Special Tournament maps

[♔Mandelus♔]

I would like to open this thread here to collect all the wishes and facts for the mutually desired tournament map. I’m also sure, that there is really some discussion needed around this theme. I wrote shortly in an other map thread something about it, but I’m sure it is worth to make an own thread about it.

The desire for a truly flat map, which gives neither side an advantage with a high ground, is beside group 3 all around common or accepted. It is true, that any high ground will give the player on it 2 sorts of advantage:
a) higher range of his shooting units
b) an advantage in the close hand to hand fight for the guy who is uphill.
c) of course is the ability of the player most important, but in term of two equivalent players the guy on the hill will mostly win and only because he has the named advantages in a) and b).

But from now on is the community divided into 3 factions / groups. It will be worthless to say which group is stronger or something else like this, because at least both are similar.

Group 1
This group wants to have a map as it is given in RTW and M2TW with the flat fertile grassland map. They won’t have not more than flat grassy area and with nothing else on it. Their final arguments are this in collected form:

• Only such a map is a truly fair map which gives no side any minimum advantage on the start or during the battle in term of landscape.
• Only with nothing else than grass will hind any sort of obstacle on the battleground that will hinder any movement of any unit of the game.
• This kind of maps are all around accepted in other TW games as the only one true tournament map.
• TW games have in a multiplayer tournament battle nothing to do with historical correctness in term of landscape and using it for tactics.

Group 2
This group wants to have a map with some life on it, for example some trees, bushes and here in ETW maybe some fences, for both sides fair laid on the map. The map could and must be of course also truly table flat, but must have some realistic touch on it. They never want to have a sterile green painted map which is in their eyes not more than a chessboard with out black and white fields. Their arguments are mostly contra points to group 1:

• If a map has no fair given vegetation and “life” on it, any use of the landscape in the tactic is not possible.
• To play on such a sterile map will be at least only a movement like with chess pieces without rule for any sort of piece how to move on the board.
• Fair given advantages are for example some woods and bushes where a player can hide troops from the start on and also during the battle on other places (if the situation makes it possible).
• Trees, bushes and also fair laid fences are here never any obstacle that will give an advantage for one and surly never made the reason, why a battle is won or lost.
• Even in RTW / BI are flat maps with vegetation on it, for example Germanic forest or swampland. If there were any games and tour games on it, no one told any time “I only lost, because there were awesome trees on the map!

Group 3
This group is a minority at least. Beside all the arguments of group 2, they say, that also a table flat map is bad, because high grounds are also part of tactics. They argue, that the high ground make not a really advantage that will mostly make the final decision of the battle. Even if this makes the decision, the looser made only and nothing more than the wrong tactic!
Only in term of hillcampers which sit on their hill from the start on and with no possibility of the opponent to make moves around to come of his level are bad, as are hills looking more than mountains. They want to have no table flat map, they want to have some highnesses and little highs spread around the complete map.

Personally I am part of group 2, but also have some little understanding for group 3. However, I agree full with arguments of group 2. I will also say, that many players are in a tie situation.

At least I will say, that I’m normally for the solution to make both types of maps and of course from 1v1 up to 4v4.
But I’m here also sceptical in term of some players who follow the arguments of players without using their own brain or to make own tries to become an own meaning. This for example given in term of guys where I personally heard “the honourable and well known player “X” has told that only this kind of map is …. And when he said it, it must be true!”

Finally I will say, that also the given rules are important. If there is f.e. “no artillery” part of the rules (as stupid as it is in ETW), it will change some things at least.

Greetings
Mandelus

[Bratalix]

I'm personally more on option 1 since its in fact most fair, but some forest could be nice i guess. I dont want any hills though.

[pezit]

I think hills and trees should be on the map, lots of strategic options dissappear with them. But that doesn't mean it can't be balanced, just mirror the hills and forests on both sides, or one in the middle.. this won't give any player a headstart, just more tactical possibilities.

[Verstorbene]

Sure, a flat map is super-fair, but then you have the option of one style of combat. I do agree that there should, indeed, be a table-flat map; however, look to other famous RTS games. Most tournament maps had variation but were mirrored on both sides. Perhaps that is what needs to be done. Create half of a map that has a center than can easily be mirrored to the other side. This way, terrain is still an issue, but there is no advantage as each player has the same deployment zone and the same options as far as terrain goes. If each player advances, they meet at the same point in the middle with no advantage; however, if one player can lure the other - a tactically sound idea - he will have the advantage of terrain, and not by some luck of the draw. These are my points:

-Mirrored maps are fair and allow a variety of combats.
-Players who like other types of warfare do not have to learn a specific sterile style of fighting to be considered "fair"
-Other features implemented into the game that allow for strategies like ambushing or maneuvering over terrain to gain an advantage are kept intact.
-A "dominant" strategy is not formed due to only being able to play on one map.
-Creativity is key to winning a battle.

[Lord Karhedron]

Mmm... I'm much more fior mirrored than flat and empty. Whole point of warfare in this era was to use terrain and strategies to your advantage.

With previous games being largely melee based, terrain had -less- of an effect. Sure, it was still important, but essentially it came down to a good hard slog.

Here? Terrain played a VAST role in battles of this period... and one thing i'm rather frsutrated about is the lack of random farms and buildings to hop into on the map.

Mirrored maps gives both players the opportunity to be at both an advantage and disadvantage.

[DubleBlargles]

The only thing that matters is a map needs to be symmetrical. Maps should be larger, to play more of a role in army organization and moving it around. Units should be harder to spot so you can flank through forests and they shouldn't be able to see you. The high ground should be in the middle of the map, and other things like that to discourage camping with spikes. Though before we do any sort of competitions the game needs a couple patchs and it needs modding tools.

[Prince_of_Macedon]

Group 2

This group wants to have a map with some life on it, for example some trees, bushes and here in ETW maybe some fences, for both sides fair laid on the map. The map could and must be of course also truly table flat, but must have some realistic touch on it. They never want to have a sterile green painted map which is in their eyes not more than a chessboard with out black and white fields. Their arguments are mostly contra points to group 1:

• If a map has no fair given vegetation and “life” on it, any use of the landscape in the tactic is not possible.
• To play on such a sterile map will be at least only a movement like with chess pieces without rule for any sort of piece how to move on the board.
• Fair given advantages are for example some woods and bushes where a player can hide troops from the start on and also during the battle on other places (if the situation makes it possible).
• Trees, bushes and also fair laid fences are here never any obstacle that will give an advantage for one and surly never made the reason, why a battle is won or lost.
• Even in RTW / BI are flat maps with vegetation on it, for example Germanic forest or swampland. If there were any games and tour games on it, no one told any time “I only lost, because there were awesome trees on the map!

The problem with this Option is that a forest will also give the defensive player an advantage because he can hide his heavy troops in there. Hiding a majority of your troops in a forest is just as lame as hillcamping. Especially with gunpowder units. With gunpowder units, it's a whole lot easier to get ambushed. If you can't even see his troops, then your opponent has the best chance of getting the first shot in.

If you ever play clan maps on Rome Total War, you'll notice that you can have a perfectly flat map with trees in the background. Thus, you can still have a pretty map but without the extra-bonus for campers. You can even put in a pretty mountain in the background if you really need to see eye-candy for a strategy game.

The perfectly-flat map with no terrain obstructions is perfect for taking away the power of a camper. It worked in Rome Total War and Medieval II Total War. So Option 1 is the best deterrent.

[Zyphlan]

Im part of group 2 maybe even 3.

Group 2 seeing hiding troops in bushes for sudden shockwave is just a good tactic and makes it 10 times harder.


Group 3: Hills used too be around in that time maybe place hills so people need to move there army too there. same in all othe rts you normally had a building in the middle which could reinforce your side.

[♔Mandelus♔]

Hi Prince,

The problem with this Option is that a forest will also give the defensive player an advantage because he can hide his heavy troops in there. Hiding a majority of your troops in a forest is just as lame as hillcamping. Especially with gunpowder units. With gunpowder units, it's a whole lot easier to get ambushed. If you can't even see his troops, then your opponent has the best chance of getting the first shot in.

To hide troops is only an advantage when the enemy don't is aware of it. If the landscape makes it possible, everyone must awareof it and if it is only a look around how many visible troops the enemy has on the start. If there are not all of max 20 visible, you must ecpect some hidden troups somewhere.
Also reconaissance could be easy made and it is fact (in RTW, ETW and M2TW) that a reconaissance unit could even make something visible until they earned bullets or what ever from them (beside enemy artillery of course, maybe long range light infantry too).
So this tactical part will become some needing, but only maybe.

Beside this, there must not be a map wth a dense wood where the complete "Grand army of Napoleon" could be hidden in it, as f.e. it is in the mom with the map sweden in ETW.
Put only some small groups of trees here and there. If there is a single unit hidden, so what?
Also I must tell, that in every tourney game is normally as rule written who must be attacke ror defender. So if someone tries to camp in the defender rule here, so what?
Beside vegetation is no really obstacle on it and because it is flat like a table, there is no advantage of a higher position.

So finally it is the same situation with no really worthable advantage and only with some more vegetation on it, not more not less.

I won't be hard to say it clear, but to say, that someone will have lost a battle because his enemy has hidden a unit behind a tree or something like this, is a little bit sick at least. Don't understand it wrong it is not personally ...


Its at least only a question of tactic and who is the better player. If yu got ambushed it is not good, but finally it is your own mistake to become ambushed because you were not aware of it. To forbid this possibility because it could give an advantage to the player who used it over the player who ins't aware enough about it, is really the wrong way!
Other things which can give any really advantage like hills where the camper has an advantage in melee fights against the uphill fighter and more important a higher range of the shooting units are here not given, bcause it is flat, flat like flat grassland but with vegetation on it which are no obstacle and no advantage.

[Jmeyer1292]

Flat map with a small to medium sized hill smack dab in the middle. A centerpiece to move and fight around.

[♔Mandelus♔]

Well,

any highness or any other real advantage in the center or mostly in the center of a map, which is only after battlestart reachable, you will become a common situation in nearly every battle:

There will will be only a run / race who takes first the hill in the center and could hold it with his part for part reaching units. Thats minmum 66% of the tactic in the battle.


In RTW is such a map, of course a really extreme map of such type: the sarmatian high map where a huge pile of sand was set in a (otherwise good) landscape. Here it is allways the same course as above named with the race who is first on top of the hill.

[Prince_of_Macedon]

Its at least only a question of tactic and who is the better player. If yu got ambushed it is not good, but finally it is your own mistake to become ambushed because you were not aware of it.

I know how to scout

But the point is: you're making one player go through the trouble of scouting whereas the other player can just sit there. Also, this isn't Rome Total War where scouting was pretty easy. In this game, an artillery piece can shred your scouting party quite easily.

You will lose precious troops just trying to see what your opponent has hidden. As I said, both players should have equal terrain to start off with. And neither player should get an advantage for camping. The campers already have maps in Empire Total War that give them an extra advantage.

[Lucullus]

Higher ground (even minimal):

- advantage in range for defender/camper
- advantage in accuracy defender/camper
- advantage in melee defender/camper
- advanatge in charge defender/camper

Fences, buildings:

- advantage for defender/camper

Places to hide:

- advantage for defender/camper


Result: defending/camping promoted = static game

Some people said that in ETW terrain isnt as important as in RTW and M2TW) anymore. Thats nonsense. Infact nearly all units are ranged ones and that makes absolutely flat terrain imperative, even more than in previous titles where melee was dominant (except low cash on RTW). This game seems to be all about who gets to shoot who without them shooting back and who gets the first volleys.

[Lupu]

Multiplayer has nothing to do with using terrain for tactics???
The only problem is an unfair map, flat maps suck.

[Kip]

Group One is probably the best (Just because the Group 2 Forest could end up in someone's deployment zone, which makes it unfair). However, I would amend Group One to include a couple of garrisonable-structures or wooded copses in the exact center of the map.

There is a delicate balance to be found... battles were never fought on a perfectly flat grassfield, but we need to find a balanced area where neither player has an advantage. I think adding a couple buildings, fences, or walls to the center of the field would simulate actual battleground conditions, while not giving anyone an unfair advantage (keep in mind, I'm not talking a whole city; just one or two farmhouses, a la Waterloo).

And of course, there should be a perfect grass field version available if the players want to play a pure field battle, as the buildings/fences/walls/trees in the center would inhibit some tactical maneuvering.

[♔Mandelus♔]

Well,

I will only give a remark of a guy - more part of group 3 btw - what he told me in term of only flat green grassland at M2TW ....

To bann everything more than flat grass from a TW battle map is killing the game. We play here TW, not chess guys!
I don't talk about any hights on a map where I can understand the flat map in term of hill campers, I'm talking about "life" in a TW battle map. Of course can a group of 3 trees hide a unit and if they can shoot, the first volley can beat many more etc.
But if a map give the possibility to hide single units across the field - I'm talking about a group of trees here, some bushes there and some single trees overther that is not a woodland map- the enemy must expect an ambush in his tactic! If didnt do so, the defeat is his own mistake, not a mistake of the map or a given advantage of the map!

But ok, play again green flatlans as the only fair one, but please try to write to CA for the following changes then:

- change the grass please to a black / white chequer type
- change the colors of the played army to complete white and the other to complete black

Good luck and have fun then.

So long the words from someone else who resignated of boring only cwb rules played tours ...