PDA

View Full Version : Creative Assembly the most logical NapoleonTW review so far



loony
03-01-2010, 10:25
Here you go
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?p=6864016#post6864016

to everyone who has played DMUC, you'll know that this guy knows what he's talking about.

Freedom Onanist
03-01-2010, 11:32
Maybe tempered by the knowledge that this is the chap who didn't get a job with CA and threw his dummy out of the pram about it.

I must be one of those "dark matters" that prefer "simple" games - patronising? :inquisitive:

Fisherking
03-01-2010, 13:19
It is also the most critically negative review of the game.

It makes some good points but it is also colored by some personal opinions.

From what I have seen those who like the game enough to say so is about 95% of postings.

Those who dislike it seem to be a very small minority, even if they try to be very vocal about it.

I am sure that within a week we will know of any and all major flaws in the game.

There are some people who are never going to admit to liking or even being indifferent to the BAI.

It has been a complaint for ever. And there are a few who love to hate CA so much they invent problems or blow out of proportion everything they deem a bug or historical mistake.

In the end no review is going to tell you if you like it or how much you like or hate it. It is all personal and subjective.

For my part I think they did a decent job, but I miss the wider scope and field of ETW.

Dead Guy
03-01-2010, 13:26
Well, say what you will, but the AI obviously still tries to flank charge regiments in the middle of a line, and that is not very flattering of it's capabilities. That's not an improvement. The screens from the battle are a real killer for me. If he had decided to move his line and envelop the clusterflip in the center he would've crushed that attack. It also looked like the AI sent a lone infantry unit way way out on the flank around the ends of his line, that unit could have easily been defeated since it was so isolated, and he didn't even need to lure it out there. It seems like the AI tries to make some sound manouvers, only it performs them at the completely wrong point in time. I'm almost impressed it made it into firing range in a coherent fashion, before entering barbarian horde mode.

loony
03-01-2010, 13:48
well, I am sure there are different opinions, however, what I liked about the review is SCREEENS. it is not some "bah CA s*cks", "never liked them anyway" rant. Based on screens and actual battles.

i do agree there is a lot of personal opinion there; i do not always agree with those opinions, but I love the fact that the author also stresses that those are nothing but opinions. contrary to people shouting their opinions for a fact.

to all the happy campers I would like to note that there are different demands people have for their games; especially expensive ones.

Madoushi
03-01-2010, 14:07
I felt IGN's review sounded more balanced, but I've still to play the game.

edyzmedieval
03-01-2010, 14:08
The review smacks of bitterness. And just goes to show once more that the following quote is true

"It's harder to persuade a man than a whole nation."

99% of the people agree with Darth, but most people failed to notice that he's actually encouraging people not to buy Napoleon TW just because it's bad. He's basically implying that "with me on the team, it would have been much better." And there's many reports of people not experiencing the melee bug...

Not convinced by his review.

Fisherking
03-01-2010, 14:29
It is still just opinion (mine) but I would say this is a fair review.

http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/napoleontotalwar/review.html

loony, I agree with most of your last post. :bow:

The thing I find most disturbing about Darth’s post is just that little bit about he didn’t buy the game and he won’t until there are mod tools...He reviewed a free press version...and he won’t be working on anything to improve NTW.

That just smacks of so many things at once, and none are exactly complimentary.

Don’t get me wrong for even a minute; I want the mod tools too, it is just the way it is done.

antisocialmunky
03-01-2010, 14:48
He said he got a copy from a friend, Fishy.

As for the rest of his review, he's approaching it from an absolutist point of view. He's measuring it up against a hypothetical perfect game while others are comparing it ETW and others to other games.

Captain Fishpants
03-01-2010, 15:48
...this is the chap who didn't get a job with CA and threw his dummy out of the pram about it...

Darth was interviewed a couple of years ago, and didn't get a job as you say. His version of events has been on TWC. Professional courtesy and a respect for confidentiality means we can never say anything substantive about the matter.


...And there are a few who love to hate CA so much they invent problems or blow out of proportion everything they deem a bug or historical mistake.

...

To be honest, hate is the only thing that keeps me coming in to ruin the game and individual lives every single day. :laugh4:


He said he got a copy from a friend, Fishy.

...

Indeed. But his friend happened to be an editor who was sent a review copy of the pre-release code. I'd be willing to take a small risk and venture that what he reviewed isn't necessarily the same as what paying customers receive. I may be wrong in this, or I may not.

Fisherking
03-01-2010, 16:53
To be honest, hate is the only thing that keeps me coming in to ruin the game and individual lives every single day. :laugh4:



That sounds much more like a Sergeant Major than a Captain...

Or a Colonel with a riding crop....

:laugh4:

Knight of Ne
03-01-2010, 17:06
Indeed. But his friend happened to be an editor who was sent a review copy of the pre-release code. I'd be willing to take a small risk and venture that what he reviewed isn't necessarily the same as what paying customers receive. I may be wrong in this, or I may not.

But that also means that he may not be experiencing the same things as others who have the game because he does/may not have the actual release version.

To be honest i didnt agree which much of what Darth said but then again i rarely ever agree with reviews.

Ne

caravel
03-01-2010, 17:23
Maybe tempered by the knowledge that this is the chap who didn't get a job with CA and threw his dummy out of the pram about it.
Hello,

Learn the facts first. The "chap" is one of the most respected and capable modders the community has produced. CA have produced sub standard games since the release of RTW v1.0. It is the efforts of the modding community that has turned these games around and made them half decent.

And there are a few who love to hate CA so much they invent problems or blow out of proportion everything they deem a bug or historical mistake.
Nonsense and a gross generalisation. Those criticising CA's work are not motivated by simple hatred - that is in fact slander. The issue is the decline in quality of CA's games over the last few years. Games like TW will attract criticism, both positive and negative. This is being marketed as an historical wargame - expect criticism.

The review smacks of bitterness. And just goes to show once more that the following quote is true
Perhaps you're confusing bitterness over the state of "the game" with the supposed "bitterness" that you know nothing of and are therefor not qualified to comment on?

He said he got a copy from a friend, Fishy.

As for the rest of his review, he's approaching it from an absolutist point of view. He's measuring it up against a hypothetical perfect game while others are comparing it ETW and others to other games.
No need to to attack the fellow's argument with such insinuations is there?

He approaches it from the best point of view. Simply comparing the game with another game makes for a flawed review. This is a review by an expert modder with a lot of experience and should be taken as such. A comparison of the game "as is" compared with the hypothetical capabilities of the engine is a better type of review, as a comparison of RTW and RTR/EB is also a comparison worth reading.

I'd be willing to take a small risk and venture that what he reviewed isn't necessarily the same as what paying customers receive. I may be wrong in this, or I may not.
Ah, so you distribute special versions to the reviewers? Perhaps that accounts discrepencies between reviews and end user experience with ETW eh...?

Beskar
03-01-2010, 17:25
Darth was interviewed a couple of years ago, and didn't get a job as you say. His version of events has been on TWC. Professional courtesy and a respect for confidentiality means we can never say anything substantive about the matter.
In short "There is definitely two sides to the story and we are in a position where we cannot comment." or implied as much. :beam:



To be honest, hate is the only thing that keeps me coming in to ruin the game and individual lives every single day. :laugh4:

This unfortunately, made me laugh. :laugh4:


Indeed. But his friend happened to be an editor who was sent a review copy of the pre-release code. I'd be willing to take a small risk and venture that what he reviewed isn't necessarily the same as what paying customers receive. I may be wrong in this, or I may not.

Was there a big difference between the two versions?

edyzmedieval
03-01-2010, 17:42
Hello,

Perhaps you're confusing bitterness over the state of "the game" with the supposed "bitterness" that you know nothing of and are therefor not qualified to comment on?

I spilled my drink over my keyboard in laughter and disgust at the same time. That's enough for a reply to your "qualifications".

Madoushi
03-01-2010, 18:11
Nonsense and a gross generalisation. Those criticising CA's work are not motivated by simple hatred - that is in fact slander. The issue is the decline in quality of CA's games over the last few years. Games like TW will attract criticism, both positive and negative. This is being marketed as an historical wargame - expect criticism.

Honestly, I've found each TW from STW to MII has been better than the last, in my opinion.

My main qualm with Rome was simply the hostile and untrustworthy campaign AI combined with the relative lack of flexibility in diplomacy, but I still enjoyed it thoroughly after MTW, even as I got wiped out in game after game, and I was just as impressed by MII when I first played it.

They all have flaws, and the modding community has done much to fix them, but there's really no other game like a TW game.

Fisherking
03-01-2010, 18:30
Nonsense and a gross generalisation. Those criticising CA's work are not motivated by simple hatred - that is in fact slander. The issue is the decline in quality of CA's games over the last few years. Games like TW will attract criticism, both positive and negative. This is being marketed as an historical wargame - expect criticism.



And what part of “And there are a few” makes it a gross generalization?

I was speaking of a small percentage who either never like anything or rant on about some perceived flaw that tends to mystify most of us. Frankly I even wonder if they know more about the game than the title.

That was not directed at anyone but it seems to have struck a nerve with you.

Why so?

caravel
03-01-2010, 23:46
I spilled my drink over my keyboard in laughter and disgust at the same time. That's enough for a reply to your "qualifications".
So in your opinion the gentleman is simply "bitter" because he didn't get a position with CA and that's where all this has come from? I take it you know the full facts and have inside information from CA on this? Or perhaps, just perhaps your opinion is based on idle rumour and gossip...? Dispense with the formalities and speak your mind - preferably to the man himself. (terrible waste of a drink, though glad you found it somewhat entertaining all the same).


And what part of “And there are a few” makes it a gross generalization?

I was speaking of a small percentage who either never like anything or rant on about some perceived flaw that tends to mystify most of us. Frankly I even wonder if they know more about the game than the title.

That was not directed at anyone but it seems to have struck a nerve with you.

Why so?
A "small percentage" eh? Do you have the facts and figures to back up your statement - or did you dream up this "small percentage" out of thin air? In fact please do name these individuals so that they can come forward and defend their positions. Who are they?

Let me explain it to you in simple English: Your statement is in fact a typcast of a supposed small number of people that have only ever wanted to see the game franchise (TW) improve.

The supposed "CA hate" is your unimportant opinion and is simply your take on all of this. You dismiss those that don't like the game as a "small minority", that's a in fact a generalisation of this group of people - and an uninformed one at that. You like the game, carry on I don't care either way. The fact remains, that for those of us that started playing STW in 2000, the TW franchise has gotten worse. Bugs, crap AI, pathetic diplomacy and almost non existent MP support have plagued the series. The MP community that existed at the time of STW/MTW is dead and gone. And now finally, the one thing that salvaged these games modding is also under attack. This company have proven that they simply don't want modding. When will you get that? This is not about CA hate, but that the company has been turning out crap for the last few years.

NimitsTexan
03-02-2010, 00:33
Nonsense and a gross generalisation. Those criticising CA's work are not motivated by simple hatred - that is in fact slander. The issue is the decline in quality of CA's games over the last few years.

Personally, I have found each TW release more enjoyable than the last, and I do not buy the decline in quality. At worst, they have remained static (fixing some problems and introducing others), but even in the case of the much maligned BAI, I think there has been an improvement from RTW to ETW. I actually took bigger issue with the diplomatic over-agressiveness of the CAI and its almost pre-programed decisions to start a-historic wars (pitting England-Austria against Prussia-Poland in 1700) than anything else.

loony
03-02-2010, 08:45
I feel we are losing focus there; this is not a rant against CA+SEGA killing modders. This is about a quality review with a great deal of irony in it.

While I am not as strict regarding some issues (like the interface? hobbits? wha?), I can hardly find any flaws in the methodology of the review. It is done well, although the topping (i.e. bitter irony) is somewhat distracting.
AI being unable to rout an army that does not move is one crapy AI.
CAI being sripted to defend and not DOING ANYTHIN for 50 turns is a really crappy AI and a cheat for that matter.
Eliminating fire by rank sound dumb and unrealistic; maybe fire and advance does not work for a unit with good accuracy and reload skill but poor melee ability?
Reload time of a musket being less than 15 seconds is unrealistic and skews the tactics towards the defender.
Musket accuracy being effectively independent of range is not just unrealistic, it is plain dumb.
and so on...

Also, please note that Darth is not comparing NTW to some "perfect game", rather to his own mod "DMUC".

Fisherking
03-02-2010, 09:10
@Yoei

I am sorry you have a basic misconception here.

I was not talking about legitimate complaints when I brought it up.

There are and always were people who make things up. They like discontent.

Real and honest complaints are a whole other issue. I complain as long and hard as anyone when I think something is wrong, needs changing, needs fixed, or what ever. Without trying very hard I am sure you can find my post ranting about one thing or another just like anyone else.

But I have found enough good in the games to keep playing them. If I didn't I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince anyone else not to spend money. People tend to make up their own minds what to do with their time and money and it makes little difference what others think.

At the moment we are talking about NTW and I don't see a large number of those who own the game being too disappointed in it.

It is not the same as talking about what has gone on before.

I don't see much point in carrying a grudge against CA if I am still buying the product. When I do, I won't be buying. It is that simple.

I have not always been happy with what they have done. At times it has seemed they were doing more wrong than right with their patches and balancing. I know they usually release buggy programs that take fixing. I was very disappointed in how they left ETW and I would love to see mod tools. The number of players who had issues with that game is not small. But that is a different forum.

If we are talking about who agrees with Darth's post and who doesn't, that is mixed, but many who agree just have not tried the game.

So, who are you more likely to listen to; Someone who has tried a particular thing and has an opinion, or someone who just has an opinion and they don't want to hear anything else?

Some people want knowledge or opinions, while others just want someone who agrees with them.

One can be bitter or optimistic. It is unlikely that anyone is going to change their positions on an issue based on either.

People still make up their own minds.

Fisherking
03-02-2010, 09:28
I feel we are losing focus there; this is not a rant against CA+SEGA killing modders. This is about a quality review with a great deal of irony in it.

While I am not as strict regarding some issues (like the interface? hobbits? wha?), I can hardly find any flaws in the methodology of the review. It is done well, although the topping (i.e. bitter irony) is somewhat distracting.
AI being unable to rout an army that does not move is one crapy AI.
CAI being sripted to defend and not DOING ANYTHIN for 50 turns is a really crappy AI and a cheat for that matter.
Eliminating fire by rank sound dumb and unrealistic; maybe fire and advance does not work for a unit with good accuracy and reload skill but poor melee ability?
Reload time of a musket being less than 15 seconds is unrealistic and skews the tactics towards the defender.
Musket accuracy being effectively independent of range is not just unrealistic, it is plain dumb.
and so on...

Also, please note that Darth is not comparing NTW to some "perfect game", rather to his own mod "DMUC".

Good points.

Thanks for bringing us back in focus.

The other point is that the version he played may not have been the retail version.

After the first review they went back and redid some of the game.

I wish I remembered where I saw it and what the link was...

And it is not that the review was not well done.

It was just the underlying feeling of an agenda in it.

Unfortunate.

edyzmedieval
03-02-2010, 09:31
So in your opinion the gentleman is simply "bitter" because he didn't get a position with CA and that's where all this has come from? I take it you know the full facts and have inside information from CA on this? Or perhaps, just perhaps your opinion is based on idle rumour and gossip...? Dispense with the formalities and speak your mind - preferably to the man himself. (terrible waste of a drink, though glad you found it somewhat entertaining all the same).

Thanks for instigating me to "revolt" but I've handled much worse trolls in my life.

What idle rumour and gossip? What in the world are you talking about? I've played all TW games from their release day (and I'm not exxagerating over here), and all I can say is that Darth's review is too bitter regarding the whole package. I'm not saying he's wrong, on the contrary, he's right on many points and I give him that, but calling NTW crap is too much of an overstatement. From my part, I enjoyed ETW (ok, I quit the first day, reinstalled after 1.5, so I'm only talking about 1.5 which is what is was supposed to be) and I enjoy NTW as well, seeing it as it is a much better variant of ETW.

And one last thing - no sane person will compare STW/MTW with ETW/NTW. They are miles apart when it comes to AI, campaign planning and all of that.
And I agree with the modding bit, they want us out of it, but out of all of this, M2TW is the best platform for modding.



A "small percentage" eh? Do you have the facts and figures to back up your statement - or did you dream up this "small percentage" out of thin air? In fact please do name these individuals so that they can come forward and defend their positions. Who are they?

What?!?! We are not here in a court, to hear arguments based on facts and people defending their positions. What kind of a reply is this? Pathetic.

caravel
03-02-2010, 10:55
There are and always were people who make things up. They like discontent.
Setting aside whether there actually are such people for now, my point is that you appear to be insininuating that the gentleman in question is one such individual?


What idle rumour and gossip? What in the world are you talking about? I've played all TW games from their release day (and I'm not exxagerating over here), and all I can say is that Darth's review is too bitter regarding the whole package. I'm not saying he's wrong, on the contrary, he's right on many points and I give him that, but calling NTW crap is too much of an overstatement. From my part, I enjoyed ETW (ok, I quit the first day, reinstalled after 1.5, so I'm only talking about 1.5 which is what is was supposed to be) and I enjoy NTW as well, seeing it as it is a much better variant of ETW.
We seem to be at crossed purposes here. You have labelled the individual in question as "bitter", others have posted in this thread and attacked the man, and not his review of this game. When you say "bitter" I assume you are referring to his "biterness" at not getting a job with CA? This is the "idle rumour and gossip" to which I refer to. Some of you here claim that he is biased, yet don't you think it is also biased to juge the reviewer on this basis alone?


And one last thing - no sane person will compare STW/MTW with ETW/NTW. They are miles apart when it comes to AI, campaign planning and all of that.
I'm not sure what you mean? For example two games in the TW series, i.e. STW and ETW cannot be compared due to being so diverse in terms of AI and campaign? I disagree strongly and there is no logic behind such an argument.


And I agree with the modding bit, they want us out of it, but out of all of this, M2TW is the best platform for modding.
And? You don't see a problem with that? How long will modders continue modding M2TW?


What?!?! We are not here in a court, to hear arguments based on facts and people defending their positions. What kind of a reply is this?
I rest my case at this point. If you can't see what's wrong with attacking the man making the review instead of the review itself, then I doubt you'll see sense.

For what it's worth I too can see the bias in the review, but reading between the lines, I can also see points of interest about the game itself. The review is written in a somewhat hotheaded manner, from the perspective of one that is annoyed that many of the issues are still unresolved. I think many of you here are too forgiving. They've had about 7 years to improve on these basics and get the new battle engine up to the standards of the old, they haven't. They've also had as long to impliment a fully functional diplomatic model, they still haven't. CA sold it's fans, supporters and customers down the river with ETW. The release of NTW instead of the customary expansion pack/fix is yet another kick up the arse for paying customers.

You can accuse others of being "CA haters", in the same way that such people can accuse you of being "CA fanboys/apologists".

I will be back for the usual "I told you so" threads.

Yohei

Vlad Tzepes
03-02-2010, 11:36
...But his friend happened to be an editor who was sent a review copy of the pre-release code. I'd be willing to take a small risk and venture that what he reviewed isn't necessarily the same as what paying customers receive. I may be wrong in this, or I may not.

He checked the official release as well:

"My main test version of the game was the “Dev Edition” which was pre-released for the journalists. I also have checked the retail version from a friend to see that the main problems were still evident (The Dev version lacks only some minor fixes to graphics, sounds etc. if it is not completely identical)."

pevergreen
03-02-2010, 11:48
For what it's worth I too can see the bias in the review, but reading between the lines, I can also see points of interest about the game itself. The review is written in a somewhat hotheaded manner, from the perspective of one that is annoyed that many of the issues are still unresolved.
Good, you see it too!

That seems to be all they are saying. I don't believe anyone here claims the entire review is a steaming pile of blessed camel offerings, but i think its a fair call to say that his overall view has been clouded by bias. I have done a bit of modding, nowhere near the level of him, and I dont doubt for a second that the things he has said have solid ground beneath them. But please, name a game that has come out in the last 10 years that has not been full of bugs. (You can exclude Blizzard from that list)
I have not, and will not, read his review on N:TW (1. I'm not getting it 2. I see him as a modder not a reviewer) but given his post on his application for a job at CA (which i did read) the bias is there.



I think many of you here are too forgiving. They've had about 7 years to improve on these basics and get the new battle engine up to the standards of the old, they haven't.
Because 2d sprites are as easy to code and program for as ranged 3d models on a bigger, harder engine? They've gone through two completely new engines. Stuff takes longer, and is harder to do. Have you done any level of programming?


They've also had as long to impliment a fully functional diplomatic model, they still haven't.
Now I've not played S:TW, but I do own M:TW and I may be wrong, but the diplomacy in M:TW is a lot simpler than E/N:TW, no? Many times its been stressed how much harder it is to get it doing what they want on these campaign maps.


CA sold it's fans, supporters and customers down the river with ETW. The release of NTW instead of the customary expansion pack/fix is yet another kick up the arse for paying customers.
I dont agree with their current business model either. It doesnt make sense. N:TW has been officially named the evolution. Which means the next TW game is a revolution (new engine). Yet this ties into the past revolution and excludes an expansion pack (that DLC campaign can't count, thats 1/4 of Kingdoms, and I hated that...)


You can accuse others of being "CA haters", in the same way that such people can accuse you of being "CA fanboys/apologists".

Yup, thats always gunna happen


I will be back for the usual "I told you so" threads.

Yohei

Will be lovely to see you then. ~:wave:


I've been around since the massive amount of hate threads and CA bashing at the pre/release for M2:TW. E:TW had nothing, and N:TW is like silence compared to that.

We want quality products. Thats not unfair. I would have preferred CA have the time and combine what ETW is now and what NTW is, and release now. Sure they'd lose a year, but it would be a polished product. However, they dont have that option, SEGA is the puppet master. If CA were blizzard, they would not release until it was done to their satisfaction, but most studios dont have that option. They must publish, get the money to stay alive, and publish again to stay alive. Lower quality products, but the amount of money it costs to make a game now... We already lost enough studios.

Fisherking
03-02-2010, 12:45
Setting aside whether there actually are such people for now, my point is that you appear to be insininuating that the gentleman in question is one such individual?

I think you misread it or read more into it than was there.

I try not to bash people. I do sometimes attack concepts or ideas or vigorously complain about aspects of games. But when it is fixed, and sometimes when it is just beyond hope, I move on.

No Darth is not a CA hater. He is just saying he could do it better if they gave him the tools. He wants to put his mark on the game.

Most everyone on the forums would like the tools.

We just have to see if Sega lets CA spend the time and money to give us any.
:inquisitive:






You can accuse others of being "CA haters", in the same way that such people can accuse you of being "CA fanboys/apologists".

I will be back for the usual "I told you so" threads.

Yohei

Let ‘em.

I have been accused of both.

It doesn’t matter to me.
:laugh4:

gollum
03-02-2010, 13:05
Its still too early to judge community concensus for NTW. Some of the aspects of the review sound alarmingly true to me (i am not buying the game in any case), like say that units behind the front one shoot their backs. This was clear from the screenshots already. Many of the malee/blobbing problems in the review were present in ETW, and to be honest with you they were problems the AI always had since STW. Napoleonic TW 1 uses the MTW engine to re-create the Nap. wars; unsurprisingly the AI was terrible and the game shone in mp (although it had a campaign). Anyone who has played tw long and hard (including multiplayer) knows that the AI was is and probably will be inept at using hybrids (melee/missiles). When the so-called meleebug and other such terms started circulating among TWC SPers it was clear that even they knew that CA just took what it had in the past, gave it a graphical upgrade and released it as a gunpowder era game. Playing ETW in person confirmed that beyond any doubt. Also the fact that the pace of the battles (unit speeds, firing rates etc) seem wrong also sounds very much like CA. They did the same thing in RTW; they created a fake challenge that hid the AI's ineptness by making the game too fast. CA is simply keep milking what they've made in 2000 with upgrading primarily the looks and feel of the game to be as mainstream and contemporary as possible.

STW took 3+ years to make. It was to be released after a short time of development as a C&C clone, but CA took the risk of making it more deep, historically accurate (by hiring Prof. Turnbull, known international authority in Sengoku) and polished, delaying release for years. And to answer Darth's question, yes the person responsible for the (creation and tweaking) of the tw battle engine and battle balance did retire sometime during the development of RTW. It has been also leaked that part of the employees of CA resented the direction the company took from RTW onwards (so much for those who "dont buy into it") against the will of the admins and heads to go ahead with the plan anyway. Since then, (certain) CA developers post strategically in community forums where and when complains are voiced, in order to hype-up and create hope and anticipation pre-release and in order to subtly discredit "whinners" post-release. These are facts and not opinions (mine or otherwise), and i've seen them first hand over the last 7 years or so, here and elsewhere. It doesn t mean that there are not whinners that simply like whinning - there are. But there are plenty of others that have valid complains and they do express them because they like tw and not because they hate it. And these people are shot down in some forums systematically even, because they are not "constructive", because of the "hate" etc. Most of this is part of a ruthless war in image and public relations, and for those who think that such a thing is fantasy, just think what Mike Simpson's blog meant to address: low user ratings on metacritic.

Madoushi
03-02-2010, 14:30
Very insightful, gollum, thanks.

Fisherking
03-02-2010, 16:40
N:TW has been officially named the evolution. Which means the next TW game is a revolution (new engine). Yet this ties into the past revolution and excludes an expansion pack (that DLC campaign can't count, thats 1/4 of Kingdoms, and I hated that...)



Where was it named as the official evolution?

Link, Link old friend!:inquisitive:

@gollum

nice post

pevergreen
03-03-2010, 02:06
Where was it named as the official evolution?

Link, Link old friend!:inquisitive:

As posted by IGN on August 19th, 2009.


Kieran Brigden, Communications Manager at Creative Assembly, explains: "The way that Total War development works is we do a kind of evolution-revolution cycle. We create revolutionary technology for one title - in this case Empire, which had a brand new engine written from the ground up - and all new AI. Then, for the next game, we take that technology and evolve it - in this case with Napoleon. We've taken everything we've achieved with Empire and Empire's engine and just pushed it to the limit. Napoleon is essentially the culmination of what we wanted to do with Empire, given the time to take it further."

Revolution: S:TW
Evolution: M:TW
Revolution: R:TW
Evolution: M2:TW
Revolution: E:TW
Evolution: N:TW

Re reading through it:


Indeed, the game will mix and match different body parts to make soldiers look individual and unique, with 64 different faces on offer even on the very lowest settings.

One wonders if this is still correct?

Fisherking
03-03-2010, 06:59
Thanks pevergreen.

:bow:

caravel
03-03-2010, 10:30
Revolution: S:TW
Evolution: M:TW
Revolution: R:TW
Evolution: M2:TW
Revolution: E:TW
Evolution: N:TW
Hello,

No. NTW is not the "evolution", of ETW it is the "expansion". The difference is that it has been sold as a stand alone this time around. This is because CA do not want to put off potential customers that did/do not want to buy ETW.

The "evolution" title is yet to come (though of course it may be marketed as the "revolution").

Yohei

Fisherking
03-03-2010, 11:24
Lets hope the next is an evolution rather than a revolution.

I think they need something stable, playable, and solid from release rather than something ambitious, innovative, and broken.

:laugh4:

gollum
03-03-2010, 11:51
It'll either be a WWI or RTW2 - but i'd bet on the WWI scenario. There is no reason why to throw away the expertise on gunpowder, cannons, hiding in buildings etc All these features point towards that way. If so, it would be certainly an evolution over ETW/NTW.

Fisherking
03-03-2010, 12:16
All of the polls go for Rome 2 of course.

I hope it is not WWI

I would be much happier with a Victorian or Colonial Period TW.

I know WWI is popular with a lot of people but the tactics and technologies of the period just leave me cold.

Throwing mass waves of men in suicide charges just doesn’t inspire me. Nor is sitting static until the tank is invented.

Oh and lest we forget, poison gas...a waist of time for the most part. Wouldn’t you love the models of gasmasks for horses and dogs?

I know of no way you could use infiltration tactics in a total war game. Which would defeat the point of the era.

I am sure loads of people just want to see airplanes and submarines.

I don’t see a good way to pull it off.

I could be wrong of course, but it could also be a goof that would dwarf what happened with ETW and I don’t know if they really want to risk something like that before they have another success.

Tsavong
03-03-2010, 12:46
Hello,

No. NTW is not the "evolution", of ETW it is the "expansion". The difference is that it has been sold as a stand alone this time around. This is because CA do not want to put off potential customers that did/do not want to buy ETW.

The "evolution" title is yet to come (though of course it may be marketed as the "revolution").
Possibly who knows. NTW is the most evolved expansion I can remember in total war. It also seemed cheaper than Empire when I got it.


All of the polls go for Rome 2 of course.

I hope it is not WWI
I hope they don't make a Rome 2, I did not get on too wall with Rome but the main reasion is a lot of people like Rome because of how it is or they like a mod on it but a Rome 2 would not be Rome it would be different in some way and I doubt it would be BI or something so I expect people would be disappointed, also we look back with rose tinted glasses.

But I don't think total war should to go WW1 or WW2 may be a game going from 1900 to 1950 but I don't think one can realy look at WW2 with out looking at WW1 as I think both conflicts are related. There are how ever there are a lot of World War games Total War should probably go else were for the next game. I would like to see something in the east.

gollum
03-03-2010, 13:37
In my view both are inevitable.

Jack Lusted hinted that the work on artillery for ETW/NTW will be used further and judging from the polls for the next TW that CA gave out sometime during teh latest stages of ETW WW1 will be the choice and not the Victorian or Colonial periods.

As for R2, it is such a strong period in terms of fanbase and the precedent that CA has with it, that from a marketing perspective it is simply too good an option to discard. I am very firmly convinced that CA will do sooner or later R2.

:bow:

pevergreen
03-03-2010, 13:38
Hello,

No. NTW is not the "evolution", of ETW it is the "expansion". The difference is that it has been sold as a stand alone this time around. This is because CA do not want to put off potential customers that did/do not want to buy ETW.

Right, because the quote in my post is not from a proper preview of the game, and Kieran is definately not directly quoted saying this:


"The way that Total War development works is we do a kind of evolution-revolution cycle. We create revolutionary technology for one title - in this case Empire, which had a brand new engine written from the ground up - and all new AI. Then, for the next game, we take that technology and evolve it - in this case with Napoleon. We've taken everything we've achieved with Empire and Empire's engine and just pushed it to the limit. Napoleon is essentially the culmination of what we wanted to do with Empire, given the time to take it further."

I dont see how it can be clearer than that.

gollum
03-03-2010, 13:43
I personally don't believe what Kieran says (in general not just this), and also i avoid reading his posts and interviews, listening to his interviews,presentations etc in video or otherwise.

antisocialmunky
03-03-2010, 13:45
Indeed, the game will mix and match different body parts to make soldiers look individual and unique, with 64 different faces on offer even on the very lowest settings.

Probably you can, we judt don't have access yet...

caravel
03-03-2010, 18:28
Right, because the quote in my post is not from a proper preview of the game, and Kieran is definately not directly quoted saying this:

I dont see how it can be clearer than that.
It's called marketing young man, marketing...

Yohei

NimitsTexan
03-03-2010, 18:36
All of the polls go for Rome 2 of course.

I hope it is not WWI

I would be much happier with a Victorian or Colonial Period TW.

I know WWI is popular with a lot of people but the tactics and technologies of the period just leave me cold.

Throwing mass waves of men in suicide charges just doesn’t inspire me. Nor is sitting static until the tank is invented.

Oh and lest we forget, poison gas...a waist of time for the most part. Wouldn’t you love the models of gasmasks for horses and dogs?

I know of no way you could use infiltration tactics in a total war game. Which would defeat the point of the era.

I am sure loads of people just want to see airplanes and submarines.

I don’t see a good way to pull it off.

I could be wrong of course, but it could also be a goof that would dwarf what happened with ETW and I don’t know if they really want to risk something like that before they have another success.

This. The things that made WWI unique (at the time) as a war: millions of men armies, continuous front, large scale trench warefare, static lines, planes, tanks, infiltration tactics just do not translate well into a TW engine. RTW2 or some sort of Victorian-Era game would be a much, much, better use of the engine than WWI. I have a feeling that a TW:WWI would be a horrible disaster.

antisocialmunky
03-04-2010, 02:42
Atleast the AI would be pretty good as all it would do is throw a million doods in a single direction.

An interesting feature would be the ability to use airplanes to survery battlefields and then having to preset your massive pre-attack artillery barrages before you actually initiate the assaults.

Madoushi
03-04-2010, 03:23
I think American Civil War would come before any kind os 20th century game, especially since it would play to the somewhat Avalon Hill-ish precendent (though I think Napoleon in Russia came after Gettysburg, I didn't really play much Avalon Hill...)

I doubt I'd buy a purely WWI TW, I'd buy Rome 2 in a heartbeat.

Yun Dog
03-04-2010, 03:53
Biased review or not

the technical arguments he makes are valid

the screenshots are damning!!!

case closed - if Darth (aka the man who saved ETW) says it suxs ... then it SUXORZ

and the fact he used his review as a platform against the anti-modding stance of CA - good on him

was tempted to buy by the napoleon statue.. but more etw rage.. no

I wont be hanging around to dis people that do buy the game and want to rave

but Darth nailed it... so dont go acting like he's so blinded by rage he cant see... sadly it is all crystal clear

this was the review Ive been waiting to read so thanks for posting it

edit: for my part the lack of any discernable battlefield tactics is the real dropped ball here, I always understood that this was what defined the warfare of that era, Napoleons columns comes to mind - it appears they havent even attempted to include this - so its ETW scripted campaigns with napoleon in name only - whatever *shakes head*

antisocialmunky
03-04-2010, 04:20
Column gets surrounded and shot to pieces or blown to hell with explosive shells.

al Roumi
03-04-2010, 11:40
Column gets surrounded and shot to pieces or blown to hell with explosive shells.

...or should push through a firing line. Lord Yunson has a point, ETW makes incomplete use of the 3 infantry formations of the age -beyond the line and square, the column was used (afaik) by infantry to break through a defensive line.

Setting a column up in ETW is tedious micro-managing and I've not noticed any actual advantage to it (e.g. as a square formation gets bonuses to fighting cav) beyond faster unit turning speed and the simple fact of having more men in a concentrated area. I'm guessing NTW is no different...

gollum
03-04-2010, 11:55
I've watched many mp battles in ETW, and in none columns are useful - basically its far better to charge line infantry at the same depth they fire. A column button could prove useful, but at the same time fire lethality and fire rate would need to be calibrated. Despite what was promised pre-release the game isn't historically accurate in its gameplay; its just what the tw engine could do all along with more advanced artillery options.

t1master
03-04-2010, 12:24
this is also the 'critical' review i was looking to read. maybe it will go on sale shortly? ;)

they will probably never redo shogun eh? i've had enough of muskets and cannons.

Fisherking
03-04-2010, 12:30
I have found that the AI deployed my forces in an attack columns several times in ETW and I have had them used against me...but always at the wrong time.:dizzy2:

I still say the one button they need most is in the naval battles. A formation “Turn About” to reverse the formation rather than sail from Jakarta to Cape Horne making a turn with the whole line.:inquisitive:

:laugh4:

antisocialmunky
03-04-2010, 15:01
Against a human player with artillery being actually good now. It would be hard to get an AI that would be able to use it effectively without dying horribly. Even the British figured out how to counter them by the end of the period.

gollum
03-04-2010, 15:54
Originally posted by t1master
they will probably never redo shogun eh?

Probably not, i'm afraid.

Royce
03-04-2010, 16:34
Afer reading Darth's review I have to say he makes alot of good points. I'm usually disapointed in games and how the AI works. Most of all I'm let down by the people who created these games with such dumb things such as one turn equals one year, how stupid is that! I wasn't going to purchase NTW but I did even after reading Darth's review, I guess I wanted to see for myself. I like the new time having turns by month. I'm not a Modder or a programmer but I've been playing games for ever. I have all of the TW games. Each one should get better but they do not. I've just started playing the Battles of Napoleon and I'm at Egypt. So far the cannons seem to be fine but game crashes alot. Again the time limit seems to make the game less enjoyable. I just get the Army up to snuff and the game ends. Not much time for tactics. I will continue to play and post comments. But again Darth is correct the AI really needs a big overhaul. It upsets and frustrates me when the AI sends one cannon unit and one cav. unit to attack and army of 12 units or more.

Royce
03-04-2010, 16:46
You make some good points also! Darth's review seems to say the cannons are really uneffective. I found the cannons to be awsome especially if you have 3 or more and they have gained battle experiance. I've been able to do some big dammage as should be cannons were a big part of Napoleon's strategy. I would like more time to play the different campaigns of Napoleon too short a time limit for me and I never have liked time limits. I really like this period in history. That's why I broke down and made the purchase. I use to play a Dos based game called Waterloo it took the player through 4 battles leading up to Watterloo and they were not tied together like I thought they should have been (meaning the outcome of one should have affected the other). You also could not build troops you got some reinforcements but that was it. My point is I guess they just do not make perfect games. We all like different things.

antisocialmunky
03-05-2010, 00:22
The biggest fun part for me is the fact that SIEGES ARE FINALLY WORKING. :)

DisruptorX
03-05-2010, 00:34
Darth's review seems to say the cannons are really uneffective. I found the cannons to be awsome especially if you have 3 or more and they have gained battle experiance. .

A dead on hit from a howitzer makes a big hole in a unit and drops their morale by half. Cannons are better than ever.

Madoushi
03-05-2010, 04:04
this is also the 'critical' review i was looking to read. maybe it will go on sale shortly? ;)

they will probably never redo shogun eh? i've had enough of muskets and cannons.

Most North Americans and Europeans know at least something of European history.. far fewer know much about Japanese history, making it a tougher sell.

That said, I'd love a Shogun 2 set in 1560 or earlier, when Japan was still broken up onto 48 states like in the Nobunaga's Ambition/Lord of Darkness series.

That said, China hasn't gotten any TW love either.

Fisherking
03-05-2010, 10:43
It was pointed out by Captain Fishpants that Darth may not have had the final version.

I think that his evaluation of artillery and its effectiveness is a confirmation that, indeed he did not.

Remember also that Darth compared NTW with his own mod. While NTW’s behaviors might not be what Darth would want from his mod, that mod also reduced or eliminated a number of game features that CA may not have wanted to compromise.

Besides, BAI behavior could be a mute point for many people who play mostly with drop-in opponents.

I don’t think the game is perfect but I think it is a very good expansion for ETW.

al Roumi
03-05-2010, 12:49
The biggest fun part for me is the fact that SIEGES ARE FINALLY WORKING. :)
In what way? The BAI being a bit more coherent or the forts themselves not some completely fanciful notion of vauban inspired star-forts?


Against a human player with artillery being actually good now. It would be hard to get an AI that would be able to use it effectively without dying horribly. Even the British figured out how to counter them by the end of the period.

How can you have Napoleonic infantry without columns?? i take your point about the AI, but that struggles with almost anything bar suicide. In any case, had they developped infantry formations further, they could have had an added interesting scissors/paper/stone type element decisions & tactics -which (if you've watched Sharp) seems to be at the core of basic strategy of the time.

t1master
03-05-2010, 13:15
It was pointed out by Captain Fishpants that Darth may not have had the final version.

I think that his evaluation of artillery and its effectiveness is a confirmation that, indeed he did not.



fisherking,

from darth's own hand... ;)

My main test version of the game was the “Dev Edition” which was pre-released for the journalists. I also have checked the retail version from a friend to see that the main problems were still evident (The Dev version lacks only some minor fixes to graphics, sounds etc. if it is not completely identical).

gollum
03-05-2010, 13:17
CA gave up on strengthening the RPS gameplay, in favor of diversity, many units etc.

TW is still an RPS game in battles, but the gameplay is poor because the system is watered and so tactics aren't razor sharp. We had at the org a number of people that made the point repeatedly, however eventually SPrs (mostly) told them to bug out, and shut it concerning the RPS, that nobody wants to play RPS anymore etc.

CA by taking the direction it took, attracted casual gamers and from other genres that had no interest in deep tactical dimensions. All the wanted was to see "realistic" battles in 3D. That's what CA did and it got very succesful. Most people who play pc games, do so in order to pass the time, and escape/be immersed; as long as the game is immersive, however mediocre, they are happy because immersiveness is teh point for them.

Players who want a deep tactical dimension have a completely different goal; they are competitive and are not afraid to challenge themselves, their skills etc. their enjoyment comes from a genuine battle and the learning curve that goes with it, and no battle can be genuine if the game is poor tactically or poorly balanced.

ETW and NTW have to do little with genuine tactics of the era, its simply Shogun gone Napoleonic as are all CA games - CA would never go into the trouble of re-creating the game from scratch. It just cashes the original concept.

Now if anyone is brave enough, go and post this in TWC :)

:bow:

caravel
03-05-2010, 13:19
It was pointed out by Captain Fishpants that Darth may not have had the final version.
He claimed to have tested both the pre release and a full release version.


I think that his evaluation of artillery and its effectiveness is a confirmation that, indeed he did not.
I think the criticism was AI handling of artillery, not "effectiveness" as such.


I don't think the game is perfect but I think it is a very good expansion for ETW.
"Expansion" (rather than "evolution") is the right word.

Yohei

Fisherking
03-05-2010, 13:38
@ Yohei

Your first part, wasn’t it he asked a friend if it was the same?

Your second, it could have been but I am yet to observe anything the AI is doing poorly with its artillery...so far as any AI goes that is.

Third, we agree. It lacks the dept and scope of a complete game, unless of course you are only interested in the battle rather than the wider range of management.

The Campaigns from 1805 to 1812 are okay but even for Napoleon they don’t handle the full scope and if Bonaparte had defeated Russia and Spain there is little that would have deterred him from turning his attention back to a Navy.

It sort of leaves you feeling unfulfilled.

gollum
03-05-2010, 13:47
To be honest, scope wouldn't have been a problem for me. As long as the campaign is well balanced and challenging. But i will (unregretfully) never know - tw as an ongoing thing is dead for me.

:bow:

Fisherking
03-05-2010, 14:11
Sorry to hear that, though you may have said it before...don’t remember...

Your opinions and thought on play and mechanics have always been insightful.

Anyway, I think you had ETW but I don’t know if you played 1.5.

There is the news of the unexpected next patch for ETW but I don’t know how much that will cover.

Back to the point of the thread though, NTW, for once seems to live up to what they said it would be, and in play it is the best they have done so far.

You could even say when they billed it as the best total war ever their was some justification for what they said, even though it is more expansion to me than full blown game.

Adding mod tools is still important. I hope they come through with more than just the uniform editor...

I couldn’t believe the block-headed ness of the fans that thought that was the most important tool when they conducted the poll.

gollum
03-05-2010, 14:51
I had ETW, yes, and played 1.5. I thought that it was only fair to give it a chance, although M2 was very poor imo. Unfortunately ETW just confirmed that there is no turning back for TW in terms of the tactical/strategic depth, imo.

1.5 was much better than 1.0, but nowhere near what tw was in terms of quality. I got rid of my etw copy and i;m not buying NTW or anything else further more, unless its clear from reactions/videos/screens that the game has drastically improved and does not have commercial goals above all others. Of course this is not going to happen.

I also hope the mod-tools come out, the modding community is a big part of TW, especially given how much unfinished, uncalibrated and unoptimised the vanilla versions are. However its clear that most likely they are leaving the option to themselves for dlcs - which again doesnt endear ca/sega to the community.

My interest is purely academic in future tws, and yes i won't post that again here.

:bow:

caravel
03-05-2010, 14:55
@ Yohei

Your first part, wasn’t it he asked a friend if it was the same?
I believe he actually played on a friend's copy in order to verify that the bugs in the pre-release were still present in the full release? I must admit his wording on that part is not at all clear.

Your second, it could have been but I am yet to observe anything the AI is doing poorly with its artillery...so far as any AI goes that is.
His claims were that artillery were still hitting his own men and being "stupid" in not calculating a good trajectory. He also mentioned that it went "wandering". He seems to have been misquoted/misrepresented here as stating that arillery were "nerfed" or ineffective. I have not seen that part of his post? Is the AI control of artillery good or bad?


Third, we agree. It lacks the dept and scope of a complete game, unless of course you are only interested in the battle rather than the wider range of management.

The Campaigns from 1805 to 1812 are okay but even for Napoleon they don’t handle the full scope and if Bonaparte had defeated Russia and Spain there is little that would have deterred him from turning his attention back to a Navy.

It sort of leaves you feeling unfulfilled.
A game that leaves one feeling unfulfilled can't be a good game in my book. From my perspective this should have been an expansion and patch up for those that bought ETW, not an expansion that masquerades as a full game. The whole thing smells like an attempt to sweep ETW under the carpet.

Yohei

al Roumi
03-05-2010, 15:40
CA gave up on strengthening the RPS gameplay, in favor of diversity, many units etc.

TW is still an RPS game in battles, but the gameplay is poor because the system is watered and so tactics aren't razor sharp. We had at the org a number of people that made the point repeatedly, however eventually SPrs (mostly) told them to bug out, and shut it concerning the RPS, that nobody wants to play RPS anymore etc.

Personaly, I find the resistence to RPS gameplay somewhat hard to understand. The best way I can interpret it is a desire for absolute realism, with little apparent concern for the inevitable and unbalanced "stack of doom" type army or unit a player ultimately generates. I see RPS as a convenient trick to add some balanced tactics to gameplay, but I am also very keen for the RPS elements to be at least plausible and as realistic as possible.



ETW and NTW have to do little with genuine tactics of the era, its simply Shogun gone Napoleonic as are all CA games - CA would never go into the trouble of re-creating the game from scratch. It just cashes the original concept.

I'm sure CA would argue differently to that but ultimately I agree with you: it's not apparent that the "revolutions" in the game engines are designed from the gorund up for a specific type of combat -or that could very well just be ETW's epic failure in the transfer to gunpowder & artillery, specificaly the tactics which evolved to counter gun-powder and artillery.

Fisherking
03-05-2010, 16:26
Oh my!

Two excellent posts guys.

Gollum,

I hope you don’t mean you aren’t posting at all?

Yohei,

The cannon may be a bit better than ETW but they still act a bit the same. May be a little better but still something you have to keep an eye on. I have not had them pivot on each other and kill one another any way. But hitting your own troops has been a problem in all the games and I don’t think they want to stop FF if someone goes in front of a unit of any type.

Both of you,

I don’t want you to have the opinion that NTW is not an excellent game, because it is the best I think of the 3D games they have done.

This one does not have the, just another knock off so we can get paid, feel to it.

I was very suspect of just that with the timing of the game and making it stand alone.

I understand there were technical reasons for doing that and not making it retro-fit with ETW was a big letdown for me.

That is part of my lack of enthusiasm for NTW.

It is an excellent system. It has everything going for it except scope. While the European map is large it just does not have a big feel.

Rome’s RTR was huge. I know it was a mod but just the same.

I came near to hating M2TW though the mods, especially the mods using Big Map saved it for me.

I saw ETW as having huge potential but with all of the stability problems it made it fall short. Most of the rebalancing was not productive up until 1.4 and 1.5 and I still have issues with the rebalance of the ships and some of the things that got nerffed.

I thought I was going to end up hating ETW the whole time from 1.2 and 1.3. I thought it was still broken and most of the changes made diminished rather than helped the game.

They also cut some features and eliminated some things, that while not missed in the end, it was more because of all the other problems that I feel they were cut out.

I though 1.5 was a huge improvement but it still had more to be done.

NTW is a big leap forward.

It wouldn’t have happened without what went before, so maybe some of the teething was necessary.

I was not even going to buy it but my wife got it for me.

The last expansion I liked was Viking Invasion. I have not bought one since BI.

And you know what?

I like it. I like it a lot...but is still an expansion that makes you feel limited after the fullness of its parent.
But even at that, I have to say, if feels like it was made by gamers for gamers, rather than by CA for Sega.

What I mean by the last is that it doesn’t feel like it was made only for commercial value by one company for its corporate management. It was made for those who buy games.

It feels like they put care and feeling into for the first time in a long time.

You can say that they had to, and maybe that is so but I am going to judge the end product for what it is, more than any motive I could read into it and it is a good solid game.

I don’t think I am being too forgiving. It is not an EPIC game because of scope but it is well crafted and I do like it.

There are still tactical elements that aren’t perfect. Like most games it could go deeper but where do you draw the line? Tactically it is better than most RTS battles. You can tell that CA made it. It is not a totally new approach but it is a vast improvement in its feel.

gollum
03-05-2010, 16:28
First of all "RPS" is a description not a fact. This however does not sit well with most people. What RTS stands for in reality is that units:

a) Have specific roles.
and
b) These roles do not overlap.

If so, the game becomes interesting tactically as success lies in combining and coordinating the units. Pacing also comes into it, ie unit speeds, rates of fire, melee rates, morale levels (how fast units rout in general), match ups (how fast rock beats scissors etc) etc etc. Not an easy job.

However what happened to TW is that the game was addressed to the SP market that wanted "realism" ("in real life armies were never balanced", "historically cavalry domnated the medieval battlefield", "HAs did the Parthian shot" etc) and "veriety" (= more factions, more units, bigger maps and timelines etc).

The first trend introduced gameplay mechanics that hurt balance or pacing or both. For example everyone knows that HAs rule in RTW/M2TW, and unlike MTW you don't need any skill, micro or tactical to do so. In M2TW cavalry had such a powerful charge that dominated anything and armies are based around cavalry for the most part.

The second, apart from sales, brought units that have duplicate and overlaping roles ie they blur out the very heart of RPS. In doing so, the game stops being fun because all its needed to do is find the most efficient units in terms of performance/price ratio and bang on the AI. In terms of mp this led often to rush on rush games, basically both players just lined up and charged as the defender did not had time enough to react (bad pacing too).

To top it off, CA on purposely changed the pace again to the benefit of the "casual SPer", by either making the game too fast (speeds and melee in RTW) or too slow (melee in M2), clearly making gameplay bowing to the intended effect: melee animations, making the game more accessible to younger players.

TW was is and always will be RPS as long as it stays in its original format. The question is not that, but whether it will be a working or watered down RPS.

:bow:

PS No, heaven forbids no. You ain't getting rid of me that easily :) As long as i post, i'll drop the odd post here too.
:bow:

gollum
03-05-2010, 16:42
I'm glad you enjoy NTW Fisherking. Through you description it sounds inviting.

:bow:

caravel
03-05-2010, 18:03
I think the question is, do you want your historical battle sims to be physical, visual or both?

Madoushi
03-05-2010, 22:09
Just a quick question, what do "RPS" and "HAs" stand for? I guess HAs would be heavy artillery(s), but my brain keeps trying to parse RPS as Role Playing Shooter, so it' hard to put gollum's post into context. XD

Personally, I'm very satisfied with M2. Cavalry is powerful, but I havent noticed it being more powerful than M1. Much like M1, I just find they make Spearmen mandatory parts of my army, and they make English Longbows and Italian Arbalests worth the cost. Of course, I'll admit I haven't logged that many hours on it yet, and most of my experience has been as the English and the HRE, so possibly I'm just plain wrong. :)

Fisherking
03-05-2010, 22:21
@Madoushi

RPS is Rock, Paper, & Scissors. Just like the old hand game.

HA in this context is Horse Archers.

Madoushi
03-06-2010, 02:30
That totally makes a lot more sense, lol.

I will say that I haven't played it long, but Empire does seem to have somewhat of a lack of RPS. Just take as much shooting infantry as possible, form your army into the longest, thinnest line possible, close on the enemy, stop, let them approach your center, while your flanks move to envelop, win.

Ratwar
03-06-2010, 04:08
You know, I haven't played N:TW yet, but this review just smells to me. I mean, a 6/10 for the interface because he finds the color bad? Seriously, if that's the only thing wrong with the interface, its a 9/10.

As for his complaints about Gameplay and Balance, most of them seem extremely nitpicky if not historically incorrect, but then again, I have not played the game, and I am merely comparing what he says to my experiences in Empire.

Oh, and his comments about casual gamers is rather offensive.

antisocialmunky
03-06-2010, 06:14
Hard RPS can suck big time if you have too much diversity. It works great in simple gameplay like STW or MTW. TW's have always had the infantry > Cavalry > skirmisher/ranged > infantry soft RPS system though.

gollum
03-06-2010, 12:58
ETW has an RPS:

heavy line infantry armies are vulnerable to arty and long range rifles.
Long range rifles and arty are vulnerable to cavalry.
CAvarly is stopped by robust line infantry blocks.

The long line is to maximise the lines that fire and avoid casualites from massing troops in multiple lines, because bullets can have back kills even if they miss. It also helps create enfilade fire ie two units fire in a slight angle to the edge of an enemy line and rake in kills faster.

With ranged warfare the player who can take a kills advantage first has achieved much, because that same small advantage is translated into a big one eventually, since gradually less and less enemy return fire. So the player who is lossing the shootout, is forced to either rush or take up position in highground or forests.

:bow:

Lucius Verenus
03-07-2010, 15:31
It is also the most critically negative review of the game.

It makes some good points but it is also colored by some personal opinions.

From what I have seen those who like the game enough to say so is about 95% of postings.

Those who dislike it seem to be a very small minority, even if they try to be very vocal about it.

For my part I think they did a decent job, but I miss the wider scope and field of ETW.

There is another explanation for the relative (to ETW) lack of criticism Fisherking , I - and many others - said in the ETW fora that we will never buy again until we have been convinced by those who do that the game is actually worth the playing (and buying).

So maybe the most vocal critics of ETW are not critiquing NTW because we haven't bought it .

From what I have read here and elsewhere, there _are_ a few improvements, but given the limited nature of NTW and the cost (US$80 on steam so likely AU$100 in my local shop), think it's way overpriced and very limited in scope.

The 'praise' I have seen is fairly faint and often accompanied by negative comments about it's nature - including those from yourself :)

So I wont be buying this, so wont be complaining about it either, I think there's a lot more like me. w
e cared enough about ETW - having bought it - to plead for changes. These were valid issues as you well know and 1.5 has gone some way towards fixing those.

From DV's comments and others it appears the 'melee bug' has been improved but still occurs in some circumstances, as 'Naval Invasions' were 'improved' but still rarely happened in ETW 1.5 ( and from some comments this has not changed in NTW either).

Now if they had applied the fixes (if any) to the ETW BAI and CAI and offered NTW as a dlc expansion at US$15 I would definitely have tried it out.

Regards

LV

antisocialmunky
03-07-2010, 16:24
BTW - From what I gather from my gameplay, Artillery has a bad tendency to try and shoot UNDER your men if your cannons are on unfavorable land with respect to enemy units and bounce cannon balls into them. Also, cannons don't seem to calculate for cavalry is correctly.

Also, line infantry still have bad tendency to kill cannon crews in front of them. Fortunately light infantry still shoots around your own men.

Forward Observer
03-07-2010, 22:34
You know, I haven't played N:TW yet, but this review just smells to me. I mean, a 6/10 for the interface because he finds the color bad? Seriously, if that's the only thing wrong with the interface, its a 9/10.

As for his complaints about Gameplay and Balance, most of them seem extremely nitpicky if not historically incorrect, but then again, I have not played the game, and I am merely comparing what he says to my experiences in Empire.

Oh, and his comments about casual gamers is rather offensive.

I totally agree with your comments and while only halfway into the Italian campaign, I do have the game and I'm enjoying it so far. In fact when I first read his review with his opening, totally non-objective critique of the UI, it was hard to continue reading.---or at least take anything else he wrote seriously. Like you also, I thought he spent to much effort in nitpicking at the BAI. We all know it's not great, but so far I'm of the opinion it is improved in NTW.


While it's still not perfect, the BAI does seem to give a better account of itself in maintaining a cohesive frontal assault. I'm only playing at the normal battle difficulty, so I have no idea if they perform any better at the higher levels, but I would assume this might be the case.

Like others, I am not a big fan of the structured campaign/mission type of game, but it appears that there is enough diversity of strategic choices to give this portion of the game some re-playability.

I will say that the battlefield visuals are simply fantastic and eclipse Empire--if that is possible. In addition to playing the French campaign, I have also set up and played several "1 X 1" single player battles just to test how the A.I. handles itself. Once again I only played these on the normal difficulty, but I felt that the BAI still managed a more cohesive attack than I've seen at this level in Empire.

I have noted some of the problems that A.I. controlled artillery has with the terrain such as setting correctly. In both a campaign battle and one of the single player battles, I have seen them set up their cannons up in range of my lines, but with a hill between a direct line of fire. Consequently all their shots plowed into the hill and careened over the heads of my troops which gave no support to their assault. Consequently, I held my artillery fire until their troops crested this same hill to do plenty of damage. Thinning the enemy ranks with ranged fire did what it was supposed to do and helped insure a win.

This game does not feel like an expansion to me, but more like a new TW game--only with a narrower scope than its predecessor. And to those complaining about the cost, I can only offer this. In a day and age when one can spend up to $50 US for the latest and greatest FPS that will only give one 7 to 10 hours of game-play----any Total War game, regardless of its scope--is an absolute bargain by comparison.

Cheers

gollum
03-08-2010, 10:26
Watched a few mp videos in youtube.

The game looks absolutely stunning, and i think its safe to say that its perhaps the first time that the 3d-men engine starts looking and playing well regardless of the scale used to view it (no more despicable sprites like the ones in RTW/M2). The smoke/fire effects are indeed as good as were promised. The UI seems far better than all recent twrs, and closer to STW than ever, which for me is a good thing. The colour codes (blue for friendly and red for enemy) are fitting, subtle and unobstrusive, far better than the salad/neon green of other 3d-men tw games. It would have seemed that Darth took it a bit more personally regarding the UI than warranted. Uniforms and animations are also very good and the "laser" bullets are few and just to show which unit is fire which from a distance - very useful and totally acceptable to me. Accents fully ok, and the game lacks the overly childish and intrusive in-battle unit audio responses of M2 - its far more like STW/MTW that original languages and accents are employed only for unit response. From a historical perspective aesthetic feel, i have to say that battles seem to fully deliver.

Cavalry (and infantry) indeed seem faster than ETW, but the rate of fire has also increased, and so cavalry cannot trample extended line infantry with frontal charges if the inf. have a shot for quite some time/area. Difficult to say yet full impact of this in the gameplay, however it wasn't completely midlessly introduced apparently, and that can be only a good thing. Considering that battles, in mp at least, take place over very broad fronts mostly, perhaps it was warranted.

The game comes with an array of interesting mp maps, that were in very short supply in ETW - better late than never.

MP feature works fine it seems, as well as the drop-in feature in campaigns. In my opinion the mp campaign is very cleverly implemented (more than two players it would have been very unpractical, playing all the battles of the opponent sounds really great), and i'm sure that lots of enjoyment can come out of it.

All in all, and despite my resolve to stick with my decision and not to buy, NTW seems to be worth it and it also seems to fulfill some of the potential of ETW that went unfulfilled, especially if one is determined to play in mp mostly (no idea about the AI, it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't really good).

:bow:

gollum
03-08-2010, 10:43
Here are 7 videos from Point_Man, who seems to be part of the Gods of TW clan:
https://www.youtube.com/user/ReflexCss#p/c/2E3281C747DB8485/0/9htZdNnOvBQ

They showcase my points above.

Nice commentaries/tactics and play too.

:bow:

Suraknar
03-08-2010, 11:01
One thing I will agree with that Darth review thought.

Is the nostalgia of the STW AI, I have very fond memories of STW, and the quasi-chess like game play, with move and counter move and shock troops that actually delivered one, the flanking mechanics but most importantly the formations holding and not blobbing.

It is odd that the only blobbing that happened in STW was the map with a river and a bridge, where you could rain arrows on them and a substantially smaller force could hold a substantially larger one. yet if these two same forces met in a n open field it was a sure loss.

Oddly enough this blog tactic by the AI I first experienced in RTW. But since it was a melee game it passes, in M2TW too but in ETW it is annoying, so maybe this has something to do with the move to a 3D engine, only CA would know.

Other than that, I do not agree with all the points (UI excelent, Tracers etc are all fine and part of solid gameplay, it is a game first and foremost some people just do not want to acknowledge this) but I can understand the temper, or if you will the style of expression, having Hellenic blood running in my veins as well.

Cheers!

gollum
03-08-2010, 11:12
It has nothing to do with nostalgia. In RTW the blobbing penalties units were getting were removed. In STW/MTW the programmer and CA were farsighted enough to give combat penalties to units that blob in order to prevent people from cheating by superstacking units in a small area and create local superiorities that gave unrealistic results in melee. In RTW that was taken out, hence the player blobs and the AI blobs when safe and necessary in melee, and under certain circumstances its best to do so (especially agains the AI that he can't really envelop properly).

The blobbing you see in ETW, is of another kind - the AI used to do it since STW, if you watch how he used guns (especially if he had many). It has to do with the well known inability of teh AI to maintain a cohesive missile line using flat trajectory missiles, like guns and crossbows. In multiplayer all players use missiles like this ever since tw began.

Guns and crossbows give backkills ie bullets/bolts that miss continue travelling till they hit something, the ground, a tree or another man that the guy was aiming for. This means that concentrated formations suffer heavily from fire, as even bullets that miss, find their targets. The AI not really being able to make up a cohesive, and cohesively firing front was simply not up to the task of a gunpowder era game.

In any case, there is now multiplayer campaign, if i had the game, i would't play a single campaign against the AI, i would get online and in forums and pick up friends and foes to play against.

:bow:

PS Be aware of that "blood" and "temper" because although it has good aspects it has very much more bad ones. Objectiveness and calm are far better than giving in to your temper, and ending up saying things that you might regret.

Suraknar
03-08-2010, 18:31
Perhaps this is the case, yet how many years have passed and how many games later, one would think that this AI behavior would have been corrected and addressed, to some people's eyes there is no excuse no matter how you justify it.

And this is actually something of a "wide" issue in the gaming Industry, I play also many MMORPG games, and over the years game after game it simply seems that no one is working in any pro-active way and repeat some of the mistakes of previous games (their competition none the less), instead of taking care of it and coming ahead.

As for the temper, I said I understood it, I did not say that I was this way myself ;) And while I agree with your practical standpoint on it, sometimes it is just a cultural trait, after all, it maybe what made the Hellenic people act the way they did back when invading forces were at the doorsteps of Europe. Older Cultures have gone through allot and that has fashioned not only their world view but also how some deal with certain issues. it is well known that Mediterranean cultures are more "warm blooded", more argumentative and ready to debate without necessarily always taking care to be "Politically Correct", it may also be the factor which led the Hellenic people to establish Philosophical foundations which were later adopted by other cultures. In its day to day application it results in a tempered expression which is honest and in your face. I understand that it may still poke to the sensibilities of some younger cultures.

All I can say there it is that we simply can't have it all in life when it comes to people, and perfection is just an ideal which we can all strive for, yet knowing that we will never attain perfection nevertheless, it just happens that some cultures know this better than others and this is expressed by a more "laissez-faire" approach to some things in life or by a more tempered posture within their respective societies. But we are getting off topic a bit ;)

So in the end, and since this is debate for a game, and not a question of life and death, maybe what is more important to draw out of it is the message and not the way that the messenger delivered it. because through this criticism, maybe someone will take note and it may indirectly help in improvement in the future, if everyone stands there applauding and remains in a state of conformism, then things stagnate, or even worse, those in aposition to make decision take for granted that it is ok to repeat mistakes as long as the $$$ keep coming in.

Cheers!

gollum
03-08-2010, 19:23
I didn't try to excuse the AI behavior Suraknar; in fact i have been a harsh critic of it, and if you read carefully you'll see that i criticise CA for making a gunpowder game with the same engine over and over. The AI was stripped indeed from BI and then built up, but the basics of it are the same, which predictably gives the same troubles.

:bow:

Suraknar
03-08-2010, 20:41
Yes indeed, and a logical conclusion Gollum.

:bow:

loony
03-24-2010, 11:53
I believe this thread needs a follow up: http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/napoleon-total-war/1075020p1.html
TWO STARS from gamespy...

antisocialmunky
03-24-2010, 13:01
I believe this thread needs a follow up: http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/napoleon-total-war/1075020p1.html
TWO STARS from gamespy...



This review is completely BS. Firstly, he rated ETW 5/5 last year when it was basically 3/5. NTW has been highly praised by the community with plenty of honest player reviews. This guy has simply missed his check from Creative Assembly this time. This game deserves 5/5 since it is far improved then ETW. It has plenty of multiplayer features (something this review does not even mention) and other features like supply lines which makes the game far more immersive.

Even Darth gave this game 7.5/10, which tells you how much this review fails in comparison. (Darth being one of the most trusted modders for TW games)

Tom Chink, please play the game next time.


Yeah I'm going to have to agree there.

Fisherking
03-24-2010, 16:26
I may have said it before but the reviewers are gun-shy after ETW and have unfairly cut the ratings NTW deserved to a point more deserving of ETW.

NTW is the best playing game of the whole series and to give it such a lackluster rating is more than shameful.

They are basing the review on the anger of a lot of people at ETW rather than doing a good job of evaluating NTW.

It has a metascore of 82 or 84 while ETW had a 90? What is with that?

Graphic
03-24-2010, 17:04
I may have said it before but the reviewers are gun-shy after ETW and have unfairly cut the ratings NTW deserved to a point more deserving of ETW.


This is my view as well.

They all played ETW for maybe 2 days, didn't have time to see the massive amount of bugs, gave it scores usually reserved for Half-Life games, and now they feel like idiots.

The reviews for ETW were unfortunate but it's just horrible to unfairly take that out on NTW in order to score some cool points with the community.

"Hey, look, I get it now, TW games suck!" Except now NTW is actually awesome so they still look like idiots.

Removing personal taste and all that, I seriously can't see how someone could sanely rate NTW 1.0 lower than ETW 1.0. It's just a superior game in nearly every respect; all the units are unique, the map is much more detailed, runs way better, is very stable and non-buggy, many new features, better graphics, etc. I'm not saying people aren't allowed to like ETW more or anything like that but NTW is just a better made product, and that's a fact...in my opinion :laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit
03-24-2010, 18:51
I'll point out that the author of the NTW Gamespy review is not the same person who gave ETW five stars for gamespy.

It's Tom Chick, the man who recognized the problems of ETW ( "Instead, once again, Creative Assembly has made a game that its AI cannot play. " ) and give it an appropriately bad rating in this review. (http://www.crispygamer.com/gamereviews/2009-03-17/empire-total-war-pc.aspx)

In short, he did play the game.

The glaring discrepancy between Gamespy's ETW review and NTW review should be blamed on their ETW reviewer (Allen Rausch).

CR

Graphic
03-24-2010, 20:03
I'll point out that the author of the NTW Gamespy review is not the same person who gave ETW five stars for gamespy.

Touché. I stand by my post though, as it's the general vibe I get from most of the reviews. There's no logical reason why NTW gets harsher reviews across the board compared to ETW. It might also be due to the game press' tradition of rating expansions lower than the mother game (NTW being an expand-alone), no matter how much better they are. I guess most reviewers give most of their points out for innovation instead of actual fun.

Fisherking
03-24-2010, 20:14
CR

your link is not loading.

Never the less, the game is starting on its fourth week after release. Those who have the game seem to love it.

Most of the grumbling comes from those who felt burned over ETW and have not bought NTW.

I have seen no post release reviews in the press or online. From media sources, it is dead quiet.

CA made changes to the game after the initial press version and they must have gotten it right, because the gamers playing the game have very few complaints and they are not screaming for a patch yesterday.

This is not ETW. You can tell it was developed from ETW but it is far and away a much cleaner, smoother experience and the thing is as stable as a brick wall.

The AI is improved but it is never going to match a human player but the drop-in battle option allows most battles to have a human opponent if you want.

For those reasons and others I am forgetting player are baffled by the lack of solid reviews and the poor scores given it by the media.

If you played it you would understand....and I don’t mean the demo.

:laugh4:

gollum
03-24-2010, 20:22
Most likely ETW was meant to be reviewed well. You know and i know that CA's and SEGA's new engine attempt wouldn't go without the necessary promo back up. You need to oil the wheel for it to turn if you get my point.

Also in general reviewers skewer games of lesser scope and micromanagement and more focus, lesser layer complexity and more deep strategy like smaller more concentrated campaigns in expansions, which is of course wrong. There are plenty of games that were top notch in terms of strategy, tactics and AI including STW and MTW, but many reviewers complained: "Mediocre campaign layer" for STW - read not enough toy micromanagement tasks, "aging graphics engine" in MTW - read graphics are more valued than gameplay etc etc.

Most of the criticisms in the current review are true but they should have been expressed for ETW where they were 100 fold more pronounced, not to mention in M2 and RTW that started the commercial spiral of CA. I didn't see any reviewer being allowed to write anything against that trend then, and it is the very same trend being criticised now. They were all awe taken by the 3D engine and were giving out almost 99% scores. These same criticisms about the AI are expressed in the tw community at large from 2004 automn on. Its really old news.

NTW is definitely not what tw was, nor could it ever be, given what the fanbase and CA's commercial goals are. It seems to be however a definite improvement in terms of delivery, concept and depth over ETW. Most of Darth's points are with the AI (understandable) and the aesthetics (half understandable). I think there wasn't a single TW fan that was expecting the AI of NTW to play how multiplayers play in ranged warfare battles. That's what the drop-in feature and mp campaign are for though. Seriously for all of you you have not had an mp experience before, just get online and play - there is a whole new world that you are missing - a world that makes TW far far more interesting and deep than the overmicromanagement ladden SP game. I promised myself after the dishonest hype for ETW and the mess that it was that i'm not buying NTW, and i stick by my word. However it is clear objectively to me that NTW is far better than ETW and it has many features that can make up for worthwhile modding and interesting mp play.

:bow:

caravel
03-24-2010, 21:48
The gamespy review seems to be centred around the game apparently not improving enough over ETW?

As has already been alluded to, "official" reviews by sites such as the one in question are utterly unreliable though, and personally I take no notice whatsoever of them when making a buying decision. This review (and reviewer) does seem much more realistic (and familiar) than the original (5/5) ETW gamespot review though. I suspect that through want of oil, the wheel seized up somewhat?

The best gauge of how good a game is, is to read player experiences, both positive and negative, posted on the forums. Magazine/game site reviews are not worth getting ones knickers in a twist over.

:bow:

gollum
03-24-2010, 23:25
Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The gamespy review seems to be centred around the game apparently not improving enough over ETW?

Indeed. However while some of the reasons are understandable (like the AI), others are not imo, like say the scope of the campaign. There is nothing wrong with a smaller campaign, with more focus, however for these guys there is lots wrong. They always prefer larger scope, and CA has tried to cater for this trend say in the M2 campaign and in ETW. Large scope campaigns tend to over simplify the map in order to represent such huge areas and the end effect is the more factions/more units/non-plausible historically campaign progress.

I can't really say how much NTW improves over ETW because i haven't played the game.


I suspect that through want of oil, the wheel seized up somewhat?

Possibly that or perhaps some of the reviewing sites felt that they overdid it with the eulogies of ETW and wanted to restore some of their credibility after the debacle of the divergeance between reviewer ratings and user ratings on the net. It was very entertaining and satisfying to see that by the way ;)


The best gauge of how good a game is, is to read player experiences, both positive and negative, posted on the forums. Magazine/game site reviews are not worth getting ones knickers in a twist over.

Bingo.

:bow:

gollum
03-24-2010, 23:57
Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The gamespy review seems to be centred around the game apparently not improving enough over ETW?

Indeed. However while some of the reasons are understandable (like the AI), others are not imo, like say the scope of the campaign. There is nothing wrong with a smaller campaign, with more focus, however for these guys there is lots wrong. They always prefer larger scope, and CA has tried to cater for this trend say in the M2 campaign and in ETW. Large scope campaigns tend to over simplify the map in order to represent such huge areas and the end effect is the more factions/more units/non-plausible historically campaign progress.

I can't really say how much NTW improves over ETW because i haven't played the game.


I suspect that through want of oil, the wheel seized up somewhat?

Possibly that or perhaps some of the reviewing sites felt that they overdid it with the eulogies of ETW and wanted to restore some of their credibility after the debacle of the divergeance between reviewer ratings and user ratings on the net. It was very entertaining and satisfying to see that by the way ;)


The best gauge of how good a game is, is to read player experiences, both positive and negative, posted on the forums. Magazine/game site reviews are not worth getting ones knickers in a twist over.

Bingo

:bow:

gollum
03-25-2010, 00:12
Apologies for the double post (it came about by accident). Please delete the second post and this one here.
Thanks :bow: