Would anyone else, besides myself welcome a return to the 2d map rather than Rome's map? The one decisive battle in each province is much more welcome than Rome's siege, siege, siege method.
Checkerboard 2D Camp map or 3D map
Would anyone else, besides myself welcome a return to the 2d map rather than Rome's map? The one decisive battle in each province is much more welcome than Rome's siege, siege, siege method.
Apperently I protect
Nope, RTW's 3d map was beautiful and with a good AI it will be great.
No you must be the only one
Just kidding... or am I? Well anyways I agree that the sieges are very annoying, but I hope CA finds another way of reducing them than giong back to MTW map or reducing cities.
(this is an stolen idea) If there is only a few soldiers in a city and a large army besieges it, the garrisoned soldiers will surrender. Then you won`t have to siege assult a city with 2000 men just to kill 100, maybe setting the minimum limit to 300 (varying from the size of the attackers army)
Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
The only argument that I can see for returning to the old style map was the better AI. Well, CA can (hopefully) improve the AI anyway, and frankly the new style of map presents so many new strategic possibilities that I'd rather stick with it. You always had sieges in the old style of map anyway, so I don't see how there's that much difference.
Αρχιεπισκοπή Θυατείρων και Μεγάλης Βρεττανίας - Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain
Under the patronage of therussian
the way it was implemented the MTW risk style map was a lot better. but rtw's map has a lot more potential. things they need to sort out are armies just walking past each other and settlements being sieged without the chance for a battle. They could do this by having the campain map in realtime or allowing armies to control a larger area.
Surrender or DIE!
I'd say that there's an easy way to solve the problem (not that my oppinion matters to CA, but still).
The ability to send terms (or as easy as sending a diplomat to a beseiged city) or to negotiate for surrender.
It bothered me greatly that (in RTW) a force being seriously outnumbered, weren't cheaper to bribe than a force in total domination of the area.
There should also be a minimum "crew" for castles and cities. In RTW and MTW, every tower was defended by "invisible" troops who shot at the attackers with arrows and stuff. If these troops were "real", or atleast part of som city militia, that would explain why castles are allways defended.
The odd thing, though. Is that if there isn't troops (real troops) around (in RTW, MTW), the city is defensless. But if you have but ONE soldier in there, EVERY tower and gateway is manned.
Tiro
I hate the old map of Mtw, it just sucked, seiges were the most annoying thing.
Tiro
CA is not going retro on us. 3D is everything they're about. Hopefully the campaign AI will be up to scratch as well.
Carolus Rex
Well they are infact a little retro, or they wouldnt have made a MTW2 would they? :wink:Originally Posted by sera
I am really torn between the two maps, i love RTW's deep strategic map, but at the same time i love the simplessness of the MTW map. But i think that i would go with the RTW map due to the more startegic choices. But its a really hard choice.
Sig by Lord Rahl
Under the patronage of Obi Wan Asterix
Europa Barbarorum, what RTW should have been.
ive been playing MTW and RTW quite recently, i do enjoy them both but the one i do enjoy the most is MTW and the reason for this are. Firstly in your initial play of the game u dont have to go searching randomly through the map for new citys to expand to. while my whole time playing rome i once had just 1 allied battle ( and it was a very minor battle and was already a sure defeat for the enermys) on the other hand during my (shorter) game of MTW i had alot more allied support during a battle ( this was because any unit in a region was in a battle instead of just a little squares. lastly it was quick and easy to send a diplomate and u could send them to any square via a port. the only real disadvantage i can think gameplay wise is its lack of ambushes which i didnt find a big roll during the game
Power breeds Arrogance
I really love the RTW map. And while it hurt the AI a litte, I think CA can catch the AI up to where we need it. I liked the MTW map and all, but the RTW map was so wonderful and dynamic. When the campaign map AI gets going, their won't even be a comparison between the two maps.
tBP knows how to handle a sword. -Last Crusader
Under the Honorable Patronage of Belisarius
Formerly Under the Patronage of Simetrical
Proud Patron of Lusted, Rome AC, Solid, and Dirty Peasant
Going back to the 2d map would be stupid, a few AI fixes are all that are needed for us to truly appreciate the campaign map and all the things that go with it. Imo the system could only be more perfect if the armies outmaneouvring each other before the battle were in real time, but the buying and training units was turn-based. But I can't think of a way to implement that.
I´m part of the crowd who like the 3d map better and will look forward to seeing it in M2TW. That being said the 2d map did have some advantages that I´d wish to see in the new 3d map:
1) More decisive "field" battles. One way of achieving this in my opinion would be to allow all armies in a province, but outside the settlement itself, to suppress rebellion etc. This would mean that you could station your armies on your borders and meet the opposing armies in a place of your choosing and thus the strategical part of the 3d map would improve.
2) As someone already mentioned, the cities should be known at the beginning of the game and you shouldn´t need to "hunt" for the enemy cities with your diplomats.
3) Also mentioned above was the fact that in MTW the agents were able to move through ports across Europe in one turn. I´d really like to see something similar in M2TW as it shouldn´t take for example England several years to contact a nation in the Mediterranean.
That's Ffips backwards
Hmm this is interesting. Perhaps if each army in a province always had a calculated chance of entering a battle as reinforcements, based on distance from the battle of course.
It would be cool if the reinforcements arrived x minutes after battled has started and x varying on the distance, that would make battles much, much cooler. That would add much pressure on you to stay a live for so and so lang before the reinforcements get there, or defeating the enemy before his reinforcements get to the battle
Im like the old mtw map better, rtw map just made things way to complicated
I agree with what most people are saying with reinforcements. Also armies should have a intercept range, so if you leave them with half/full movement, they have the choice of intercepting the enemy army as it enters that province.
The Barbarian Queen
I think the question of using 2D/3D campaing maps should be determined by the capacity of the AI to pose a challenge to a human player. I liked both ways of gameplay, but I often had the feeling that pathfinding could have been better in RTW for AI forces as well as for spies and diplomats.
I am, however, full of expectation that those "flaws" will be fixed in MTW2.
From the pride and arrogance of the Romans nothing is sacred. But the vindictive gods are now at hand. On this spot we must either conquer, or die with glory (Boudiccas Speech, Tacitus, Annals, XIV, 35)
under Patronage of Emperor Dimitricus, Granddaughter of the Black Prince.
Honnęte Homme.
I've been saying that for month.
3d map, fine and dandy, but if you don't have the gaming mechanisms to make it work, that's a useless feature.
Tiro
Its gotta be the RTW map they use (hopefully not exact same) i feel like you feel more involved with the rtw map whereas the MTW one i found it too hard to get involved.
Never knock on Death's door: ring the bell and run away! Death really hates that!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
