correlation between the campaign and battlemap

[dumper]

Fight any land or sea battle and you will never see a coastline - are we to believe CA made a deliberate design decision to abandon the (very popular) close correlation between the campaign and battlemap the last two titles had?
THIS correlationDOES NOT EXIST IN THIS MOMENT IN THE GAME


fix CA THIS PROBLEM?
opinions please

[Plank of Wood]

Every been sallied forth in a siege against a city; yeah, why do we magicaly appear inside the city we are besieging?

I'm glad of this, however, because it means my men are so élite that they can sneak behind the enemy and into the city while they march out to fight us. Good show, men!

[Musthavename]

Every been sallied forth in a siege against a city; yeah, why do we magicaly appear inside the city we are besieging?

The fight doesn't actually take place in the main city. If you look towards the horizon, you'll see a huge city in the comparison to the one that's on the map. What doesnt' make sense, is when you besiege a city, that city is behind you and the defenders are infront of you... completely the wrong way round.

[Plank of Wood]

The fight doesn't actually take place in the main city. If you look towards the horizon, you'll see a huge city in the comparison to the one that's on the map. What doesnt' make sense, is when you besiege a city, that city is behind you and the defenders are infront of you... completely the wrong way round.

That's what I meant

[Mechstra]

Yes, there's currently a problem where defenders/attackers get switched around. This is particularly troublesome when reinforcements are involved, as you'll get enemy reinforcements entering behind you (on your side of a river, even) or your reinforcements entering behind the enemy. Most problematic.

[Toshiba]

Bring back the coast-lines! Bring back the coast-lines! Bring back the coast-lines!

[War&Politics]

I think there is some correlation, but it is related to all the areas inside your zone of control.

[JohntheKern]

The most annoying occasion for me was when, while playing Sweden. Fighting Courland, Poland and Russia. The army of Courland with some back up from Poland attacked my army across a river, outnumbered us by 3 to 1, easy thought me blast them to peices in the fords and finish with a volley and bayonets! Not so, there was a river! That was the only accurate bit, my army was in the middle of the map, surrounded by the united armies of Courland and Poland!! It turned from an easy slaughter to trying to exract my army intact! Damm CA

[Monsieur Alphonse]

An other problem is that the battlefield layout is generated randomly. I fought three bridge battles during a turn and each time the layout of the battlefield was different. The first time there was a impassable bridge and a ford, the second time there were two fords and the third time there was a passable bridge and a ford.

Since this is a strategic and a tactical game it would be nice if the terrain could be useful to a good general.

[Mechstra]

An other problem is that the battlefield layout is generated randomly. I fought three bridge battles during a turn and each time the layout of the battlefield was different. The first time there was a impassable bridge and a ford, the second time there were two fords and the third time there was a passable bridge and a ford.

Since this is a strategic and a tactical game it would be nice if the terrain could be useful to a good general.

It's not random - I've fought on the same battle map numerous times when defending the same area (particularly noticeable when a river is involved).

[Toshiba]

Seems to be no correlation at all. Hypothetically, the same area you stand should be what you fight all the time. This proves there is something with this... CA could only explain.

[Seamless]

Man... that sucks. I've been noticing weird stuff but you guys are right, it may as well be totally random. That's REALLY retarded because that was probably my favorite feature about RTW.

[dumper]

CA can clarify this issue? I think that's very important

[Modestus]

Well I started off looking at the zones of control and interceptions from cities by the AI this led me to look at the deployments.

The conclusion I have come to is that the deployment of your initial armies on the tactical battlefield is usually reversed and that the arrival of reinforcements is correct relative to their position on the campaign map. Nearly all of my battles have been like this and I can easily predict the arrival position of any reinforcements.

In most cases you will fight a battle because you have been intercepted from a settlement or you are attacking a settlement. When this happens the tactical map that is generated is the one that is connected to that particular settlement and has very little to do with your actual position on the campaign map.

For example if you are intercepted by the AI from Edinburgh and even though your army is across the border in England the map that is generated will contain Edinburgh's fort.

On further investigation I believe that the Warscape engine generates tactical maps that are only an approximation of the terrain that you see on the campaign map. I am beginning to see the Empires campaign map as being very small when compared to RTW (a qualification at the end of this post), generally you will only need to fight on tactical maps that are connected to settlements.

I suspect that when away from the influence of a settlement Warscape will generate a map and most of the features will be random. For example if your army is positioned on a bridge in the middle of Russia Warscape will generate a tactical map from its library of bridge battles and then add in a few random features, you will not fight on a specific bridge in Russia.

Though it may be possible to assign this particular bridge a greater chance that a certain type of terrain will be generated around it.

Qualification: If you can generate a random map then I suppose technically you could have a very large number of tactical maps .

I think it could be an interesting concept.

As long as the position of armies is correct and you have certain important features like a river you don't necessarily need to generate the same map for every battle. If Warscape can generate a random map for a certain area retaining certain key features from the campaign map then you could have any number of maps and make each battle slightly different even though you are in the same general area.

Of course this is all speculation.

[MyKingforahorse]

Well I started off looking at the zones of control and interceptions from cities by the AI this led me to look at the deployments.

The conclusion I have come to is that the deployment of your initial armies on the tactical battlefield is usually reversed and that the arrival of reinforcements is correct relative to their position on the campaign map. Nearly all of my battles have been like this and I can easily predict the arrival position of any reinforcements.

In most cases you will fight a battle because you have been intercepted from a settlement or you are attacking a settlement. When this happens the tactical map that is generated is the one that is connected to that particular settlement and has very little to do with your actual position on the campaign map.

For example if you are intercepted by the AI from Edinburgh and even though your army is across the border in England the map that is generated will contain Edinburgh's fort.

On further investigation I believe that the Warscape engine generates tactical maps that are only an approximation of the terrain that you see on the campaign map. I am beginning to see the Empires campaign map as being very small when compared to RTW (a qualification at the end of this post), generally you will only need to fight on tactical maps that are connected to settlements.

I suspect that when away from the influence of a settlement Warscape will generate a map and most of the features will be random. For example if your army is positioned on a bridge in the middle of Russia Warscape will generate a tactical map from its library of bridge battles and then add in a few random features, you will not fight on a specific bridge in Russia.

Though it may be possible to assign this particular bridge a greater chance that a certain type of terrain will be generated around it.

Qualification: If you can generate a random map then I suppose technically you could have a very large number of tactical maps .

I think it could be an interesting concept.

As long as the position of armies is correct and you have certain important features like a river you don't necessarily need to generate the same map for every battle. If Warscape can generate a random map for a certain area retaining certain key features from the campaign map then you could have any number of maps and make each battle slightly different even though you are in the same general area.

Of course this is all speculation.

Its not totally random Modestus, but you are correct that the engine generates a map that is relative to the area based on prime key points about the campaign map.

I've attached a diagram to give an idea of how the engine chooses which location to generate the map from.

In essence its all about how the attacker approaches, if they were intercepted, whether they are sallying from a city/fort/etc.., and what if any reinforcements are available in the ZoC for each side.

Think of ZoC like simple Venn diagram and the portions that get overlayed are where the engine can pick from to generate the map.

You can repeat this by toying with battles near the Ottoman empire, Turkey specifically where you can arrange your army so that your ZoC covers both plains and highland at the same time.

In the diagram the shaded areas represent the overlap and the possible choice of points of interest for the battle map generator. The some of the different possibilities that ZoC can have on the battlemap generator

normal one on one attack no interception
interception by the defender
Siege either sally or lift (with the added reinforcement bug as well)
Interception with reinforcements

Play with it a bit, like I said especially in regions which have extremes from one terrain type to another (turkey, Bavaria, etc...) and you'll start to notice how the ZoC overlaps work.

Add to that your observment that the campaign map does not literally translate like it did in M2TW and RTW and well...

...personally I think it was a step backwards.

[Modestus]

Right I will look at that, besides the reinforcement bug which I actually think should be correctly termed the deployment bug I think the maps are turning out to be a step back from the RTW maps mainly because they break a very important link between the campaign map and the tactical maps.

Its possible that you could still use a certain amount of random generation to create a more varied selection of battlefields but of course the deployment of armies and key features must be correct.

[Humble Warrior]

Fight any land or sea battle and you will never see a coastline - are we to believe CA made a deliberate design decision to abandon the (very popular) close correlation between the campaign and battlemap the last two titles had?
THIS correlationDOES NOT EXIST IN THIS MOMENT IN THE GAME


fix CA THIS PROBLEM?
opinions please

Quite right. It`s very depressing when you`ve played RTW and MTW2 and you see a coastline if there was a coastline on the campaign map. It`s also sad not seeing any coastline in ship battles either. It`s not as if the coastline needs to be near it could be there but just out of battle range.

But no.

Just another one step backwards.

I would be whining about this too, but I really want to see Naval invasions before I bug CA about the rest of the bugs, so many there are.

[pauli]

one of the best things are rtw/m2 was the exact correlation between the campaign map and the battle map. it made choosing your battles an actual tactical issue, and was a lot of fun. the random AND backwards nature of battle maps in etw is... disappointing.

[Theseus1234]

one of the best things are rtw/m2 was the exact correlation between the campaign map and the battle map. it made choosing your battles an actual tactical issue, and was a lot of fun. the random AND backwards nature of battle maps in etw is... disappointing.

QFT

RTW and M2TW had this, why didnt ETW have it?? there are so many parts of this game that are a giant step backwards for some strange reason. did CA think we wouldn't notice at all? the purpose of the campaign map is to train troops and decide where we fight battles. without the correlation, theres no real point in the campaign map

[sabana]

Sorry. I just played scene 3 RTI bunker hill (pt 2) and you do see the coastline. So your statement is not 100% true.