Little request to CA or future modders

[terzer]

Hello,
since the first Rome Total war I always hated, that the battlefields are "empty". What I mean, is that both armies should have encampments on the battlefield behind them (1-2 miles away), so they could retreat, supplies (they have the model already ), carry the wounded, equipment, rest for the night (many battles were fought 2-3 days) etc... Armies were like a music band on a tour
So it would be a great immersion, if there is a fort in the distance (only visual, no gameplay changer), just like battles near settlements (you can see the city in the background). It wouldn't change the gameplay, but I think it would greatly enhance the immersion of the battle, so its not just a plain field. I also think, this is not so hard to achieve...
I'm interested what other people think

edit: I found some pictures:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Lockcaps]

There will be encampments present in the Encampment battles (if you attack an army in defensive stance, the defenders will be in their camp at the start of the battle. Romans will have a giant "fort" instead as one of their faction perks)

I hope that they will be present in siege battles aswell, with things like trenches that units can run in, and wooden palisades.

[terzer]

Yes, I know, but it would be better, if all battles have encampments (outside the battle map, unlike Encampment battles, where the encampments are a capture point)

[Legion_IX]

Hello,
since the first Rome Total war I always hated, that the battlefields are "empty". What I mean, is that both armies should have encampments on the battlefield behind them (1-2 miles away), so they could retreat, supplies (they have the model already ), carry the wounded, equipment, rest for the night (many battles were fought 2-3 days) etc... Armies were like a music band on a tour
So it would be a great immersion, if there is a fort in the distance (only visual, no gameplay changer), just like battles near settlements (you can see the city in the background). It wouldn't change the gameplay, but I think it would greatly enhance the immersion of the battle, so its not just a plain field. I also think, this is not so hard to achieve...
I'm interested what other people think

Great idea! Doesn't change the game mechanics, easy to implement, but a good atmosperic boost and historically accurate

[Greve Af Göteborg]

easy to implement

Not so sure about that,

[Legion_IX]

Not so sure about that,

Why not? Like terzer said it is only visual nothing else. So if it's not an issue for CA to implement such objects like trees or buildings on the battlefield (equivalent to small camps and tents) or city, ocean or mountain outside the battlefield (huge camp or fortification), why should his idea be difficult to implement?

[[N2]Kami]

What's the name of the battle in the first picture?

[terzer]

What's the name of the battle in the first picture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ThapsusBattle of Thapsus (Caesar civil war)

[Argon Viper]

I think that'd be cool. It's still fun playing RTW to see the city in the background if you fight near it; even if it isn't actually in the battle.