Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Campaign map improvement suggestions

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Campaign map improvement suggestions

    As is well known, in RTW each province has one city and controlling that city means controlling the entire province. This is a silly system, especially in areas that would historically have no settlements of significance, like Germania or the steppe. What would make more sense is a system in which one establishes control of the countryside by building forts (upgradeable to castles of course) or seizes existing ones to exert control over the land. Cities/town are considered separate and different entities, and controlling them does not mean controlling the countryside very far beyond the town limits.

    What I am proposing is that noob they function somewhat differently: Forts/castles act as focal points in the countryside, it is here knights, men-at-arms and levies are mobilised and one gets income from farming (mostly at harvest time). Improvements buildable here are castle extensions and those dealing with economic and physical infrastructure, like roads and farming improvements. Cities and towns are centers of trade and industry, which gives income, and one recruit towns militia-type units here, perhaps also artillery if foundries historically were located in cities. It is also in coastal settlements that shipyards are found. Buildable improvements are ones that strengthen the defenses and infrastructure of the city (walls for defense, night watch for public order, baths for health (though I have read about medieval bathhouses being closed wholesale because they actually were detrimental to public health, being fleshpots that made veneric disease far more common), cathedrals and universities and so on).

    There is also the possibility of making things more realistic, for example by giving the player direct control only over royal domains, and instead of the state building any and all infrastructure and improvements people do it themselves if they know how and have the means (armourers and weaponsmith build their own forges and workshop and sell their wares to those that can afford them, same for stud farms, merchants build their own trade docks and markets if the volume of trade warrants it and so on). But I do not believe CA is willing to go down this path.

    Movement on the campaign map in RTW is often illogical, such as a besieged city still exerting a zone of control hampering the movement of a second army that attempts to march past it. It should be possible to deploy on all sides of a city when assaulting it, since they are supposed to be surrounded. Moving agents about is annoying, they should be off-screen, with the player rather selecting a target and ordering an action against it, the cost and chance of success depending on the nature of the action and the target.

    Some cosmetic improvements are in order: major natural features should be named, boats should travel on rivers (the are excellent conduits for trade). One should be able to see the countryside being further developed as population increases, with forest turning into farmland and existing farming districts becoming more dense populated.
    Last edited by Spiff; January 13, 2007 at 02:18 PM.

  2. #2
    Lord Tomyris's Avatar Cheshire Cat
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    8,720

    Default

    I think this would be a great system to adopt. Please suggest it to CA! :laughing:


    Ex-Quaestor of TWC: Resigned 7th May 2004

  3. #3
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,565

    Default

    It seems rather complicated to me. Im quite happy with the RTW one.
    Under the patronage of Rhah and brother of eventhorizen.

  4. #4

    Default

    I would like to have a more 'map' looking map, a mostly grey 2d map a little like the MTW one. And the armies and cities on it should be grey miniatures that are being pushed around (the armies not the cities :wink: ) by a push-stick so it looks like you are sitting in a war council giving orders.

  5. #5
    Bwaho's Avatar Puppeteer
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    From the kingdom of heaven by the powah of the holy spirit
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    Some cosmetic improvements are in order: major natural features should be named, boats should travel on rivers (the are excellent conduits for trade). One should be able to see the countryside being further developed as population increases, with forest turning into farmland and existing farming districts becoming more dense populated.
    that would be something.


    I hope castles will be built like forts, of course they should be extremely ultra expensive.

  6. #6

    Default

    im going to guess that CA is more in the beta stages with this game and really are adding minor things also they are using the r:tw engine so somethings will be limited ( like the campaign map will mostlikly be the same and not the old paper way)




  7. #7

    Default

    Very good suggestion. Another thing, I really liked the campaign map in Battle for Middle-earth. If they could create something similar, it would be awsome.

  8. #8

    Default

    I think Kopijeger has some great ideas. Something I would like to see in relation to the campaign mode is to make the game completely in real-time. While this would seem to counter to being strategic, plenty of grand strategy games have done it (Europa Universalis, Supreme Ruler 2010, etc.) and it works very well. Not only would it add a cool layer to the strategic and operational thinking, it would also solve the whole "how many turns should it take to recruit a unit" thing since a certain number of days could be specified.

    I am still a little unsure of what I would like to see as far as provinces/cities/castles. I like to have lots of provinces, but one shouldn't be able to control a whole province after winning one battle/siege. Here's what I think ought to be done. A province should have a few cities in it, say five for instance. Each one has a certain zone of control on the map according to its size. Armies and castles should also have a zone of control. Each province should have a title associated with it, like Duke or Count or whatever. In order to reward the title for that province to someone, you have to control a certain proportion of the land in that province. So take an example of what might happen in the game:

    If there were a province that had one massive city and the other four were nothing but villages, and you captured the one massive city, you would probably be able to gain the title for that province. But if the other player had built a few castles just to the north of the town, the city's zone of control in that direction would be incredibly hampered.

    Another thing could be done is that Count titles could be associated with individual cities and castles within a province, but the Duke title could be associated with the whole province. Depending on what kind of person got the title there would be different bonuses and penalties. A disloyal duke might take a whole province away for instance.

    Just my two cents .
    Last edited by Caudex Maximus; January 22, 2006 at 01:51 PM. Reason: Forgot a thought.

  9. #9
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,565

    Default

    A good idea, well i think so any way, wood be that if you beat an enemy army and their cities are only a few very weak garrisons they will surrendur. This wood be very cool, and i hate it when you defeat a large army and their cities have only 2 units of peasants and no reinforcements can make it but they still dont surrender.
    And i also want to see little villages on the country side.
    Under the patronage of Rhah and brother of eventhorizen.

  10. #10
    Zenith Darksea's Avatar Ορθοδοξία ή θάνατος!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,659

    Default

    What I hate is when you nail an army in the field and then are forced to besiege a city that contains the survivors (yes, both of them) who would just surrender in real life.

  11. #11

    Default

    Hmmmm, seems kinda like Go. You rule based on territory. I like Caudex Maximus's ideas on control of territory, but instead of multiple cities, just one. Castles that are built and staffed by your troops add to the money that you get from various things, in order to assist paying for construction, and they also help you control the province (less likely to get bandit groups popping up). Castles, of course, would be WAY expensive, maybe somewhere between 10,000-30,000 each, plus the time it would take to actually build it (say...6-7 hald-year turns?). Castles would also be usefull for the defense of the province as control of the city doesn't mean control of the province. If their is a castle, or castles, in a province then the invading army would have to take control of the castle first, before going after the city. Take this, plus the "multi-Walled City" thing that CA said would be in the MTW2, and you could force the enemy to retreat before even going after the city (depending on how tough of a fight you give them at the castle.

  12. #12
    Bwaho's Avatar Puppeteer
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    From the kingdom of heaven by the powah of the holy spirit
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    A good idea, well i think so any way, wood be that if you beat an enemy army and their cities are only a few very weak garrisons they will surrendur. This wood be very cool, and i hate it when you defeat a large army and their cities have only 2 units of peasants and no reinforcements can make it but they still dont surrender.
    That's bloody brilliant! there must be a certain amount of units in the city if you want to defend it, otherwise those 2 peasant units will surrender and the city is lost. That way you will have to think more on the campaign map when you move armies. If aggressors are too close to an important city you might want to leave the required garrison.

    Seriously this is the best idea yet, you should post this on totalwar.com to get their attention!

  13. #13
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bwaho
    That's bloody brilliant! there must be a certain amount of units in the city if you want to defend it, otherwise those 2 peasant units will surrender and the city is lost. That way you will have to think more on the campaign map when you move armies. If aggressors are too close to an important city you might want to leave the required garrison.

    Seriously this is the best idea yet, you should post this on totalwar.com to get their attention!
    I never thought of that, if this feature is implemented, then leaving a small garrison of peasants in a city is dangerous because they will surrender without a fight to any near by enemy armies.
    Also, a city with very high loyalty might hold out longer.
    Under the patronage of Rhah and brother of eventhorizen.

  14. #14
    Bwaho's Avatar Puppeteer
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    From the kingdom of heaven by the powah of the holy spirit
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    I never thought of that, if this feature is implemented, then leaving a small garrison of peasants in a city is dangerous because they will surrender without a fight to any near by enemy armies.
    Also, a city with very high loyalty might hold out longer.
    Yes, that's why you might leave safer cities with only a few units to keep loyalty up. Cities on the front however might need some real protection. Unit requirement for a valid garrison should vary a bit but it should at least be more than 2 peasant units.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Campaign map improvement suggestions

    I agree with Kopijeger, they should put that in the next patch
    Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life; define yourself.
    -Harvey Fierstein

  16. #16

    Default Re: Campaign map improvement suggestions

    If anything, Ships definately need to be able to travel on rivers.
    How now! What news?

    -Macbeth

  17. #17

    Default Re: Campaign map improvement suggestions

    No, rivers are way too shallow to carry fleets. Maybe certain ships like the longboat could though.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •