The new "province" system...

[katsusand]

Okay, from what I gather from the previews, CA introduced a new Province system...
Basically, The map is made up of big "Provinces" and each province has a number of "Regions".. something like 4 or 5 regions...There is going to be only one city in the whole Province, meaning the rest of the regions are not represented by cities...

So how do you conquer a "Region"?

In any case, this should make the game have more Land Battles than Sieges... Sometimes TW games can turn into a series of dull and tedious siege battles one after the other, so something that encourages more Land Battles should be good... I hope.

EDIT: For those asking for a source:

RPS: To take them over you have to grab them individually as regions, but once you’ve got them you can bulk manage them essentially?

James Russell: Yeah. There’s one management node for several regions. Whether you call that bulk…I think that the point is about strategy game play is that it’s about interesting decisions, and we want to make the decisions more interesting. We don’t want to give you more of them for you to necessarily have to repeat and repeat and repeat. But it also has other consequences, because it means you can capture territory without always having to fight a siege battle, so you get a greater variety of battle types, and a greater variety of battle environments as well, because you’re not always trying to head-shot the city.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...e-2-interview/

[General Brewster]

Tbh I want to see a huge land battle and if your doing it well killing the enemies war afford at once forcing them to negotiate.

[Irish kern]

It may encourage land battles, but unless the AI actually realises the significance of land battles, they still won't fight them

[Habber Dasher]

I just kind of assumed there would still be some sort of "capture point" in each region, it just might not have an actual city or fortifications. It would be sort of like when you attacked a city in Empire without fortifications, it would just result in a land battle. This would also give the AI something to focus on during attack and defense. Of course CA may be developing an entirely new system.

[bob_2000]

Hmmmm. Each region must, then, have some sort of economic importance that would force an army to march out and face the music. That, or face certain starvation, bankruptcy, desertion, etc?

[JankoMega]

Wow. Sounds awesome.

[Jazx]

i hope they wont do it like ETW's province system. My biggest fear about this game is that...

[snarst]

They will probably have multiple settlements you'll need to take but it would be cool if they put some regions consisting of mostly or only farm land that you need to take so that the rest of the Provence doesn't starve.

[Rhaegar1]

I just kind of assumed there would still be some sort of "capture point" in each region, it just might not have an actual city or fortifications. It would be sort of like when you attacked a city in Empire without fortifications, it would just result in a land battle. This would also give the AI something to focus on during attack and defense. Of course CA may be developing an entirely new system.

I think this is the case, considering the economic value. The way regions are packed together in a province just makes it easier to manage the regions. The one who owns a region still controlles the economic value and I guess could still recruits unit there, as far as recruiting stays in the game.

[bob_2000]

Would be fascinating if it was advanced enough that, say if X province is under enemy occupation, the army recruited from X experiences desertion. If you had to sacrifice a province, may make you think twice about what's more important immediately - troops or bread.

[Black_Watch42]

i completely agree with the capture point idea, the capital of the region would act as the central nervous system of the province so when you conquer that provincial capital, all the other mini regions would be taken as well or something along those lines

[Julio-Claudian]

When was it said that thered only be once city per province?

[Manuel I Komnenos]

It would be awesome to have provinces like these:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Syria, Cilicia, Cappadocia etc, with each one of them having 3-4 cities.

[DisgruntledGoat]

When was it said that thered only be once city per province?

Never. The interviews all point to the provinces just being administrative regions that are set up by the player to control multiple cities (regions) by setting taxation, building, recruitment across the provincial region. Thereby reducing the amount of micro-management required late game when the player controls large amounts of cities. I honestly don't know where the OP got his information from.

[katsusand]

When was it said that thered only be once city per province?

The Rome II reveal demo didn’t include anything from the campaign map, and Creative Assembly were tight lipped on details. But James did explain that it would be larger than previous maps, and that the countries of old would be split into smaller provinces.

The Provinces provide a bridge between the grand size of countries and the micro-management of regions. The campaign map can therefore be as large as you’d expect from Rome, but include the detail of Shogun without overwhelming you with detail.

“We want to take steps to reduce some of the management burden. So, for instant, we have a province system where you’ve got several regions making up one province. That means you have all the benefits of extending that map and making it huge, increasing the area for you to conquer with your armies, but at the same time you don’t have hundreds of regions to manage with your tax and development.”

The way they’re going to work is to have one ‘capital’ region at the centre of more agricultural and production-focused areas. Now, when invading a region, you can choose what you want to deny your opponent, rather than charging blindly at your opponent. The ultimate goal is to prevent the endless run of sieges of previous Total War games, and hopefully encourage more fighting in the open countryside.

“When you’ve got big regions what that means is that you tend to headshot the capital and suddenly get one big swathe of territory,” says James. “With provinces and provincial capitals, with quite a few surrounding regions, there’s territory to capture without just headshotting the capital. So you get more varied battles and more varied battle types over different terrain. It means you don’t want a couple of units going here and here, and we really want people to think about Legions.

http://www.pcgamesn.com/totalwar/tot...stion-answered

[Randompigeon]

My idea would be that within each province their is one "city" which controls the province in that from their you recruit units and it shows income. But within that their is one settlement per region, a small village or town which is never bigger than the main "city". And you have the choice when conquering the province to attack each of these settlements then the main city. Or if you take the main city then you control the entire province. However some settlements can choose not to join you which could be linked to influence, religion and culture difference (etc easier for romans to conquer greeks as they are closer in culture. Could also through in historic rivalries).

To sum up:
1)One main city per province

2)One settlement per region

3)Taking over the main city doesn't mean you take the region, as the settlements could rebel

4)To begin recruiting all settlements must be owned/resistance crushed and to also gain income from said province

5)Chances of settlements disobeying your rule depends upon culture, influence of general, religion with maybe historic rivalries (Carthage and Rome come to mind) and any other factors people can think of which might affect public order of conquered provinces


Edit: didn't see post above till posted so my ideas might be redundant

[BeastG33]

My idea would be that within each province their is one "city" which controls the province in that from their you recruit units and it shows income. But within that their is one settlement per region, a small village or town which is never bigger than the main "city". And you have the choice when conquering the province to attack each of these settlements then the main city. Or if you take the main city then you control the entire province. However some settlements can choose not to join you which could be linked to influence, religion and culture difference (etc easier for romans to conquer greeks as they are closer in culture. Could also through in historic rivalries).

To sum up:
1)One main city per province

2)One settlement per region

3)Taking over the main city doesn't mean you take the region, as the settlements could rebel

4)To begin recruiting all settlements must be owned/resistance crushed and to also gain income from said province

5)Chances of settlements disobeying your rule depends upon culture, influence of general, religion with maybe historic rivalries (Carthage and Rome come to mind) and any other factors people can think of which might affect public order of conquered provinces


Edit: didn't see post above till posted so my ideas might be redundant

This sounds right to me, but I don't think there will be settlements in the provinces. If they want to encourage land battles, then there will probably be "capture points" or something as someone mentioned.

So if you control the regional capital, you have a farming province, let's say. An enemy army enters the province to cut your income and starve your people without actually coming to take the capital. You then have the option of sallying out of your capital and have a land battle in the farm province to determine who controls that province, or to turtle in the regional capital for a siege later on.

[DisgruntledGoat]

This sounds right to me, but I don't think there will be settlements in the provinces. If they want to encourage land battles, then there will probably be "capture points" or something as someone mentioned.

So if you control the regional capital, you have a farming province, let's say. An enemy army enters the province to cut your income and starve your people without actually coming to take the capital. You then have the option of sallying out of your capital and have a land battle in the farm province to determine who controls that province, or to turtle in the regional capital for a siege later on.

Interviews would suggest otherwise:

http://youtu.be/2tycIeIDUbw?t=1m20s

[katsusand]

Interviews would suggest otherwise:

http://youtu.be/2tycIeIDUbw?t=1m20s

He is being somewhat ambiguous don't you think? He didn't specify that you conquer a region by taking a settlement... In the quote I put above they say the want to reduce the siege battles in favor of land battles... If those regions all have settlements, it would still be the same siege-fest, no?

I could be wrong though... I guess we have to wait for Lusted's input in this subject...

[DisgruntledGoat]

But he also says that the depth of management for regions still exists. How can that be possible if there is not a settlement there?