campaign map again.

[Modestus]

I have asked before but got no real answer, what do people think of the scale of the campaign map , before the game was released I speculated that the map would be smaller then people suspected and that most battles would be over settlements ( control of a region) risk type game play.

So what do people feel about it today?

When your fighting a battle do you feel that the world is large or is it simply going from region to region with little fighting in between?

And how do the tactical maps relate to the campaign map, is there a relationship?

Any Screen shots that would give me a sense of the scale of the maps , I particularly would like to see a battle on Rhodes because this would give me an idea about the scale of the tactical maps compared to the campaign map.

Cheers Modestus.

[Heinz Guderian]

Rhodes? Where we are going, we dont need Rhodes.

[Modestus]

Rhodes? Where we are going, we dont need Rhodes.

Is that Rhodes? Wheres the sea? I would really like to see its scale when compared to the island, zoom out as far as you can and look around the island.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

Rhodes? Where we are going, we dont need Rhodes.

no need to be butt hurt thats not Rhodos that is sparta.......
no need to make people pissed..........

[Modestus]

no need to be butt hurt thats not Rhodos that is sparta.......
no need to make people pissed..........

So its not Rhodes or they both use the same map?

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

So its not Rhodes or they both use the same map?

no he took the picture from another thread, Rhodos is a harbour city, and yes it doesn't have walls, as Syracuse.

[Nippy]

Rhodes? Where we are going, we dont need Rhodes.

Hey Guys off topic question looking at that pic do you have AA enabled?

[terzer]

Maybe a little off topic, but I want to show one thing:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I thought CA created the province capital and small town system, to reduce siege battles and increase land battles....
FOR A 300 TURN CAMPAIGN I HAVE 34 LAND BATTLES!!!

[AngryTitusPullo]

I thought CA created the province capital and small town system, to reduce siege battles and increase land battles....
FOR A 300 TURN CAMPAIGN I HAVE 34 LAND BATTLES!!!

If CA didn't create the province capital and small town system you will have 397 siege battles.

On topic, since I'm playing Parthia I 'think' I have a fair amount of land battles though since the settlement distance are quite far apart.

[Modestus]

If CA didn't create the province capital and small town system you will have 397 siege battles.

On topic, since I'm playing Parthia I 'think' I have a fair amount of land battles though since the settlement distance are quite far apart.

Well I have read comments here and there and watched numerous videos and the only conclusion I can reach about the new province system is that its just a way to increase the amount of conquerable regions and at the same time control the amount of walled settlements that you will need in the game.

As far as I can tell in the smaller regions you end up building mostly temples to keep squalor under control and farms to produce food and not much else, obviously having them will create some form of game play but one food producing region or temple constructing region is essentially the same as any other, if you conquer Jerusalem do you really feel you have captured a city or just another farm?

The overall impression that I have of the campaign map is that its characterless with a CAI that stumbles around with little or no purpose.

[Lionheart11]

^You mean destroy siege battles and give you only town battles

[terzer]

No, I mean the CAI is so broken, that there are no open battles anymore. Also the towns and cities are so close to each other, that is almost impossible to have a open field battle.
I can't find the quote, but CA said that the whole province system was introduced to reduce siege battles. I don't think it's normal, for 300 turn campaign to have 34 field battles.

[Modestus]

No, I mean the CAI is so broken, that there are no open battles anymore. Also the towns and cities are so close to each other, that is almost impossible to have a open field battle.
I can't find the quote, but CA said that the whole province system was introduced to reduce siege battles. I don't think it's normal, for 300 turn campaign to have 34 field battles.

It was almost certain even before the game came out that because of the size of the cities that you would be moving from settlement map to settlement map as there was no reason to do otherwise.

I was however surprised that the non-walled regions turned out to be siege maps without walls but this only confirmed for me that the real reason having settlements without walls was literally to have no walls as the BAI cannot work with them in Warscape.

[Heinz Guderian]

i dont think you understand, when you click battle, a generic town loads up. You want me to scan around the generic town? Cos i'll do it you know. Dont think i wont.

[Modestus]

i dont think you understand, when you click battle, a generic town loads up. You want me to scan around the generic town? Cos i'll do it you know. Dont think i wont.

I don’t mind if its a generic town, as I understand it the campaign map has a large underlying tactical map so even a generic town must be placed onto or over this.

Of course it may not work like this but I suspect that it may, its possible that the campaign map is made up of a series of terrain tiles similar to RTW1 but in RTW2 they are continuous and a settlement map is either replacing one of those existing tiles (has its own tile) or the buildings themselves are added onto the already existing terrain tile.

Its the underlying tactical map that I am trying to get the scale of and not the town so I want to see the scale of the island not the town.

I could be wrong but I am curious

[chris10]

The map has 15 regions less than RTW which is dissapointing by default but this tunneling/canalization design is beyond ridicolous.

Half of the entire map is inaccessible and another 20% is death zone (ultra-attrition) and with the army ZOCs (zone of control) its almost impossible to bypass anybody.

Settlements are mostly connected to each other by one to three "tunnels" which connects them to the next settlements around them...so the strategic warfare is greatly reduced to fíll these "canals/tunnels" with armys to block access or naval assaults on settlements. Fighting mostly takes place at the end of each tunnel/canal > at the settlement...so another siege battle.

The entire approach to warfare in Rome II can be resumed in one word: Shallow !

I bet the decision to "tunnerling" big chunks of the map is based on the fact that it is easier for AI programing and since they wanted to spent the budget on advertising instead on something meaningful like a working campaign AI and a nice open map...well..there you go.

To answer OPs question. Its going from region to region and while the battle maps offer lots of detail they are only useless accessories in this shallow world of Rome 2.

[terzer]

The map has 15 regions less than RTW which is dissapointing by default but this tunneling/canalization design is beyond ridicolous.
Half of the entire map is inaccessible and another 20% is death zone (ultra-attrition) and with the army ZOCs (zone of control) its almost impossible to bypass
anybody. Settlements are mostly connected to each other by one to three "tunnels" which connects them to the next settlements around them...so the strategic warfare is greatly reduced to fíll these "canals/tunnels" with armys to block access or naval assaults on settlements. Fighting mostly takes place at the end of each tunnel/canal > at the settlement...so another siege battle.
The entire approach to warfare in Rome II can be resumed in one word: Shallow !
I bet the decision to "tunnerling" big chunks of the map is based on the fact that it is easier for AI programing and since they wanted to spent the budget on advertising instead on something meaningful...well..there you go
To answer OPs question. Its going from region to region and while the battle maps offer lots of detail they are only useless accessoiries in this shallow world.

[archone]

The map has 15 regions less than RTW which is dissapointing by default but this tunneling/canalization design is beyond ridicolous.

Half of the entire map is inaccessible and another 20% is death zone (ultra-attrition) and with the army ZOCs (zone of control) its almost impossible to bypass anybody.

Settlements are mostly connected to each other by one to three "tunnels" which connects them to the next settlements around them...so the strategic warfare is greatly reduced to fíll these "canals/tunnels" with armys to block access or naval assaults on settlements. Fighting mostly takes place at the end of each tunnel/canal > at the settlement...so another siege battle.

The entire approach to warfare in Rome II can be resumed in one word: Shallow !

I bet the decision to "tunnerling" big chunks of the map is based on the fact that it is easier for AI programing and since they wanted to spent the budget on advertising instead on something meaningful like a working campaign AI and a nice open map...well..there you go.

To answer OPs question. Its going from region to region and while the battle maps offer lots of detail they are only useless accessories in this shallow world of Rome 2.

Completely disagree. If anything the map the too open and choke points are few and far between. Defense is almost impossible and forced march means you can easily get pincered. Transports also mean none of your cities are really safe unless you have dedicated defensive fleets.

I would really like chokes and more places to fortify, but I would like above all for the AI to stop running around like a chicken with its head cut off and try to fight my forces. Right now it won't do that unless it's favored 10:1, really ridiculous.

I would say 40% of my battles are actually field battles. You can get them if you want them.

[LucretiusTC]

For a comparison here is a campaign map of Extended Greek Mod (XGM) http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Extended_Greek_Mod



As you can see there are no settlements in Libyan and Arabian deserts because the AI Factions usually had a bad habit to send their armies wandering in the middle of the desert, and those removed settlements have been put in the better use elsewhere. On the other hand comparing to Rome Total II campaign map there are more settlements in the north e.g in steppe regions that would make Scythians and other Nomadic Tribes more difficult to conquer. When I played a Pontic campaign in Rome Total War II, I got a feeling that those Nomadic Tribes were surprisingly easy to beat because I didn't need to send my armies deep to their heartlands.

In XGM I usually play with minimal garrison units that mainly keep law and order among the civilians. I prefer to use mobile field armies that usually protect several settlements. But in XGM there are garrison scripts for AI Factions in certain major capitals like Rome, Carthage, Alexandria and Antioch, so that AI Factions don't neglect the defence of their central cities. It also imitates the nature of those long wars between Rome and Carthage and between Seleucids and Ptolemies. Garrison scripts give certain cities powerful armies, so that you can't just walk to empty Rome or Carthage. For historical reasons places like Rhodes, Syracuse and Numantia have also garrison scripts because those cities become famous for their siege battles.

As we know in Rome Total War II land troops don't need navies anymore. In XGM there are some land bridges (e.g Pillars of Hercules, Bosphorus, Strait of Messina) that make possible to cross those narrow straits without navy, and landbridges make AI Factions to operate a little more efficient.

Otherwise I feel that there are far less field battles in RTW2 that I usually fight in XGM. Most typical type of battle in RTW2 seems to be battle in a town without walls. Besides those RTW2 settlements look a little bit too large for campaign map. It is also hard to estimate if you are going to fight your battle in mountains, open field or some other enviroment based on campaign map.

For a comparison here is a little example from XGM campaign map (a part of the Seleucid Empire in 241 BC):




So I have to say RTW2 has still a long way to become as enjoyable game as XGM has been for me. Hope dies last...

[Modestus]

I found Rhodes in this video

Here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxAdJoUxp94

And it appears to be tiny, the whole island is perhaps one or two tactical maps and unless I am misunderstanding what I am looking at it would mean the campaign map. compared to RTW1 is tiny with regards the amount of actual tactical maps. .



Its also makes it next to impossible to add more settlements because you simply wont have the space, you would need to enlarge the whole of the campaign map perhaps twice the size.

Somebody so check this and have a look around a battlemap of Rhodes.