Campaign map way too cramped

[daelin4]

What's the point in making the largest map in the series so far if it doesn't feel large at all?

So they can advertise to the audience that they got the biggest TW map to date. Which is true; it just also means that large =/= well made.

Who cares how they are represented on the map, the fact that I can't walk around a city with an army because it takes up the entire region's space is just silly.

What's worse is that the hitboxes don't even scale accordingly, so trying to position an army next to a city is incredibly frustrating.

I think the whole map scale just needs to be zoomed out more. The figures representing armies and agents should be very small, the cities need to be tiny so that each region feels like a large area. They could also then further divide up the regions, which are just too general and small at the moment.

I actually disagree, sort of: what I mean is that the map should be chopped up into theatres and zoomed in for detail of each region. That would mean that instead of a grand campaign Rome2 ought to have started via mini-campaigns a la CiG and HatG. Sure you'll get people moaning about Baktra and Caucasian Iberia because we only got Gaul and Western Europe, but at least that would make a GOOD game...CA ought to have been a little patient with themselves, not begging us to be patient for them.

[Skurvy5]

Great comparison! Rome 1 is so much easier on the eyes. It's detailed but simple with all the necessary information readily available. Rome 2 is just so.... busy yet useless at the same time.

[Harnis]

I still much prefer the UI of rome1/medieval2. It was indeed easier on the eyes. The Rome 2 map is pretty for sure, but the older UI just felt like it was so much easier to locate the information I was after.

And the online encyclopedia thing should be burned in hell. It's terrible. In-game descriptions were much, much better.

[Dago Red]

I still much prefer the UI of rome1/medieval2. It was indeed easier on the eyes. The Rome 2 map is pretty for sure, but the older UI just felt like it was so much easier to locate the information I was after.

And the online encyclopedia thing should be burned in hell. It's terrible. In-game descriptions were much, much better.

The UI is so bad, it's comical. Talk about a campaign map that's got nothing on it, but yet feels cramped? How about a UI that pops up over that mess which relays almost no information in an intuitive way (unless maybe you're a webmaster/programmer).

The most amazing part about the UI is that you must mouse over item A, B, C for pop ups to tell you what they are, yet you must keep your mouse over that original item to hold the pop up onscreen, and therefore cannot then mouse over the new X, Y, Z info in the pop up to see what it is!

Mind-blowingly dysfunctional.

[Alhaioth]

Oh yes, the mouseover pop-up thing. A case of streamlining gone wrong, I guess. An option to toggle the way the descriptions are displayed (or at least to change the delay) would have been much appreciated.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

WHERE IS THE MAURYAN EMPIRE, IS IT RESERVED FOR A DLC!@@!!!!

[ABH2]

You want them to include all of India? It would be a little odd to include the tiny sliver of the Mauryan Empire that would be covered by the campaign map or all of India. Where do you stop? Bactria also was not in Northern India. They expanded into the Indus Valley, but that was after the start of the game.

[Lanciarius_90]

ing hate how inaccurate is campaign map. Arabia and Iran are too small, Euboea is connected to Attic peninsula wtf.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

You want them to include all of India? It would be a little odd to include the tiny sliver of the Mauryan Empire that would be covered by the campaign map or all of India. Where do you stop? Bactria also was not in Northern India. They expanded into the Indus Valley, but that was after the start of the game.

You have missed the jist of what i am saying

They don't need to include the Mauryan Empire, i just want an Indian faction, India was the richest and largest nation at that time and I know Baktria isn't supposed to be in Northern India and Afghanistan, but it is, IN ROME 2
The reason I am disappointed, is why couldn't they put in the city state of Takashillia

An empire in turmoil, the Viceroy of Takashilla led by Susima Maurya, oldest son of Emperor Bindusara , tell me what is wrong with adding
Takashillia to the game. It was possibly the greatest city pioneering in science, medicine and was not only a semi-harmonic collision of cultures, but was very wealthy.

I want India without DLC

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Haha just kidding!

ing hate how inaccurate is campaign map. Arabia and Iran are too small, Euboea is connected to Attic peninsula wtf.

Not just that, 90% of the beaches of the world are now supposedly cliffs

[Modestus]

I would like to know what CA mean when they say they have the biggest TW map to date, is it simply the most regions in a TW game because it certainly seems as if the amount of actual tactical map area is a lot less then in RTW1.

And I find it quite amazing that not a single player has tried to determine the scale CA are using, supposedly we have a continuous tactical map for all of the campaign map logically then that means there is strong relationship between the dimensions of your campaign map and the tactical maps.

I don’t have the game but a likely test would be to fight a field battle on a narrow peninsula or a small island this should give you some idea of how much of the campaign map is represented by a single tactical map. No real point using a siege map as I presume these are just being layered on to the underlying tactical map.

You may find that the campaign map feels cramped because it is cramped.

[Yerevan]

That mod looks sick. Will definitely try.

Indeed. I ws looking forward to try it too, as soon as I get some spare time. There are some very nice new ideas concerning permanent forts and ancillaries.

[MathiasOfAthens]

If they could have just kept the cities a bit smaller and then added some more cities in the map it would of been better, imo.

[Bakerzoid]

I prefer the larger zones of control for cities, it stops the AI from bypassing all of your cities and fortifications to get to your capital and until a supply line system is introduced it is better than having tiny zones of control for cities and armies as in previous total war games.

[rye8111]

This image simply makes me sad, look how detailed everything is. Simplistic approach.

From the building selection, to the tax rate, to the settlement details, every settlement has a visual image representation of what building is built.

The port is separate from the city!
The navy in the ocean isn't actually an army!
More than just 6 options for construction!
Walls can be built!
You have options to build barracks or archery ranges or stables!
When you choose to upgrade farms you can see the growth represented on the campaign map!
The Generals actually look intimidating with their skills based on vertical stars!
And by golly there are beautiful roads to construct throughout your empire!





And then you have Rome 2's map. Where less is more?

Without the lazy hide and hover method, I have no idea wtf that purple guy waving at me is and why I built two of them?

I'll just point out that the last part about the purple guy is redundant. At least with the purple guy, I know that it's a shrine (purple) and it's a specific type. In Rome, the building cards for shrines look identical to me. Also, the options that you say we have for construction got very tedious in the end games of RTW, while I'm more eager to continue municipal development late game in TWR2. (Also, many factions can build similar buildings to barracks/archery ranges/stables)

[jtfjtfjtf]

Smaller cities and the region size of Hannibal at The Gates would have been great

[Yerevan]

Smaller cities and the region size of Hannibal at The Gates would have been great

Yes, the space and time scale of grand campaign is unable to provide any strategical challenge.

Reasons given by CA is that it would have make the grand campaign too long. Well, when a campaign is immersive and challenging enough its lenght is not a problem.
Actually, it's the opposite ; you're willing to see the epic story of your dinasty last as long as possible.

Personally I'd prefer to have 2D sprites and a deep strategic system than the cute R2 icons and its uni-dimensional strategic content.

[Philadelphos]

It was indeed cool to have the actual buildings on the battle map. It's a shame about that.

Wait, are you saying that the actual buildings of your city are not in the battle map? I understood that they concentrated on the graphics of two or three selected cities (Rome, Carthage, Alexandria). But I didn't think that it went that far! That's really sad!
I might be able to suggest some remedy, but I don't want to be caught off topic again, so I'll keep my mouth.

[In3x]

I can't really remember any field battles either.

Here's the main difference, RTW was for me revolutionary, I'd played Shogun a lot but with the full 3d campaign map and the 3d battle map this game just blew my mind. I played so much of this game, it was incredible.

I dled R2TW I played one campaign and went straight back to CK2. R2TW is full of broken and frankly impenetrable features (What the hell is that events system). It's frankly bad and I'm sorry I spent £35 preordering it.

[Huberto]

Smaller cities and the region size of Hannibal at The Gates would have been great

I couldn't agree more. The CAI and naval needs of an overhaul as well. Then we might have ourselves a pretty good game. Oh well.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Yes, the space and time scale of grand campaign is unable to provide any strategical challenge.

Reasons given by CA is that it would have make the grand campaign too long. Well, when a campaign is immersive and challenging enough its lenght is not a problem.
Actually, it's the opposite ; you're willing to see the epic story of your dinasty last as long as possible.

Personally I'd prefer to have 2D sprites and a deep strategic system than the cute R2 icons and its uni-dimensional strategic content.

I agree. More regions and to solve any problems with how long it takes to expand. Just change the years per turn. So if it takes 10 turns to conquer something then change it from years to months so instead of 10 years it was 5 years or less.