A little clue about NTW towns...

See below, we have a map of a battle, see all those dark spots in the middle, they are all the buildings, the coloured house are occupied houses. and all the other coloured shapes are units. SO as you can clearly see, the towns from this look at lot more full then they where in ETW, like when I fought in Paris and only found 12 buildings.

do you have the whole screenshot?

Garrisoned buildings will still be useless. They sure are in etw.

I've seen towns bigger than that in E:TW.

This isn't big its E:TW size. Nice try.

Originally Posted by eregost

This isn't big its E:TW size. Nice try.

actually it does look like there are a lot more buildings than ETW. ETW has about 10-15.

Originally Posted by eregost

This isn't big its E:TW size. Nice try.

I think he's talking about buildings in general which also includes non-grarrisoned buildings.

So in other words, he's saying the town's look bigger.

Though the rest of the screenshot would be nice.

Problem with ETW though was these things didn't show up on the battle map.

in empire you dont fight in the actual cities.. you fight in the suburbs. You can see the big cities skyline in the background.

Sure, the full pic is this one, its a battle in the Italian campaign at Vemera or whatever its called, so its a minor town, not like Paris or anything.

Why would anyone want to fight in a large city in this era?

Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

Why would anyone want to fight in a large city in this era?

I would. Nappie times didn't mean only line battles in the fields, but also big battles in towns (Saragosa, Ligny, after Leipzig...)

Agreed. It was very rare to fight in the cities during this era or the 1700s. Both armies wanted to avoid civilian casualties and damaged buildings, not to mention it is much harder to move those lines of infantry in cities. I don't mind CA's approach to this.

Originally Posted by McCarronXLD

Agreed. It was very rare to fight in the cities during this era or the 1700s. Both armies wanted to avoid civilian casualties and damaged buildings, not to mention it is much harder to move those lines of infantry in cities. I don't mind CA's approach to this.

Aye.

If I remember correctly during the French and Indian War, General Wolfe went out of his way to draw Montcalm out onto the Plains so they could have an open-field battle to avoid civilian deaths (and to fight with honour) rather than marching into the city.

I may be wrong, but still, it's true that large-scale city battles were typically avoided.

Originally Posted by RuleBritannia

Aye.

If I remember correctly during the French and Indian War, General Wolfe went out of his way to draw Montcalm out onto the Plains so they could have an open-field battle to avoid civilian deaths (and to fight with honour) rather than marching into the city.

I may be wrong, but still, it's true that large-scale city battles were typically avoided.

He went out of his way to be able to be able to land his troops on the good side of the Saint Laurent and to approach the city, not to engage an open battle (now, he may have prefered this option, but that's another matter).

The decision to fight a battle on open ground was taken by Montcalm (who had several options and could have refused) because he wanted to push back the british before they could reinforce their position even more and while they were trapped with no safe place to withdraw in the case of a defeat.

It doesn't have to be just a city fight, look at the epic mini struggle in Planncoit(spelling?)on Napy's right at Waterloo, or the villages of Aspern/Essling, also the French with Davout?(It was the battle straight after Jena using the village as cover as they shot Prussians to bits, until the Prussians brought up Howitzers and fired the buildings).

Villages have often being used to defend flanks or create an obstical, and were fortified where possible to become strongholds. It's not the sheer amount of the buildings that needs improving, it's the actual layout and how many can be decently occupied, look at the defence or the Granary and the Church at Aspern/ Essling. I think CA have said that there will be more farm houses etc, I hope so, I would like to see strong positions in walled churches and large farms/houses, anyone else interested? Rember Napy said of Le Haiye Saint, that whoever holds this wins the battle, he still lost, but you get the picture.

Edit:And if the buildings are mainly stone instead of wood, they should be fairly resistant to artillary including Howitzer fire.

Originally Posted by Frost, colonel

It doesn't have to be just a city fight, look at the epic mini struggle in Planncoit(spelling?)on Napy's right at Waterloo, or the villages of Aspern/Essling, also the French with Davout?(It was the battle straight after Jena using the village as cover as they shot Prussians to bits, until the Prussians brought up Howitzers and fired the buildings).

Villages have often being used to defend flanks or create an obstical, and were fortified where possible to become strongholds. It's not the sheer amount of the buildings that needs improving, it's the actual layout and how many can be decently occupied, look at the defence or the Granary and the Church at Aspern/ Essling. I think CA have said that there will be more farm houses etc, I hope so, I would like to see strong positions in walled churches and large farms/houses, anyone else interested? Rember Napy said of Le Haiye Saint, that whoever holds this wins the battle, he still lost, but you get the picture.

Edit:And if the buildings are mainly stone instead of wood, they should be fairly resistant to artillary including Howitzer fire.

I completely agree. Certain small villages and structures; Hougemont/La Haye Sainte; have always played a role in warfare and I hope NTW reflects this. That doesn't mean that we should find ourselves fighting in the streets of Paris, Vienna, or Berlin though. The way CA handled this in ETW was not perfect but was on the right track. Like many things in ETW it simply needs a bit more thought and improvement.

Originally Posted by Frost, colonel

It doesn't have to be just a city fight, look at the epic mini struggle in Planncoit(spelling?)on Napy's right at Waterloo, or the villages of Aspern/Essling, also the French with Davout?(It was the battle straight after Jena using the village as cover as they shot Prussians to bits, until the Prussians brought up Howitzers and fired the buildings).

Villages have often being used to defend flanks or create an obstical, and were fortified where possible to become strongholds. It's not the sheer amount of the buildings that needs improving, it's the actual layout and how many can be decently occupied, look at the defence or the Granary and the Church at Aspern/ Essling. I think CA have said that there will be more farm houses etc, I hope so, I would like to see strong positions in walled churches and large farms/houses, anyone else interested? Rember Napy said of Le Haiye Saint, that whoever holds this wins the battle, he still lost, but you get the picture.

Edit:And if the buildings are mainly stone instead of wood, they should be fairly resistant to artillary including Howitzer fire.

It is Plancenoit

Looks about the same as my average city battle in ETW...

Originally Posted by Marshal Beale

See below, we have a map of a battle, see all those dark spots in the middle, they are all the buildings, the coloured house are occupied houses. and all the other coloured shapes are units. SO as you can clearly see, the towns from this look at lot more full then they where in ETW, like when I fought in Paris and only found 12 buildings.

That`s all very nice, though a radar map doesn`t really prove much. But I want the improvements in ETW as well. You can forget it if I`m buying NTW to get what i should have got in ETW.

I still hold with the idea that the removal of the large city maps (if they existed?) forced CA to then use as a replacement the little town maps.

It is possible that the large city maps where originally intended as a last gasp defensive position for militia type troops which would have been used to fight in narrow streets and buildings against line infantry. However the removal of the larger city maps created a scenario where militia type units ended up perhaps unintentionally facing line infantry in what are relatively open little towns and stood no chance.

Either way CA could still be more imaginative with the tactical terrain for example why not generate another group of buildings in the top left hand corner, why not a duck pond anything that makes the tactical map more interesting and forces the player to think about their advance.