How many Turns Per Year would you like in Rome II?

[Waiting for Rome 2 -_-]

Since there wasn't a thread like that,or maybe it was,anyway...

[Larkin]

I like FOTS' system a lot, with the different clan-wide effects in the seasons. Though I hate attrition.

[Rikx]

Already a thread on this on the main page

[Waiting for Rome 2 -_-]

Rikx,mine has more options...

[atheniandp]

I voted the last option because I'd like to see a real time campaign. No turns. If it must be turn-based, I'd like to see as many turns as possible, with everything (especially army movement) optimized around the sense of time.

[Waiting for Rome 2 -_-]

I voted the last option because I'd like to see a real time campaign. No turns. If it must be turn-based, I'd like to see as many turns as possible, with everything (especially army movement) optimized around the sense of time.

I also want as many turns as possible,but a real time campaign would not be TW anymore.

[Anna_Gein]

I also want as many turns as possible,but a real time campaign would not be TW anymore.

In the first two games the campaign map was divided into province.
There was no real army movement like "Should I defend this bridge or wait the enemy in my city ?"
A series should be able to evolve even in it's core mechanic or it will become very annoying to always play the same game.

I voted 12 turn though 4 could be enough.
It would be cool if CA provided a tool to easily change the setting.
Real time could be interesting.

Someone had try the game called "Hegemony Gold : Wars of Ancient Greece" ?
That might give us an idea about what real time on total war would seems.

(real time with the separation campaign map/battle map of course)

[krisslanza]

I voted the last option because I'd like to see a real time campaign. No turns. If it must be turn-based, I'd like to see as many turns as possible, with everything (especially army movement) optimized around the sense of time.

That would be basically a Paradox game, which only really works because none of the combat is actually controlled. I think in a TW game, it'd be a horrid mess - because, ideally, time should keep flowing while in battle, but then what happens if an army meets another army while you're in a battle already?

[dl_iepurasu]

That would be basically a Paradox game, which only really works because none of the combat is actually controlled. I think in a TW game, it'd be a horrid mess - because, ideally, time should keep flowing while in battle, but then what happens if an army meets another army while you're in a battle already?

I think the way this could work is if you have 2 (or more) ways the time flows. Campaign-map time, where you build, move armies manage everything etc. and battle time, when two armies are close to each-other.

Campaign-map-time could be something like 1 hour/year or whatever, battle time is actually real time. The chances of two battles happening at the same time at the same day are slim, and some very easy mechanics could be used to delay one of the two, without any great impact on the larger scale of things.

I would love to play this kind of game.

[Colonel Dax]

I voted the last option because I'd like to see a real time campaign. No turns. If it must be turn-based, I'd like to see as many turns as possible, with everything (especially army movement) optimized around the sense of time.

No.

A real-time campaign is something I will not stand for.

[Asgaroth]

4 turns best for me.

[Centurion1981]

4 turns best for me.

Don't know what you base your answer on, but this works for as well.

Personally I would like to see all four seasons (Turn per Season). If this is the case, I would like them to incorporate elements such as weather to the overall length of travel per turn. In example, Winter=harsh weather= less travel and so on. I'm fine with one turn a season or any other number of turns it might be. If I had it my way, "4".

[Wodeson]

If it's similar to the original Rome in growth rates, then 2 years per turn would work better.

[Ichon]

2 turns per year but generals and agents need longer range so they can make it across map in less than 10 years.

[krisslanza]

2 turns per year but generals and agents need longer range so they can make it across map in less than 10 years.

At least it's better then M2TW where every 2 years, an agent/general ages half a year...

[a tw player]

1 turn=9 months would be best in my opinion. It's like 2 turns per year, but allows for a representation of all 4 seasons.

(as opposed to the option of 4 turns per year, which would result in too long a campaign assuming the game runs for a fair few hundred years)

[Rhaegar1]

1 turn=9 months would be best in my opinion. It's like 2 turns per year, but allows for a representation of all 4 seasons.

(as opposed to the option of 4 turns per year, which would result in too long a campaign assuming the game runs for a fair few hundred years)

that way the seasons would go backwards wouldn't they? Better make it 15 months I think

[Tritus]

4 is best in my opinion.

[jimmy425]

i would want option to change the tpy

[JOZI]

I kinda like the Fots system of four turns a season that way we could get a lot of units out there in a a few season and since the game is going to be LOOOONG anyway