I actually saw a battlefield city!

**Aykis16** · March 21, 2009, 09:51 PM

I was playing as the Dutch and attacked Brussels and when the battle screen came up, I saw that there was actually a decent sized city on the battlefield. Half of it was on, half of it was off. I've seen even bigger cities on the horizon or off the battlefield sometimes, but I've never seen it like this before.

What I wonder, is why this is? Why when I attack Paris for example, I only see a few houses and some farmland instead of a great hulking city. Even if the city was off the battlefield (past the red line) but nearby so you could see what you were fighting for would be nice.

Here's the picture of the city:

Also, Is there a way to take pictures in game? I remember in Medieval and Rome it was just the Print Screen key but now that doesn't seem to work. I had to do a manual print screen, which isn't convenient at all.

**johncage** · March 21, 2009, 09:54 PM

that's a large town

**Toshiba** · March 21, 2009, 09:54 PM

There are no roads :/. Look at the release video.

**Rapyer** · March 21, 2009, 09:55 PM

i think it's jus tone of the colleges/schools upgraded

i like fighting around those

but no, you won't get full sized city

**Tropical Coke** · March 21, 2009, 09:55 PM

Wurtemburg starts with a larger town than that.

**Tropical Coke** · March 21, 2009, 09:56 PM

Also F5 is for screenshots.

**pamme** · March 21, 2009, 09:57 PM

Maybe they didn't have snow plows to clear the roads back in the day.

Try Fraps or some other similar video capture software to capture screenshots.

Edit: oh..didn't know about F5. will try that

**Black Prince IV** · March 21, 2009, 10:25 PM

Here's Istanbul in the background.

**Mediteran** · March 21, 2009, 10:26 PM

wow thats nice

**Godless Pickle** · March 21, 2009, 10:34 PM

Even though in real life Brussels would be 20 times that big.....that would be considered a small farming community.

**Legion 88** · March 21, 2009, 10:36 PM

Hey has anyone fourght in a walled city as it's always a fort which get's repetitive,
i've always wanted to fight with the Notre Dame in Paris or the Vatican City in Rome but i guess we can dream

**Aykis16** · March 21, 2009, 10:37 PM

For this game, that's the closest I've seen to a city. That pic of Istanbul is awesome. I just wish it was closer you know? So you could see it.

**ilikeicehockey** · March 21, 2009, 10:39 PM

Nope all you get are forts and small towns. Lets hope an expansion allows you to do some city fighting.

**Aykis16** · March 21, 2009, 10:42 PM

I hope they add features that they didn't have time to put in the box version via these patches. I've read somewhere that they'd like to do that. Maybe unlock the family tree and such. Or give those empty territories owners so the map doesn't look unfinished.

**Legion 88** · March 21, 2009, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by Aykis16

I hope they add features that they didn't have time to put in the box version via these patches. I've read somewhere that they'd like to do that. Maybe unlock the family tree and such. Or give those empty territories owners so the map doesn't look unfinished.

And Expand the map, so more territories to claim

And defenitley need Australia can't wait to claim it in the name of Prussia instead of GB

**MyKingforahorse** · March 21, 2009, 10:51 PM

There are issues with the area of control that units have. Meaning that when you battle or attack, or defend even. Where you actually have your engagement at is more or less randomly assigned based on the AOC overlaps of the armies.

This means that you can literally park a unit on a bridge, have someone attack and you could battle in a town that was within your AOC.

Its a major freaking issues that more or less nullifies any point of moving your units around the campaign map for strategic control of cross over points like bridges, rivers, etc... And also a major reason why we don't see coastal fights, town, city, etc.. fights more often.

Its also the reason why reinforcements come out of the blue at random locations, or seemingly random rather.

**Tazgrent** · March 22, 2009, 12:15 AM

I am so happy city sieges are gone. Field battles are the only way to play.

**johncage** · March 22, 2009, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by Tazgrent

I am so happy city sieges are gone. Field battles are the only way to play.

i know this isn't the most convincing argument, but nonetheless...

no.

**Sogui** · March 22, 2009, 02:13 AM

Their idea is that you are fighting in a town outside the city.

Though I'm curious... if I'm fighting outside a city... for control of the city... why is it always in a town? Why can't I just fight in a field outside the city. That's part of why people seem to think the towns they are fighting over are actually the cities... because they are always there whenever you do siege the city.

I've had a few interesting fights where the besieging force actually had their back against the city they were besieging on the battle map, just one of the many minor things that slipped by in this game.

**Korvus77** · March 22, 2009, 12:53 PM

As much as the forts drive me crazy I thought we were going to have to fight a series of battles to get to the actual cities. It would be enough of a battle that the other guys field armies could return and forts would have garrison troops and not flintlock armed citizens or what have you.