RTS vs. TBS

[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.

[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.

[TosaInu]

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.

Yes, assuming the AI can use it.