Question to CA about the smaller regions.

[Modestus]

Question to CA about the smaller regions.

I am getting sick of this so once and for all could someone from CA sort it out.

Do the smaller regions have settlements with tactical maps of a walled city or even a walled town ? If I attack an army in the city of Velathri or Ariminum will it be a field battle?

I am assuming that only the provincial capitals have an actual tactical map of a city that you can fight a siege battle on and the smaller regions do not have a tactical map of a city so this will essentially mean a field battle.

[nameless]

I'm assuming it'll be like ETW and Shogun 2where it'll just be a battle with a small town in the area that's not walled off. There'll be buildings and such in the area but nothing fortified.

If you attack a settlement that's fortified then it's a siege battle.

That's how I see it. It would be redundant to have multiple fortresses in a single province.

[Slydessertfox]

I'm assuming it'll be like ETW and Shogun 2where it'll just be a battle with a small town in the area that's not walled off. There'll be buildings and such in the area but nothing fortified.

If you attack a settlement that's fortified then it's a siege battle.

That's how I see it. It would be redundant to have multiple fortresses in a single province.

If that's the case, then the campaign only having 57 provinces will be a huge disappointment.

[Toho]

to add to this, if one faction controls only one region then what can the player build, recruit and manage? if it is like previous games then what is the point of a province system?
can regions grow in size? for example how many buildings can you manage within a region? 1? 2? 5?

[Pajkes]

to add to this, if one faction controls only one region then what can the player build, recruit and manage? if it is like previous games then what is the point of a province system?
can regions grow in size? for example how many buildings can you manage within a region? 1? 2? 5?

You have raised good questions and reason why they are not being addressed could be in my opinion because :

• it's too early and they are waiting for rezzed and e3 to go into more detail about these things and everything is fine, no resemblance of ETW or
• they have now seen that it have been bad decision to make and they are hoping that majority of buyers won't bother (people from TWC are minority obviosly) and they just don't want to piss their fans 3 months in advance before release

I guess we can all agree that first option is much much much better and I don't mind them waiting for rezzed to announce this cause anyone in his right mind would choose more pompous opportunity to say this then on some forum where couple of hundreds at most thousand people could see it.It's marketing and I don't like it but it won't matter if it's nothing like Empire.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

I think the point of controlling a whole province is that you can issue edicts in that province. These edicts buff certain elements within that province (like public order, taxes etc...)

[[N2]Kami]

In shogun 2 I think any town have a wall but we can climb up by rope, not like they don't have wall.

[Fishdawg]

Question to CA about the smaller regions.

I am getting sick of this so once and for all could someone from CA sort it out.

Do the smaller regions have settlements with tactical maps of a walled city or even a walled town ? If I attack an army in the city of Velathri or Ariminum will it be a field battle?

I am assuming that only the provincial capitals have an actual tactical map of a city that you can fight a siege battle on and the smaller regions do not have a tactical map of a city so this will essentially mean a field battle.

Totaly agree the need to explain it all about better though we will probably find out after Rezzed were people will get to play the demo and figure it out themselves, then tell us

[Ichon]

"Tons of different battle types" or something like that was the quote so if walled cities are limited to provincial capitol we might get open town without walls, a small wall with open gates, fields, mountain pass, lake, beach, river, forest, hills, marsh... if CA explores more terrains based on geography of region it should provide still interesting battle maps that require slightly different tactics depending on army composition but aren't always a siege battle. So battles would happen anywhere on map and engine generates a random map based on tiles or whatever that then remains persistent for that campaign while the capture points of each region are not random maps but custom designed (or at least generated) by CA for force a certain type of battle to capture that region.

[Modestus]

"Tons of different battle types" or something like that was the quote so if walled cities are limited to provincial capitol we might get open town without walls, a small wall with open gates, fields, mountain pass, lake, beach, river, forest, hills, marsh... if CA explores more terrains based on geography of region it should provide still interesting battle maps that require slightly different tactics depending on army composition but aren't always a siege battle. So battles would happen anywhere on map and engine generates a random map based on tiles or whatever that then remains persistent for that campaign while the capture points of each region are not random maps but custom designed (or at least generated) by CA for force a certain type of battle to capture that region.

I understand where your coming from but I don’t see it happening, you will get a version of ETW for the smaller regions because its a simple and straight forward method to cut down on the need to create settlement maps for every region.

But it has some consequence for game play, the pace of the game should increase as armies will be able to conquer regions more quickly certainly those that are more mobile with plenty of cavalry, the smaller factions will fall like bowling pins as they have no defences.

My worst fears are coming true and this is just a version of Shogun 2 in new clothes.

[Kadoken]

I understand where your coming from but I don’t see it happening, you will get a version of ETW for the smaller regions because its a simple and straight forward method to cut down on the need to create settlement maps for every region.

But it has some consequence for game play, the pace of the game should increase as armies will be able to conquer regions more quickly certainly those that are more mobile with plenty of cavalry, the smaller factions will fall like bowling pins as they have no defences.

My worst fears are coming true and this is just a version of Shogun 2 in new clothes.

Shogun 2? You mean the best game in the series?

[Modestus]

Shogun 2? You mean the best game in the series?

Yes the one where you ran up walls to take a castle and defenders would get more protection from hiding behind a gnat then a brick and judging from the speed a soldier could move at the gnat would seem a reasonable alternative or is it the one where units formed big blobs and would rout if someone said a harsh word to them? Yes its a good game but it has nothing to do with war or history its an RTS and I wanted RTW2 to be more then that,its looking like its more of the same, I am sure you will think its good too.

[Kadoken]

Yes the one where you ran up walls to take a castle and defenders would get more protection from hiding behind a gnat then a brick and judging from the speed a soldier could move at the gnat would seem a reasonable alternative or is it the one where units formed big blobs and would rout if someone said a harsh word to them? Yes its a good game but it has nothing to do with war or history its an RTS and I wanted RTW2 to be more then that,its looking like its more of the same, I am sure you will think its good too.

...Why do are you still having trouble with the concept that in the Sengoku Jidai soldiers COULD climb the walls? They were slanted and built in such a way to withstand earthquakes and their construction was such that soldiers could and DID climb them.

The wall protection thing. Play a custom game with one bow units vs 2 with the one defending a wall. It will most likely win or at least kill a decent chunk of the enemy.

The speed thing. I don't get that complaint. I admit I mostly played with Darthmod, but the times I played vanilla the speed didn't seem that big a deal to me. It wasn't like I had no time to tactically maneuver and flank units with the speed of units ring as they were.

The routing thing I didn't get too much either. In FOTS, I can remember countless times when the enemy units would only rout if cut down at least 3/4th of their unit, and usually if a bigger unit did rout, it was filled with crappy units like levy riflemen or scared yari ashigaru set off by a chain reaction of the general dying and other routing units. Other than that, fights are decently long, I can't remember many that lasted under 15-20 minutes.

The war and history thing. Guess what? Total War is not historical simulator. It's an RTT strategy game with turnbased pseudo-4x elements. Oh no, Berzerkers are not called by their real names. Oh no, Spartans are wearing Corinthian helmets. Oh no, Seleucids are not playable at the start. Oh no, the historical leagues aren't there. Oh no -Insert nitpick- isn't there.

Its a game. Everyone one who complains about minute details about anything (looking at Prometheus) is just nitpicking would is probably going to be a great game. It's not out yet; we have yet to get to E3 or Rezzed for any real pertinent information. The devs have told us that the walkthroughs are modified. If you want your dream game to come true with perfect "Historocity" and is tailored to your whims, then you may be disappointed.

Just don't buy the game, play Europa Barborum and be satisfied. No one is forcing you to purchase what may be a disappointment to you.

[rohirrimelf]

How many different citys do u guys think we will see. If there are 50+ provinces and multiple attacking points like on carthage they must be very busy ants, the last couple of years, on all the possible sieges we might see. This might be a great thing or a waste of time if sieges are as dumb as RTW/Napoleon.

[torongill]

How many different cities do u guys think we will see. If there are 50+ provinces and multiple attacking points like on carthage they must be very busy ants, the last couple of years, on all the possible sieges we might see. This might be a great thing or a waste of time if sieges are as dumb as RTW/Napoleon.

Well one of the previews talked about Rome 2 having 30+ different city types according to culture. Personally I think that's too much work if only 57 settlements will get a siege map. Furthermore what's the point of having unique siege engines like the Repeating Scorpion and the Armored Tortoise ram if the maximum you can use them is in 56 battles at most? What's the point of having combined battles and sieges if you would only use them for a handful of settlements(Carthage, Qart Hadasht, Brindisium, Massalia, Alexandria, Ephesus and Karalis)?
And yes, I know combined battles will allow for landing battles like when Caesar landed in Britain, but how many of these would you expect to fight?

If the reason for the claimed lack of sieges is "to cut down on the need to create settlement maps for every region", why make it so complicated with all the stuff I've listed? Why cut down on the creation of city maps that will use generic cities but pour loads of resources into creating unique cities like Rome and Carthage(and maybe Athens and Alexandria)

[Dan113112]

It may have consequences for gameplay but according to CA many TW gamers don't like sieges. I'm one of them. I would at least want the smaller settlements to have a primitive palisade. I wonder if all provincial capitols will be unique?

[Anna_Gein]

It may have consequences for gameplay but according to CA many TW gamers don't like sieges. I'm one of them. I would at least want the smaller settlements to have a primitive palisade. I wonder if all provincial capitols will be unique?

Did you played Medieval 2 ? I thought the siege battles were nice in this tittle except the multiple wall defence the AI could not handle and the plaza of doom at the centre of each settlement. But the initial assaults or defences were sympathetic. Too bad warscape was such a huge step back on siege battles.

[Dan113112]

Didyou played Medieval 2 ? I thought the siege battles were nice in this tittle except the multiple wall defence the AI could not handle and the plaza of doom at the centre of each settlement. But the initial assaults or defences were sympathetic. Too bad warscape was such a huge step back on siege battles.

I often auto-resolve sieges because I receive less casualties doing so because of the plaza of doom. ETW/NTW sieges were simple but boring. Apparently TWR2 has multiple capture points in sieges so the AI will actually try to defend those points instead of always huddling in the central plaza.

[magpie]

I liked M2TW sieges once one had a go at the files and adjusted the path finding they were good battles.

When ETW was released I did not see heaps of praise for the new way of doing things.

Lets hope we do not get a rerun of that games poor showing.

[Barbarian Nobility]

Question to CA about the smaller regions.

I am getting sick of this so once and for all could someone from CA sort it out.

Do the smaller regions have settlements with tactical maps of a walled city or even a walled town ? If I attack an army in the city of Velathri or Ariminum will it be a field battle?

I am assuming that only the provincial capitals have an actual tactical map of a city that you can fight a siege battle on and the smaller regions do not have a tactical map of a city so this will essentially mean a field battle.

Im pretty sure this has been answered already.

Provinvial Capital = siege.

Village/Town = field battle.

I believe CA have mentioned in one of the Rally Points that villages/towns will not be walled.