

[Csargo]

I think we have a better chance of getting challenging AI opponents in a turn-based game, where the program can analyze a static snapshot instead of reacting to developments in real time. This is especially true when you're not up against a single opponent like Warcraft, but a large group of factions that should all be struggling against each other, as well as the player. If I'm playing as Spain and fighting a major war with Britain, I want the AI's full "attention".... not just a 1/50th slice of it, if there are 50 other factions in the game.

I agree.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Definitely TBS - mainly because I don't think the RTS system would be workable unless the game was dramatically simplified.

In the more recent TW games, the scale is simply too large and complex for an RTS setting to work correctly. The player would either have to eternally pause to get an overview of his situation, which would completely destroy the objective, or would have to try to watch army movement, his own defence and his economy at the same time, probably resulting in a rather frustrated person at the end of it all. This effect would be amplified if the player had extensive borders.

[Freedom Onanist]

I voted No on the principle that RTS generally = more infantile play (very subjective opinion of my own). To be honest, I think there are too many factions doing too many things simultaneously now to have the campaign "real time". You would need the game to run in nearly real "real time" to be able to digest it all and take meaningful decisions. The map is only getting bigger, how can I hope to take effective action in India and North America in real time? I can't see how it would work without a Pause button and some kind of summary of what's happened - unless CA want to take it to a wider audience where the lowest common denominator rules.

[caravel]

An RTS map would be unworkable for TW games, which already have the real time battles element anyway. It would also turn the game into a silly clickfest, trying to build and pump out armies faster than your opponents. RTW already feels a little like this anyway.

Generally turn based strategy + TW real time battles works well. RTS base building and resource management games are better off as a pure strategy map with individual troops as opposed to units and not with the real time battles of TW.

[Charge]

The only thing I wish to see is all generals, agents, fleets, able to moving simultaneously on your turn. Not just 1 diplomat, than 1 general etc...

[naut]

An RTS map would be unworkable for TW games

It could work like in Hearts of Iron, but it would make battles impossible, as they would be occuring simultaneously etcetera. So absolutely no.

[Viking]

The poll result agree with me

[rc_848]

RTS simply will not work for a Total War game, especially Empire considering it now stretches to India and N America. It will be a complete mess with all the factions involved. It also means that armies are going to be miniscual like in Rise of Nations. RTS?...No way!

[magnum]

To be completely honest, while I have bought every TW except Alexander, if CA made ETW an RTS campaign I wouldn't buy it. No other consideration.

[Master of Puppets]

To be completely honest, while I have bought every TW except Alexander, if CA made ETW an RTS campaign I wouldn't buy it. No other consideration.

I hear ya buddy, the whole turn based strategy aspect of the TW series is what draws me to it. Its like combining RISK or AXIS AND ALLIES board games with an epic war movie, which rules in my opinion. Playing another version of command and conquer or battle for middle earth would be just lame and hectic.

[Faenaris]

To be completely honest, while I have bought every TW except Alexander, if CA made ETW an RTS campaign I wouldn't buy it. No other consideration.

I agree. It's the combination of turn-based strategy with real-time tactics that made me hooked on the TW series. While full realtime (with sliders, pause buttons and what not) would make it more "realistic", it would be a totally different feeling. And I'm a TBS bitch. :)

[Riadach]

Although I voted against an rts campaign, I think if they were to expand into multitplayer that rts might be preferable.

[Charge]

Preferably? hmmmm...
Who faster sends units to besiege settlements, etc ...

[Mersk]

The only way a TW game would work as RTS is if the camp map RTS moved very slowly and paused whenever you entered into a battle, settlement details, etc.

Programming wise the AI could be just as smart, the code would be more complex and would require additional threads, but that’s an awful lot of code for something that is being done now well enough as a batch. It might be “neat” if done properly, but I don’t think the benefit would out weight the effort.

[Charge]

Yep. Unlikely that CA will do something properly *grrr*. And rts-style tw is a completely different game, that needs another title, I think.

[TosaInu]

STW and MTW had TBS campaign and RTS battles, that worked well. RTW and M2TW add a 3rd layer: the 3D battlemap and movepoints. That's a neat connection between the two.

[doc_bean]

I've always preferred the MTW/STW style map. But I do think CA just didn't get the 3D world map *just right*.

Going over to real time would probably be a very bad idea.

[TosaInu]

I've always preferred the MTW/STW style map. But I do think CA just didn't get the 3D world map *just right*.

Going over to real time would probably be a very bad idea.

Improving the 3D map is a good thing. That 3D map has some sort of RTS (factions can withdraw units that are attacked).



It would be nice when that 3D map can be put to use in MP too. Actually, one can. But a file needs to be edited to add coordinates and unlock battlemaps, a pity. It needs the nice GUI it offers elsewhere: a worldmap and then just select the location where you want to have a battle. For competition purposes you also want to provide the XY coordinates (to ensure it's exactly that part of the map). A favourites list is nice too.

[Matt_Lane]

I hope they don't turn TW into an RTS game, whenever I've played other RTS titles I always feel I'm being rushed and it doesn't suit my game style. The contrast between hectic battles and global strategies is what makes the game stand out for me. In fact one of my biggest gripes with the strategy map is that I can't roll back a decision, say when I send troops somewhere and their route looks like its been plotted by a cheap Sat Nav. I like the sound of the upgrades they are making to the strategy map, extra interactive building etc, but I'm cautious about CA taking this development too far.

[Benandorf]

No no NO! TW is good because it ISN'T just an RTS. If it moves out of its niche, it's just another RTS game out there.

[TosaInu]

I've always preferred the MTW/STW style map. But I do think CA just didn't get the 3D world map *just right*.

I didn't like the STW map, but just one property of it, that was fixed in MTW.

I didn't like that each province had just one map. I could live with it, but it was annoying when you attacked say a river province from both the west, the east and/or the north and ended up in exactly the same position: the same side of that dreadful bridge.

The MTW map has the sillyness that it takes years and years to cross tiny parts of Europe through friendly territories (it takes less than a year to cross the mainland on foot in reality), while you could hop from Scandinavia to Jerusalem within one turn when you had a shipbridge (granted, the same can be said about Japan: it took many seasons to cross it). It fixed the issue I had with the STW campaign map by making maps random and related to where you attacked from, but the traveltime felt bad. That and the hardcoded 1 turn per year just isn't my thing.

The 3D map isn't perfect either, the AI can't really use it well and when my army/ship is attacked I want to say where it needs to go to (pull back a little and fight it out on the high ground/shelter in the harbour, instead of retreating to a valley/open sea and get defeated by three armies/fleets).

Both a 2D and 3D map could work.

[Zenicetus]

The 3D map isn't perfect either, the AI can't really use it well and when my army/ship is attacked I want to say where it needs to go to (pull back a little and fight it out on the high ground/shelter in the harbour, instead of retreating to a valley/open sea and get defeated by three armies/fleets).

That's a good point. We're missing that whole initial phase of armies maneuvering for an advantageous position. Battles have been won or lost before the units even engage, because one side was able to force the other (whether intentionally or by lucky accident) into a terrible tactical position.

Since CA hasn't said anything about it, it looks like we won't get this in ETW. But eventually I'd sure like to see this phase between movement on the large strategic map and the small battle map modeled somehow. It could be turn-based with movement points like the big map, but on a much smaller scale. Maybe have three or four turns, each turn representing a day before the battle, with forced encampment at night unless your general has the night fighter trait. It would make each field battle longer to complete, but this could be mitigated by allowing game saves during this phase, and a choice to bypass and go directly to auto-calculated start positions like we have now. Ideally there should be fewer battles in the game anyway (IMO). Each one should be more epic. I think something like this would help make each battle feel more significant.

That is, assumiung the AI could take advantage of it, so it wouldn't become yet another player exploit. As always, that's the sticking point with coming up with new ideas for the game, when there is so much work to do in improving the existing AI.

[Colonel-Commissar Gaunt]

I believe 'to have the choice' is the answer to this matter. What this series has lacked is greater amounts of just the ability to choose how you want to play the game. Simple.

[caravel]

I believe 'to have the choice' is the answer to this matter. What this series has lacked is greater amounts of just the ability to choose how you want to play the game. Simple.

Unfortunately, not that simple as that would mean effectively building two campaign map engines simultaneously, and that's aside from the fact that an RTS map simply wouldn't work for a TW game anyway.