Who ♥ Campaign Maps

[Comradical]

I may be unusual but whenever I play a Total War game, it's all about the Campaign map with me.

It may seem odd for a game called Total War but I really enjoy trade, diplomacy, espionage, politics, generals/heroes/governors, spreading religions, fortifying borders, building up cities, and generally just expanding along borders and defending territory.

I've always thought it would be cool to have text adventure styled espionage and intrigue, Europa Universalis does this but sort of poorly, but has anyone ever played the game Space Rangers 2 or King Arthur - The Role-playing Wargame and done the text missions in those? That would be great, IMO, for spy missions, assassination missions, diplomacy missions, and general events (perhaps giving you more control over your characters and their traits).

Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way. I'm sure for most people it's all about the action and commanding troops in battles. But personally, I'd really greatly enjoy a more fleshed out campaign than we've seen in previous games. Better diplomacy, more engaging espionage, more politics (not just senate/pope missions and elections), stronger alliances, less backstabbing and more strategic backstabbing, and more general intrigue.

There's a whole lot more to these factions than fighting.

[maximusdecimusm]

I would enjoy this too. More intrigue could keep the game challenging throughout.

I like the campaign map because it is somewhere I can relax and plan my grand strategies, whereas the battlemap is all about tactics. In general the more complex diplomacy and politics becomes, the happier I'll be.

[Comradical]

I enjoy Battle Maps but usually, I play them from a defensive position unless I've got a good siege against a well fortified enemy (I like sieges).

But usually for the general map, for most fights, I just auto-resolve. The main draw for me is always the Grand Campaign Map.

[B. W.]

I may be unusual but whenever I play a Total War game, it's all about the Campaign map with me.

It may seem odd for a game called Total War but I really enjoy trade, diplomacy, espionage, politics, generals/heroes/governors, spreading religions, fortifying borders, building up cities, and generally just expanding along borders and defending territory.

I've always thought it would be cool to have text adventure styled espionage and intrigue, Europa Universalis does this but sort of poorly, but has anyone ever played the game Space Rangers 2 or King Arthur - The Role-playing Wargame and done the text missions in those? That would be great, IMO, for spy missions, assassination missions, diplomacy missions, and general events (perhaps giving you more control over your characters and their traits).

Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way. I'm sure for most people it's all about the action and commanding troops in battles. But personally, I'd really greatly enjoy a more fleshed out campaign than we've seen in previous games. Better diplomacy, more engaging espionage, more politics (not just senate/pope missions and elections), stronger alliances, less backstabbing and more strategic backstabbing, and more general intrigue.

There's a whole lot more to these factions than fighting.

I agree with most of this. I like spending my time with the campaign map and not fighting endless little skirmishes. I usually autoresolve unless it's really important. What really ticks me is having to fight a battle that wouldn't even be close, but autoresolve would give it to the AI if I didn't..

[Comradical]

I agree with most of this. I like spending my time with the campaign map and not fighting endless little skirmishes. I usually autoresolve unless it's really important. What really ticks me is having to fight a battle that wouldn't even be close, but autoresolve would give it to the AI if I didn't..

I hate that too, a full army with thousands of hoplites and archers, losing hundreds of men to a few militia who shouldn't even be able to get past the arrows and spears to fight you. I'd like to imagine they had some cunning guerrilla warfare tricks but when they're militia with short spears and brightly colored shields it's not really believable.

[General Sultan V]

I hate that too, a full army with thousands of hoplites and archers, losing hundreds of men to a few militia who shouldn't even be able to get past the arrows and spears to fight you. I'd like to imagine they had some cunning guerrilla warfare tricks but when they're militia with short spears and brightly colored shields it's not really believable.

Pelloponnesian war. Look it up

[Rinan]

Trust me OP, when I say that TW fans can be divided into die-hard fans of the battle man and die-hard fans of the campaign map and any combination and thing in between! I know of plenty people who vastly prefer the campaign map to the battles and autoresolve almost everything.

For me, I prefer the campaign map, but it's like 60 vs 40 percent to me. The battles are what sets Total War apart from Paradox games (probably the best tactical-only games in the genre). They offer a bit of variety between the ruling of your realm. I think I autoresolve around 50%?

I definitely agree the campaign maps could use more depth. Right now the campaign map is mostly there to build up armies and to prepare your battles. They could make the campaign map more as a goal on its own, with a lot of interesting decisions to make on the campaign map. managing vassals, establishing trade/supply routes, determining policies, acquiring a 'casus belli', managing your 'royal' family... A lot of room to expand!

[Ritterlichvon86]

I'm a strategic player first and foremost too. Campaign map 4tw! In Shogun 2 FOTS, I loved playing the imperial Tsu faction - Ninjas everywhere! I won most MPCs due to superior campaign map strategy. In Napoleon TW I remember playing against people like Sir Nicholas Altman and losing almost every important major battle, yet still winning the campaign. Nowadays, I really came to love the tactical (battles) due to the enhanced vision I now have with a 27" over the 18.9" 4:3 I used until last week. I never knew it would make such a difference in battle perception / overview.

I agree with all your points. Good campaign maps can create way more immersion than the glaze of swords, the weather in battle or the different hats or shields. That's why I loved EB and the various RTW mods - and how much could have been done with Empire TW. I trust them that they remember to create an awesome campaign map for Rome 2. Like NTW's Europa + NA + Middle east, but 1.5x or 2x the size.

[Jazx]

I compeletely agree with you Comradical! For me being in campaign is much more important than in battle. Also playing in campaing gives me much more fun. I hope they can improve campaing in Rome Total War 2. So far they have been focusing on their new battle system but game will get released in Q4 of 2013 so they will probably(i hope so) focus on campaing map too.

[Stath's]

Campaign 70%
Battle 30%

[Comradical]

Campaign 70%
Battle 30%

That's about me too.

I normally do battle when doing a big siege or defending a city from a big siege (because it's fun) but I spend most of my time empire building on the campaign map.

[BENDELIANI]

Campaign 80%
Battle 20%

[Wowwars]

Yeah Campaign map is what needs le Epicness Back into it, Empire was a effy game in campaign map sort of ways and Shogun's RPG generals kinda killed it for me.

[Ichon]

The older the TW game the more I prefer battles. In the newer TWs I find myself auto resolving a lot more but to me that is not all good. I can usually get 1/5 to at least 1/2 casualties fighting out the battle as auto resolving it and usually more experience per unit as well but since most of the battle fields are fairly similar there begins a monotony that I just decide to skip. Especially if there is not going to be a battle for the next 2-3 turns so the ranks can refill I don't really care. Of course there have been a few times I auto resolved and barely won and then am hit next turn which led to some of the most intense battles in NTW that I've had. Shogun is less forgiving of depleted units unless having mostly samurai so I find myself fighting out battles more often than ETW/NTW except sieges because I know I'll likely keep the army in garrison for a turn or 2 anyway afterwards.

[atheniandp]

I don't know what you mean by text adventure features, but I'd certainly want to see more depth in the campaign game. Casus belli is a definite must. Political intrigue is planned for Rome II's release. That sounds good. I'd like to see internal factions in addition to external ones however. More optimates and populares, more patrons and clients which characterized political turbulence in the Mediterranean civilizations. In addition and on the contrary, I'd like to see a difference between those factions and the absolutist or protofeudal monarchies.

Diplomacy, casus belli and politics are the three most important campaign map spheres I think should be redefined. If something could be done about economics, religions, and philosophy that would be great.

[Comradical]

I don't know what you mean by text adventure features, but I'd certainly want to see more depth in the campaign game. Casus belli is a definite must. Political intrigue is planned for Rome II's release. That sounds good. I'd like to see internal factions in addition to external ones however. More optimates and populares, more patrons and clients which characterized political turbulence in the Mediterranean civilizations. In addition and on the contrary, I'd like to see a difference between those factions and the absolutist or protofeudal monarchies.

Diplomacy, casus belli and politics are the three most important campaign map spheres I think should be redefined. If something could be done about economics, religions, and philosophy that would be great.

A text adventure would be like, if you sent your assassin to kill someone, it would give you multiple options to proceed, describing events, presenting opportunities, and generally illustrating your assassin's mission and the methods he was using.

This could tie in ancillaries to unlock options that increase your success, with slightly different scenarios and opportunities depending on the faction, the security of the target, and maybe what buildings are present to present you with different scenarios where your judgement effected your success rate when you got a chance to kill.

And if you wanted to skip all that, you could do an auto-calculate for a more traditional % chance, like you were auto resolving a battle.

[Shaio]

I do like the campaign map alot, and infact i don't really enjoy my battles as much without the feeling of purpose and setting that comes from the campaign, but likewise the campaign wouldn't mean much to me if i couldn't command those big important battles.

Its about even to me, but i do perhaps I really do love the maneuvering I do on the campaign map, although i did like it better when we could march through peoples land unaanounced to get places across land, now surprise invasions only happen via sea.

[Xerrop]

The Campaign Map is the reason why I bought all games of the series. I have never used Single or Quick Battle options in all the games. It feels meaningless to me starting any battle without an actual reason for fighting it. The reason, motivation and situation (troops types, numbers, etc.) can only emerge from the political and military situation of your empire (aka the campaign map).

[Muizer]

I would love to like the campaign more though. The TW campaign maps I know (RTW - Napoleon) feel a bit empty and lifeless. In that sense there's a huge gap with the battles. A gap that I hope CA will try to close, especially by bringing more detail to the campaign that is of strategic importance to field campaigns (as opposed to just having empty land between siege targets). It would of course be even better if you could actually build your own structures (roads, bridges, forts, settlements).

[Wowwars]

Good addition will certainly be used by mods if modable, but however wont this make Campaign map a Grand click fest like in EU3?