Less cities in BI then in RTW

[Sitarus Originalus PM-30+]

Since i first saw the map of BI i was amazed by the fact that there are less cities then in the original RTW. at first i thought this is bad, but now i am not so sure what to think since the number of cities doesnt really effect the game itself or fun while playing it.
I wonder what you think of that? ... yes i am asking you for your personal oppinion lol..

[ExcaliburFIN]

Its better cause there is bigger battles then.

[hellblazer]

I like it because it lessons the "siegefest" that hampers vanilla RTW. Better yet is warmap that gives you the cities you crave with the buffer space inbetween to ensure field battles.

[Sitarus Originalus PM-30+]

i think that way also... i am not really sure why some players create new mods with more provinces ... it makes the game sjust longer but i can't say it improves the game itself... on the other hand i see point on more provinces also... it makes game more realistik because there are more cities in real life as well that have strategic importance for the state or warfare... (i hope you all see my point, but i wonder what others think of that, so don't be shy )

[antaeus]

big battles are more decisive in BI as there are fewer armies. in RTW you would fight a big battle, then another, then another and you might get to a city. now you can fight a big battle against a faction, and if you win thoroughly you can open up several cities or even shatter a nation, if you loose youre in big trouble as you can't simply replace losses in one turn.

much more realistic.

[Sitarus Originalus PM-30+]

waw... so true antea!! so damn true... =) and deap

[Shadows]

personally i like the map with less cities, it gives me more time to prepare to fnd off the Hordes that always end up in my lands no matter what. Damn them, but anyways yea the fewer cities in BI have made the field battle a more central part of the game and you really have to worry about your generals skills and not rely on the Gateways and Towes to thin out the enemy. All in All BI campaign map is better than the Rome one. But that doesnt make everything perfct in Bi, but thats for another thread.

[professorspatula]

I think BI has taught me that bigger does not necessarily mean better. With less settlements, and with them being more spaced out, you get a more tension filled campaign. One of the biggest changes is you no longer can rely on capturing a group of cities in close proximately that can feed each other troops, whilst also providing a secure financial base. All too often in more densely populated maps, as you take more settlements, many of them end up being protected by the other settlements, meaning you have lots of cash coming in and with no real risks. Hence why after capturing around 15 settlements in a campaign in RTW, you can pretty much stop playing then, knowing your borders are secure, your finances strong and that you're really just prelonging the inevitable by playing on. With BI and lesser settlements, the map is more open as a whole, and taking another settlement often involves a long trek with backup support taking a long period of time to arrive. In this time you are vulnerable, and there's more risk in any aggressive action, but at the same time, more rewards. Each settlement you seize is a big step towards overall victory, and not just another small stepping stone. Sure - the campaign is over faster, but is requiring two or three times more settlements to win any harder and fun, or just the same experience, prolonged?

I think there are plus points and negative points for both maps with few and lots of settlements, and it doesn't hurt to try both types of campaign.

[hsimoorb]

Its better cause there is bigger battles then.

Less cities dosen't mean more battles or bigger battles at all. With more cities there are more troops, so you'll be engaging many more enemy units. With less cities however there are fewer troops, so each unit you kill gets you farther in your campaign.

it gives me more time to prepare to fnd off the Hordes

You'd have more time if you had cities as well as open space in the way.

I like it because it lessons the "siegefest" that hampers vanilla RTW.

Actualy, the enemy has to garrison thier cities, but since there are fewer troops, that means that there are proportionaly less troops in the field, more in the cities. That means more of the fighting will be in seiges than in the field with fewer cities.


Relay, more cities does bring a more epic scale to conflicts, it's just not possible to do it all in one battle. For instance, In RTR I just invaded macedonia with 5 full stacks, and had to fight off 10+, but after than there were practcaly no troops left in greece to defend thier homelands, with 5 legions I can steamroll the whole penninsula. If there were fewer cities I might have annihalated the whole macedonian army with one unit of cavalry flanking thier main line, only to have the entire thing rebuilt in 4-5 turns and I have to fight it over again.

[whoa]

At the end of the day, field battles are much more interesting than siege battles. So less cities! Hooray!

[Gogoas]

Yay! smaller skirmishes instead of battles!

[Sétanta]

very realistic
and allows somebody like me who has a vast imagination to take over

[Razor]

I think there should be more provinces and a bigger map and more troops/bigger armies and 4 times per year. Really the Roman empire should be having more cities.
Germanic factions would be having a disadvantage in laying siege since they're not good at it. More epic battles would be realistic as well as smaller ones simulating Germanic raids. The Romans should be having more income but also more expenses and atleast they should have enough income to recruit mercs. I think BI's economics is a bit messed up, although more realistic there should be a balance between the economics of RTW Vanilla and BI Vanilla.
the bigger map would allow armies to manouvre more freely and the 4 times peryear would mean greater lifespan of characters and longer campaigns... I'm getting a bit off topic here but I guess you all understand what I mean.

[Sitarus Originalus PM-30+]

Great, Razor... i think that way also.. bigger map, more cities, and more turns per each year... i couldn say better then you did... i agree with you in every way! i am glad that i am not the only one who has that vision on how TW games should develope.

[iron88]

I liked having more cities. It seems so far that the sparseness of cities is forcing me into the same strategic expansion with multiple civilizations. So while the faction difference provides some variety, the map layout and strategic AI is forcing me to grow in almost the exact same way with the multiple factions that start from the same area. In RTW I had more options and I never ended up growing the way I originally intended which was more interesting to me.

[hellblazer]

Iron88: You make a good point and that is the reason why my next game will be RTW warmap 1.5 probably with the ZOR but with vanilla units (maybe with buffed up hardiness to lessen AI hyperventillating).

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Less cities dosen't mean more battles or bigger battles at all. With more cities there are more troops, so you'll be engaging many more enemy units. With less cities however there are fewer troops, so each unit you kill gets you farther in your campaign.

exactly why the less provinces is alot better.
The battles become more decisive.
Raising a huge army is difficult and if that big army is destroyed then all is lost.

[Turbo]

I definately think that fewer cities increases the challenge. Certainly the AI benefits and losing a couple of cities can wreck your economy.

In BI, the economy is far more challenging. Hopefully with the patch, the game will get even better.

[Sitarus Originalus PM-30+]

good point turbo... i think you are rigth =)

[LordSaradain]

Raising a huge army is difficult and if that big army is destroyed then all is lost.

Unless you're playing a horde faction...