Armies moving too far on campaign map?

**Rapyer** · March 23, 2009, 06:07 AM

in other tw games, to move between countries took dozens of turns. in ETW, you can literally cross a country in 5 turns. does anyone else think that armies walking distance should be reduced as to make it more tactical?

**Tepok** · March 23, 2009, 07:15 AM

mh... Maybe.

I don't like how little the difference between moving a horse and moving a canon is in the campaign map.

**The_Dude** · March 23, 2009, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Rapyer

in other tw games, to move between countries took dozens of turns. in ETW, you can literally cross a country in 5 turns. does anyone else think that armies walking distance should be reduced as to make it more tactical?

one turn = 6 months
5 turns = 2 1/2 years

what was your point again ?

**Sharzu** · March 23, 2009, 07:20 AM

Moving the armies should have abit more extra kick... I hope you don't think crossing a country takes more than 2 years.

**Steve Holt** · March 23, 2009, 07:21 AM

Yeh, thats the problem with turn based you have to do all ur stuff at once and that represents the half yr.

**Arkhan** · March 23, 2009, 07:23 AM

Thats why we need a 4 turn year.... Why does CA keep useing this 2 turn model.... it just doesnt make any sense!!

**The_Dude** · March 23, 2009, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by Arkhan

Thats why we need a 4 turn year.... Why does CA keep useing this 2 turn model.... it just doesnt make any sense!!

why exactly ? so you have to hit enter key 2 additional times just to get there in the same timeframe ? kinda pointless if you ask me

**Arkhan** · March 23, 2009, 07:41 AM

I dont follow you, what's pointless?? A four turn year?? Makes perfect sense to me. Let's look at naval voyages. The trip from England to America takes what.. 3 or 4 turns... that's 18-24 months. Sailing ships of the day made the trip in less than 8 weeks...by rights it should only take one turn... no matter what system you are useing.

On land an well trained army could make 12 to 15 miles a day, 20 if they really pushed it and traveled light. Even at the low side thats 80 miles a week. In 10 weeks they could go 800 miles. Thats greater than the distance between Paris and Berlin. So again that should be a one turn move. So should Paris to Madrid or Paris to Rome.

Going to a 4 turn per year system just helps to put the game in a more proper scale... at least as far as travel times go.

**The_Dude** · March 23, 2009, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Arkhan

I dont follow you, what's pointless?? A four turn year?? Makes perfect sense to me. Let's look at naval voyages. The trip from England to America takes what.. 3 or 4 turns... that's 18-24 months. Sailing ships of the day made the trip in less than 8 weeks...by rights it should only take one turn... no matter what system you are useing.

On land an well trained army could make 12 to 15 miles a day, 20 if they really pushed it and traveled light. Even at the low side thats 80 miles a week. In 10 weeks they could go 800 miles. Thats greater than the distance between Paris and Berlin. So again that should be a one turn move. So should Paris to Madrid or Paris to Rome.

Going to a 4 turn per year system just helps to put the game in a more proper scale... at least as far as travel times go.

yeah, well, you are talking about speeing up movement wheres the OP complained that Armies move too fast.
personally, i think the speed at which they move at the moment is ok.

**Steve Holt** · March 23, 2009, 07:46 AM

I agrere that 4 turn per year would be better, they have to decrease ship movement for gameplay sake else(once AI is fixed) if you attak some1 they could send an army from turkey to spain and the next turn you would be like hey where did that army come from?

**hitprey** · March 23, 2009, 08:49 AM

to have the army move to real distances moved at that time would make sens. To have a fleet take 18 moths is a bit too much. then I would have the weather have more effect on the distance so it would be more real. for example an army moves more slow in winter then in spring due to the snow.

this would make a bit of sens and do agree with the 4 tern yaer

**Leonidas** · March 23, 2009, 09:16 AM

I do think having 4 turns equal one year would be better, it simply does not reflect reality to have armies/navies take that long to reach a destination.

**Pink Beard** · March 23, 2009, 09:19 AM

I'd rather have 12 turns a year and small movement rates. This makes it easier to counteract enemy moves (Ie French trying to land an army on britain and you have time to intercept it etc.)'

But only if we get faster end-turn times...
It takes almost a minute to cycle all flags and 12 turns a year would be a nightmare to play a campaign!!

**Sir Winston Churchill** · March 23, 2009, 07:53 AM

Well, back then we had the technology to travel farther. In all honesty, I think they move to slow. No way does it take 3 years to get from Bradenburg to scotland by boat, for example.

**Arkhan** · March 23, 2009, 08:00 AM

Thats why you have to have fixed defences; manned forts, garrisons in the towns and such. To slow down and interdict movement. Also put in place a movement penalty for battles. Lets say you are marching towards a city that would normally be just a one turn shot, but there are garrisoned forts on the border and several towns with troops as well..... Now that one turn march has turned into three or four turns as you fight your way thru the defenses.

**Phier** · March 23, 2009, 09:19 AM

A 4 turn year and keeping ships moving their current distance I think would fix both problems.

But there should be penalties for moving in winter and the like too. Moving armies here is more like playing Risk than having a tactical feel.

Originally Posted by Pink Beard

I'd rather have 12 turns a year and small movement rates. This makes it easier to counteract enemy moves (Ie French trying to land an army on britain and you have time to intercept it etc.)

They better fix the AI taking way to long on some moves because they move their units back and fourth bug (and thats with show enemy moves off for those who will assume thats what I'm talking about)

**Soapyfrog** · March 23, 2009, 09:19 AM

I'd like to see a 12 turn year, focussed over a shorter period of time, e.g. 1756-63 (or maybe 1750-1770 so as to have a comparable length game to the grand campaign). And then maybe have some real penalties for trying to move and fight during the winter... I don't know what the engine is capable of in terms of modelling attrition and the like.

**hengyu** · March 23, 2009, 09:42 AM

They are moving too short on the campaign map...

**Stalins Ghost** · March 23, 2009, 09:46 AM

I'm pretty happy with how it is. I think they've struck the right balance between too far and too short, though I do wonder if the range of an armies area of control needs to be expanded a bit - it's occasionally a little easy to march in.

**Razor** · March 23, 2009, 09:47 AM

4 tpy at least is necessary. And no I don't think armies move too far in one turn. They should be moving a lot more. 1 turn represents a half year. I'd say keep the movement and increase the amount of turns in a year and it's pretty much sorted out.