Battle Map Terrain

[Ichon]

With ships participating in battles now and renewed focus on field battles it seems possible there will finally be the chance for more diverse terrain in a TW game. River protecting the flank of an army or an ambush pushing a column into a river or marsh, terrain impacting speed of cavalry so rough rocky terrain cavalry move only slightly faster than infantry while forests actually make cavalry same speed as infantry, rivers, snow and sand slow down infantry more than cavalry, marshes and river give units in them defensive penalty along with slower speeds while forests give infantry a better bonus than cavalry, etc. So many ways terrain affected battles which currently TW divides into basically 4 terrains with minimal effects while hills give missile bonus and not much else. Ideally hill would give general stationed there a larger command radius while a forest on the other hand would give a smaller command radius.

[Biggus Splenus]

I hope they do put more effort into the terrain than any other Total War game. the terrain is so important for battles, and pretty much every Total War game has fairly poor battle maps. I hated how in the original Rome, every battle in Gaul or Germany was just a map covered with forest

[Ichon]

I hope they do put more effort into the terrain than any other Total War game. the terrain is so important for battles, and pretty much every Total War game has fairly poor battle maps. I hated how in the original Rome, every battle in Gaul or Germany was just a map covered with forest

Yes, if they are making sieges less of a centerpiece and field battles more, a focus on larger variety of terrain with more tactical considerations than simply hill or map edge would be much better. It would especially help differentiate unit types more, light or heavy etc.

[Biggus Splenus]

Yes, if they are making sieges less of a centerpiece and field battles more, a focus on larger variety of terrain with more tactical considerations than simply hill or map edge would be much better. It would especially help differentiate unit types more, light or heavy etc.

Well if they improve what they introduced in Shogun 2 (towns that give bonuses on the field if you capture them), then this could definitely add a greater strategic level to the field

[Ichon]

Well if they improve what they introduced in Shogun 2 (towns that give bonuses on the field if you capture them), then this could definitely add a greater strategic level to the field

That was my least favorite part of Shogun 2 new additions to TW games actually. Permanent fighting skills bonus to certain units trained in a special province? It is just too contrived and seems unrelated to history or reality in any way I can make sense of. Purely a game element and one which did not work very well for me.

Attempting to focus more on field battles is a great idea but if the field battles are no more interesting than Shogun 2 there is a problem. Shogun 2 basically had 3 terrain variations- flat ground, flat ground with trees, hills, hills with trees. Flat, hill, tree.

I think it could be much better and make for more interesting tactical elements if there was a river or hill that could only be climbed by skirmishers or marshes that impeded cavalry but allowed slow infantry movement, rough ground that slowed horses but allowed light skirmishers to not lose any speed and thus outrun cavalry, rivers that could hold a flank and sometimes have fords but sometimes not, etc.

[Rorarii]

With ships participating in battles now and renewed focus on field battles it seems possible there will finally be the chance for more diverse terrain in a TW game. River protecting the flank of an army or an ambush pushing a column into a river or marsh, terrain impacting speed of cavalry so rough rocky terrain cavalry move only slightly faster than infantry while forests actually make cavalry same speed as infantry, rivers, snow and sand slow down infantry more than cavalry, marshes and river give units in them defensive penalty along with slower speeds while forests give infantry a better bonus than cavalry, etc. So many ways terrain affected battles which currently TW divides into basically 4 terrains with minimal effects while hills give missile bonus and not much else. Ideally hill would give general stationed there a larger command radius while a forest on the other hand would give a smaller command radius.

Please yes!

And importantly, no more HUGE advantage for armies fighting down hill. in Rome 1 and M2TW it was toooo easy to win battles by CAMPING on high ground and getting a huge advantage that decided the battle. Yes, higher ground was better for javelin / arrow first but when it came to face-to-face killing, i doubt a few inches higher would make alot of difference.

In other words still have varying terrain in battles like M2TW etc but just reduce the advantage this gave to camping units. S2 battle fields felt toooo 'flattened' on purpose - not realistic.

R

[Ichon]

Please yes!

And importantly, no more HUGE advantage for armies fighting down hill. in Rome 1 and M2TW it was toooo easy to win battles by CAMPING on high ground and getting a huge advantage that decided the battle. Yes, higher ground was better for javelin / arrow first but when it came to face-to-face killing, i doubt a few inches higher would make alot of difference.

In other words still have varying terrain in battles like M2TW etc but just reduce the advantage this gave to camping units. S2 battle fields felt toooo 'flattened' on purpose - not realistic.

R

I can see hill giving extra range to missiles but extra power doesn't make sense. Similarly units attacking uphill might have more trouble maintaining formation(formation spreads out a bit when climbing weakening the attack a small amount) but a straight defensive bonus is unappealing. So ideally claiming high ground in RTW2 might give archers/slingers/javelins a bit more range depending on the height of the hill(offset slightly by lower accuracy) and generals a larger command radius while infantry defending would have a small advantage as attacking formations spread out.

However even if hills remain exactly the same as in RTW or Shogun 2 what I am really talking about is new types of terrain not yet seen in a TW game. Battles were more often about the terrain as general's command ability/supplies, units equipment/training, and numbers on each side. Basically the terrain set the stage for those other factors but most of the time now its meaningless if not a hill.

[Modestus]

Certainly the terrain should be more imaginative, I think this is one aspect of the TW games that you tend to see in a demo but when it comes to the full campaign the terrain can be repetitive and boring.

And I would have thought hills could give a defender quite a good advantage , a phalanx marching uphill would need to hold its spears at a much higher angle so should tire more quickly and moving down hill it should be more effective especially if mass is now a factor.

In fact perhaps tweaking the mass in any given situation will create the bonus that you would expect, so a units mass increases if it goes downhill and decreases if it goes uphill with the added disadvantage that you also tire more quickly.

[Senchiro]

Please yes!

And importantly, no more HUGE advantage for armies fighting down hill. in Rome 1 and M2TW it was toooo easy to win battles by CAMPING on high ground and getting a huge advantage that decided the battle. Yes, higher ground was better for javelin / arrow first but when it came to face-to-face killing, i doubt a few inches higher would make alot of difference.

In other words still have varying terrain in battles like M2TW etc but just reduce the advantage this gave to camping units. S2 battle fields felt toooo 'flattened' on purpose - not realistic.

R

I completely disagree...

Players who camp on the top of a hill have no especially this "HUGE" advantage as you said.

Most of them are just trap theirself. I've play many game on maps like swiss alps against campers who sit at the top of the moutain but still won most of them.

You have your time to use the best strategy. If you lose those kind of battle then the problem may be your strategy and gameplay.

I notice that too many people are complain of unbalanced things on various total war serie and globalise their own problem/weakness to a game problem.

So my advice, just try to be smarter and use the right tactics and units capability on battlefield and you'll be more succesfull..

[atheniandp]

Please yes!

And importantly, no more HUGE advantage for armies fighting down hill. in Rome 1 and M2TW it was toooo easy to win battles by CAMPING on high ground and getting a huge advantage that decided the battle. Yes, higher ground was better for javelin / arrow first but when it came to face-to-face killing, i doubt a few inches higher would make alot of difference.

In other words still have varying terrain in battles like M2TW etc but just reduce the advantage this gave to camping units. S2 battle fields felt toooo 'flattened' on purpose - not realistic.

R

Actually, you'd be surprised how climbing uphill deteriorates your balance. I can totally see how it would be futile and history has already proven this countless times over.

[torongill]

Please yes!

And importantly, no more HUGE advantage for armies fighting down hill. in Rome 1 and M2TW it was toooo easy to win battles by CAMPING on high ground and getting a huge advantage that decided the battle. Yes, higher ground was better for javelin / arrow first but when it came to face-to-face killing, i doubt a few inches higher would make alot of difference.

In other words still have varying terrain in battles like M2TW etc but just reduce the advantage this gave to camping units. S2 battle fields felt toooo 'flattened' on purpose - not realistic.

R

Height, higher ground DOES offer a huge advantage. Range and angle of penetration for missiles, better stamina(try to climb a slope with 30 kilos of metal and wood on you and then fight, etc etc. The problem in RTW was not so much the terrain, although fighting in the mountains with 50º slopes is ridiculous. The real problem was neither you, nor the AI could decline the battle. You need a flat plain to operate with cavalry, you need flattish surface for heavy infantry. But if you could decline the battle and move to another location, then it would be different.

[tone]

I've said some of this elsewhere but:

Decent deciduous forests...oak, beech, birch for celts/Germans to ambush from
Hill forts
Mediterranean pines (Aleppo pines, stone pines) - not just Cypress trees - olive trees/groves
Roads / tracks going through defiles for ambushing
Snow that kicks up off feet / hooves would be great...not sure how easy that one is

[Muizer]

Well Tone, thanks to you the Rome fans won't settle for less than awesome battlefield terrain

I'm personally more inclined to look critically at the strategic game. There has to be a decent connection between the campaign and battlemaps. Would be great if you could preview terrain before stationing your armies there. What am I saying, why not just add the possibility of designating the spot where you pitch your tents?

[tone]

Well Tone, thanks to you the Rome fans won't settle for less than awesome battlefield terrain

I'm personally more inclined to look critically at the strategic game. There has to be a decent connection between the campaign and battlemaps. Would be great if you could preview terrain before stationing your armies there. What am I saying, why not just add the possibility of designating the spot where you pitch your tents?

Thanks.
Yeah, that's a nice idea. I loved that about the RTW map that the battle map was linked to the campaign map in that way... But I'm sure that could be improved even more with newer technologies.

[atheniandp]

Thanks.
Yeah, that's a nice idea. I loved that about the RTW map that the battle map was linked to the campaign map in that way... But I'm sure that could be improved even more with newer technologies.

I may be wrong but I've heard the warscape randomly generates battlefields instead of taking terrain features from the campaign map. Which is of course ridiculous.

We want the old system back CA, but with improvements.

[Spajjder]

It would be really nice if formations of units could be pushed. i mean if 100 man attacks 50 men, maybe they should be able to like push them or force them backwards.
in current games both formations just stop and the front line is the only ones doing anything to contribute to the fight
Then it would be actually possible to push down units of a cliff or into the river..
ofc some units are heavier and stronger than other ones

[Ichon]

It would be really nice if formations of units could be pushed. i mean if 100 man attacks 50 men, maybe they should be able to like push them or force them backwards.
in current games both formations just stop and the front line is the only ones doing anything to contribute to the fight
Then it would be actually possible to push down units of a cliff or into the river..
ofc some units are heavier and stronger than other ones

Units with alot higher mass can do this now but it would be interesting if stationing 1 unit directly behind another gave some sort of bonus to mass for the front unit to simulate Phalanx pushing. Right now most of the time the most effective formation is relatively wide with each side trying to outflank the enemy. If there were a bonus for making the ranks deeper that the side with deeper ranks could push back the other side then the tactics become alot more open depending on the terrain and types of units available.

That is a bit different topic though as I really just want RTW2 to have more interesting and varied terrain that has some effect on the battles. I understand making units behave differently according to terrain might be difficult but TW games have been basically the same in regards to terrain so far. With RTW2 its time to see something new- just giving the potential for terrain to effect movement of different unit types might even be enough though it could be much better than that.

[Ichon]

“What that means as well is that there are more varied battlefield types, so we want to have more battle types, objectives, more varied terrain.” http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/...-war-in-rome-2

There is hope!

[Muizer]

I doubt the battlefields are randomly generated. A random map would mean the AI has to be able to respond intelligently to any possible variation. There does not seem to be any advantage to doing that. There may be advantages to having a limited set of battlemaps or battlemap templates from which one can be chosen that best fits the position on the campaign map. Doing that would give close controll over the AI's performance (concerning pathfinding, for instance). It doesn't amount to a 1:1 match between campaign and battlemap though. It would be a bit of a cheat IMHO. Still, it wouldn't be too bad if there was plenty of variation and you'd be given the chance to pitch your camp on the battlemapat turn-end rather than on the campaign map.

[Fanest]

Yep i agree old system was far more superior to the one in STW2 because if u fought two battles in the same province in STW2 it was always on the same map, just the angel was different, while if u fought in MTW2 or RTW1 it actually took characteristics of campaign map and made some more or less random map which imo is superior