Warlords Edition?

[dclare4]

If ever they do a 'Warlords Edition' of MTW do you think they might be able to add more areas? I guess it will mean much more work (and the game does require LOTS of work already!) but the scale that works for medieval Japan (one area or perhaps Korea too - two countries mind you!) just doesn't feel right for the CONTINENT of Europe. It doesn't really feel all that accurate. Sorry if I'm being a pill here but I would rather have lots of regional areas/counties that nations could have a heck of a time squabbling over (as was what historically happened) than having a smaller, more manageable map that one can actually CONQUER. No Medieval country was ever that strong, not the slightest possibility ever!! Besides they didn't really have (except perhaps for the Golden Horde or the Moslem countries) that kind of vision or were able to realize it politically. Just doesn't work for me... Frankly I would prefer having more provinces represented (something like 4 or 5 for England and 3 for Wales and another 5 or so for Scotland, something like that - 5 including the Northern Isles).

Diplomacy is also WAY too simplistic for the convoluted European war situation. I have to say I still consider EU's diplomatic function superior to most anything I've seen with its 'war repatriations' scheme and its sheer complexity simulating world politics with all its frustrations.

Just my two cents,
Gilbert de Clare

[Moorkh]

I couldn't agree more.
Having tried to mod around with the campaign map, I believe the thing with more smaller counties could be done by a small team of modders. The problem is, we'd have to find a way to actually enlarge the campaign map (or restrict ourselves to parts of Europe), as otherwise, provinces become too small to place more than one army and a castle in.

[dclare4]

The good, the bad and the ugly about MTW

Well after around two weeks of 'getting medieval' on my friends and neighbors I think I'm ready to give my two cents on MTW.

Well first off, its nice familiar territory, particularly if you've played STW or WE/MI with the board game style interface and the usual cast of emissaries, assassins and spies. The kings and princes depicted in the game seem to be accurate to the various periods represented and on the surface its as good a game as STW was, perhaps better. The battles, while I do feel they do tend to be difficult with all the rolling terrain and the difficulty of controlling the 'helicopter cam' view and, personally, well at least me and my brother noticed that the graphics don't seem to be as good as STW, the battle engine itself is one excellent, perhaps one of the most seemingly realistic simulations of a medieval battle available. The old STW features of morale and gaining rank/experience, the sheer diversity of the available units, the ability to stage ambushes and the need to use terrain all make for an engaging, realistic experience. Then, when one side breaks and runs, the prisoner taking begins. I especially liked this part and the option to execute captured prisoners ala Henry V at Agincourt or ransom them w/c played a major part in medieval warfare and politics - capturing and ransoming. I'm glad they got those things down. The mere use of morale is an extremely welcome change from the stand until you die type of battles that we're used to in games like Stronghold (wish they had given units a morale bar or something that would wax and wane depending on their proximity to violent action).

That being said, there are still, I feel, many things that could have been done to make the game at the very least, truer to the history. Unfortunately, the designers apparently did little more that stick the exact same game system of STW with a few allowances for "flavor" on the medieval period without really considering seriously many factors that made medieval europe different from medieval japan or even europe different from lets say the muslim cultures depicted in the game.

At the start (early period) the great kingdoms of Europe were just beginning to emerge. However, the power of the nobility was incredibly immense. If simulated in this game (and at this scale), players would have to face rebellions every two or three turns or so. While taxation and such did have much to do with contentment, there were also feudal prerogatives and rights of the nobility, the supply of men and money for foreign wars, the political maneuverings and machinations for lands, titles and offices and the common insult that made men of stature rise in arms. Perhaps for gameplay's sake this is hardly depicted. For the most part, kingdoms are incredibly stable, except perhaps if you start losing!

This was a time when law, government and even the concept of the nation state were still being formed and developed. Often nobles and princes were laws unto themselves defying their kings which were often little more than first among equals. However, perhaps for simplicity's sake, law, government, etc are abstracted into structures like the Chancellory, the Constableship, the Admiralty and such. There is no chance to 'do a prince John' - in fact when I play England, high period, the evil famed John is often the BEST king I ever get ending up a magnificent builder and a mighty warrior in spite of my oppressive taxation system (which, weirdly enough, doesn't seem to bother my subjects in the slightest - well, so much for the sherriff of Nottingham!) - or grant my nobles 'primae noctae' or something like that. Law and government and their codification and centralization were the tools that eventually strengthened the power of the king as absolute ruler in the land, weakened the power of the nobility and defined the concept of the nation state. As it stands, you start out with factions that are not factions so much as they are NATIONS, one and indivisible - o sure they have civil wars when things are going bad but there are no internal squabbles of the type that sadly occurred all too often in Medieval Europe. So... recommendation number 1 - raise the chance of rebellion by a LOT!

While the scale of the campaign and the game engine was just perfect for recreating conditions in Medieval Japan it is hopelessly off for depicting medieval Europe. In STW you were dealing with what were essentially countyships and regions. In MTW your game board is on a national scale. I'm sorry it just doesn't feel right to fight a single battle and then the entire province falls into your hands. Government had progressed very little beyond the concept of city state in most areas of western Europe (the city being replaced by the feudal fief) and what happened to, lets say Rouen wouldn't matter a bit to the citizens of Bayeux or something like that. Even 'more organized' empires like the HRE were still a collection of dukedoms and principalities that were for better or worse self-contained. Also this affects production and conquest area. For any country to 'survive' it has to conquer a darn sizable chunk of Europe that historically only the Turkish empire and the Golden Horde were able to acheive and not until later. If I'm to 'survive' as England I will need to 'wipe out' France - something that was NEVER acheived by the greatest of warrior kings in history but is only TOO easy to do here due to the simplified regional scale of the game. There is another side to this too - the virtual non-presence of the nobility in this game. The great noble houses that made their mark on the history of the times - the Valois dukes of Burgundy, the king of the two Sicilies who was also Comte de Anjou, the counts and dukes of Brittany, the Dampierre family who were counts of Flanders, the earls and Dukes of Norfolk or Surrey and Arundel, none of these are represented and yet if you read history books they made often nation shaking contributions to history. Instead you get the STW system of 'generals' - these being the ONLY people who could be given titles and offices (when many of the titles and offices I saw in game were available also to heirs and princes - remember, this was a time when the royal house was only the first among equals and they had to squabble for land and title just like anyone else) and these not even hereditary lords but random names picked out of a box - and many times not even accurate either. Most of the English names were taken from either the Saxon period (before the start of the Early period of the game) or the War of the Roses period (after the end of the Late period) and they mix and match so you get Norman knights commanded by the norman lord Aelfgar Fitzalan or worse Tostig Wulfstan. At the time there weren't even such things as forenames and surnames - you got your name from your locale like William of Worcester and Roger di Montgomerie (Montgomerie being his home castle in France) or from your parentage like FitzOsbourne (son of Osbourne). These eventually became the family names we know today. However, these names were more than names or random mix and matches that were fine for STW but fail horribly here - they represented a family, a noble house, sometimes even a name was passed down from father to son as a hereditary right. Names like Lochiel of the Clan Cameron (hereditary name of the Chief), Guy de Dampierre, Guy de Lusignan, Humphrey de Bohun, Hugh le Despencer or Simon de Montfort were often passed down through the ages as a symbol of power and of hereditary right (by the way, none of the above named nobles which were immense political figures during the time period simulated by the game are even in the name pool - except perhaps for Hugh Despencer and Simon de Montfort). It is my personal feeling that nobles should have been handled the same way as kings, perhaps with not as much detail but they should have been there, perhaps keeping track of at least the first three or four heirs. The nobles should have been in a separate class from kings and generals (generals WERE available in the form of knights bannerets and leading aldermen - men like Sir John Chandos, Sir William Marshal and Jean de Grailly, Captal de Buch and should be available for promotion to nobility if ever but this only lasting as long as they live). Nobles should have the same persuations, vices and virtues as kings and should keep track of their lifespan as well (I really don't like this 'immortal' general thing - like every one of your commanders is a Duncan Macleod). Nobles should be present with their personal retinues, available for command and impossible to 'disband' except by execution or attainder for treason or something like that and after that the son, if any, would have the right to claim his father's lands. Likewise they should be made separate and undisbandable since, the medieval practice was to raise 'levees' of horse, foot and archer for very short periods of time and then send them home. As it is, you can raise and maintain huge standing armies that historically would never have lasted one or two years. After a campaign these levees should be automatically disbanded while their lords would remain with their personal escort of knights.

Also, borders were not as strictly defined or patrolled as they are in the game. Yet another instance of history surrendering to gameplay. Like before this is related to the convoluted noblity/fief system of Western Europe. A knight might hold lands in France for the French king but also rule an earldom for the English king. The king of Sicily was also the Count of Anjou and the Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine was also King of England. It SHOULD be possible for 'characters' like Kings, Princes and 'Lords' to cross national bounderies like the emissaries, priests and princesses but maintaining only their personal escort of 'Royal Knights'. (NO other units with them) - that really shouldn't bother the rulers of the land. As it is, if you have, for instance in the High Period game, playing as England, Brittany and Aquitaine and for instance Flanders - you can't get from Brittany to Flanders without declaring war on France, which holds Normandy, unless you take a ship.

Another thing not covered in this usually comprehensive list of virtues and vices are mistresses and favorites. While it gets refered to abstractly with adultery, incest and secret perversion, these were sometimes non-sexual (like Richard II and Sir Simon Burley, his mentor and father figure to whom he gave preferential treatment to the detriment of his reign) and often of national consequence (like Edward II's Piers Gaveston who so angered the nobility that they rose in rebellion against him). Likewise there is no possibility for Bastard sons to claim the throne or at least be recognized. The medieval world in all its normalcy is way beyond the scope of this game.

Another thing is why only generals? The strict division of labor in Shogun with its caste type society doesn't strictly apply here, at least in regard to the church. Churchmen were administrators - there's no going around that historical fact. The church was, in fact, one of the most powerful principalities in the medieval world. Churchmen (Cardinals and Bishops) didn't just 'raise the piousness' of a region, they often served as governors and sometimes even Generals (an example is the fighting Prince Bishop of Durham who often had to defend the northern counties of England from rampaging Scots). But in this game the 'priests' are pretty limited with no chance to gain office or advancement.

Also, I think that these characters, whether they be priests, generals or princesses, should have more of a free will. At least one in ten should be a 'wildcard' - like there are no princesses around (all are sweet, submissive and surrendered to their fate) like Isabelle of France (the French princess of Braveheart) who started an affair with the powerful Marcher lord Roger Mortimer (NOT William Wallace!!) and deposed her husband while she and Roger were the power behind the throne (at least until her son, later Edward III of Crecy fame, led a coup de etat and executed Roger), or Katherine de Valois, Henry V's neglected French wife who had an affair with a Welsh gentleman in her service that led to the Tudor line of Kings. Or how about if one of the princely heirs decides his kid sister is hot, hot, hot and has an incestuous affair with her. I mean, no one playing this game straight would willingly 'waste a princess' by dropping her on her brother except perhaps (as I did) for the sake of curiosity. The whole role of women is, like those of priests, incredibly limited in this game - while it is true most medieval women were little more than pawns, there were rare but definite occasions when a medieval woman was a national force. Many queens were dictators of state policy or even powers behind the throne. Some like Margaret d'Anjou were warriors, many wives defended their husband's castles with as much valor and viciousness as men. And then there was of course the most famous woman of the middle ages, Joan of Arc. But how does MTW treat women? After they're married off they're gone, to some fairy tale castle making babies and thats the end of it.

When your king dies he goes whoof and like that he's gone and forgotten. There should at least be a summary of the achievements of his reign or something. Perhaps thats when you should get your scorecard tallied.

The battle should keep track and say WHICH general is in command of which unit. While it may not have been a matter of consequence who was commanding what in the Japan of STW, these issues were matters of great consequence in a medieval european army. Right of command, who would get command of this or that division, who would lead the cavalry, were all convoluted affairs that had to be sorted out by the man who would 'marshal the army' or simply the marshal.

And then there are the little innaccuracies and compromises made in the spirit of 'gameplay balance' - the Almohads are just way too strong, their lands being way too rich (most of it was desert and most of them were squabbling tribes for petes sake!) while the Spanish, who must fight against both them and the Aragonese and Portuguese are just way too weak. The lands of Western Europe are just not as rich as they historically were and in any case they're too few of them to squabble over w/c means that everyone gets a chance at conquering Europe (something NO ONE EVER acheived before Napoleon and Hitler). Thats why wars were fought where they were fought and between the factions that fought them because of the sheer distances involved and the size of Europe. The only transnational battle groups that ever operated were the crusades (which I felt were excellently handled by the game!!) and most other wars were really little more than enlarged border raids whose sheer cost were often beyond the resources of the most powerful kingdoms. Thus we had the Hundred Years War between France and England with small excusions for very limited periods into Spain. We had the war of the Teutonic Knights in the east against the Polish, Lithuanians and Novgorodians. We had the Scottish wars (concluded all too quickly in this game) which dragged on endlessly ruining the northern border counties (the Scots are way too docile and passive even here and even at EXPERT difficulty). And we had the unending wars in Italy and the Balkans. All told, these wars RARELY if ever crossed the regional bounderies that we can cross in MTW. Truly the only ones with a sense of conquest and empire were the Muslims (evanglization at swordpoint) and the Golden Horde. Everyone else was caught up in their own 'little wars'.

Finally, there should be a definite division between Western European, Eastern European and Russian and Muslim gameplay styles and options. The lack of princesses of the Muslims is a start but there should be so much more. I'm thinking that the Italian city states and the Muslim nations can stick with the current game play style of generals etc but it just doesnt work for the Western European nations.

To sum up, more consideration should have been given by the producers/programmers/researchers to these little things that while seemingly inconsequential are what separates the mere 'games' from the 'experience'. I loved STW because it was an 'experience' - the graphics, the throne room, the FMVs, the gameplay, the game SCALE, were all just right to give me the feel of being a Hidetora or a Takeda. Unfortunately what's true for Peter may not be true for Paul and here, at least with the Western European nations. This is NOT a simulation of the medieval climate or of medieval politics but a game which happens to be set in the middle ages. The use of 'national' sized factions (while perhaps necessary for gameplay) seriously detracts from the atmosphere of a world before the concept of the nation state was fully realized while the regional scale of gameplay ensures that anybody can conquer Europe. While there is a lot I liked about it, it just doesn't give me the same tingly feeling I got playing STW. I don't have any problem remembering that its just a game.

[spmetla]

totally agree. Basically what your saying is you don't want the territories on the levels of Duchies, Principalits and Kindoms, you want the it down to the level of Counts and Barons. I would also like it like that but what can you do. I guess they didn't want to make the game insane to manage for noobies.

Love the game anyway though.

[Moorkh]

As you point out yourself, unfortunately, the sheer complexity of Medieval Europe's feudal systems can simply not be simulated realisticly and satisfactorily in a game of MTW's scope. For gameplay's sake, it was needed to simply this system a lot - considering that the feudal system prevented absolute power in the hands of its governing bodies, the simulation would have needed to go down to the level of minor noble families and include compexities of government such as noble oligarchies in city-states or situations that allowed several nobles to actually rule one and the same fief, dividing its rule into different aspects.

That said, it is true that they could have done more of an effort - some of which might even be amended by decent modding. I especially agree on the opinion that different cultures should have been treated even more differently when it comes to ruling options and such. Muslim (and other, e.g. Byzanthine) despots should much more absolute rulers within their domains than Catholic nobles. They should not be required to ransom foreign generals or even rulers - political rivals are to be killed on the spot. Their dread rating should be extremely high. Instead, they should have different disadvantages, such as very low base loyalty within their subjects and far more frequent and more thorough assassination attempts, not only by other sovereigns but also by their own subjects.
For feudal Europe, players shouldn't take control over a 'nation's' ruler but instead of a noble dynasty. This would, of course require a lot of changes.
- There would need to be more and smaller domains as well as far more factions - every noble family would have to be a faction of its own. There were no neutral factions within Medieval Europe.
- There should be more than one turn per year (maybe four), not only allowing nobles more turns during their lifespan, but also representing seasonal differences.
- Every noble should have only a limited lifespan but instead the ability to marry and have heirs. However, nobles might well be infertile, and intermarriage should have some dire consequences on the quality of heirs...
- every dynasty should have a current leader, whether he is an actual sovereign or not. he is only a sovereign if his family owns any 'owned' titles (see below) He is the only noble of the dynasty to have a influence rating. this represents his loyalty to his own dynasty, thus his 'independence'. if this rating is as high or higher than his loyalty to another faction, he and all that are loyal to him become independent.
- Every noble should be able to serve not only as a ruler and general but also as emissary and assassin. They should even be able to enter clerical service, which should, however, effectively remove them from the list of heirs.
- Female nobility should receive much of the same options and abilities as males, but be far more predisposed towards service as emissaries than generals or rulers - Medieval mentality had strong reservations against women in the latter positions, which should be represented in-game somehow in order to remain halfway realistic. However, they should definitely not simply disappear after marriage - they should certainly lose loyalty towards their parental dynasty and develop loyalty towards their new family (of which she becomes a potential heir). Whoever family she at the moment has more loyalty to should be able to control her.
- Low-loyalty members of a dynasty should be able to go 'renegade', founding a dynasty of their own, as soon as they reach zero loyalty towards their family. Nobles under your control with less than 3 points of loyalty should become insubordinate, not always following your orders, both in battle and on the strategic map.
- The game should keep track of claims. Whenever a dynasty's leader dies, claim holders should be able to attempt to wrest at least part of that ruler's domains from the other heirs. if the leader was under the control of another dynasty, this souvereign may claim the inheritance at the risk of not only angering nobles all over but putting the disinherited faction into open revolt.
- Players should be able to buy loyalty from just about everyone - with money, marriages or titles. every bribe makes a noble more loyal (adding loyalty points) to you (not necessarily reducing his loyalty points towards other rulers). bribing nobles is more expensive, the more influence they have and the more provinces/titles they control/own. it also becomes more expensive, the more loyalty points towards you they already have.
- Once you command more loyalty with a noble than any other noble, he should come under your control, becoming your permanent vassal if he has been given at least one title from you, accepting your sovereignity. bribing faction leaders is extremely expensive but also valuable to improve ones standing with them, e.g. to prepare a cease-fire or an alliance. once they have a higher loyalty towards you than their own influence rating, they, too, and all that are loyal to them, will come under your control. the provinces under its control will become part of your domain, its titles available to you for reassignment, except for the dynasty's "owned" titles, which remain theirs at least as long as their leader is alive.
- Nobles under your control should rapidly lose loyalty towards you when not given a title.
- There should be two kinds of titles: owned ones (can't be stripped from them) and given ones. A dynasty can acquire 'owned' titles by conquering provinces. Those can then be "given out" (I'm afraid I don't know the historic legal terms for it http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif ) to vassals or other nobles. Owned titles make a noble sovereign of a province, given titles just its governor. Both are inherited by the heir(s). Both may entail the ability to use special ruling options (e.g.: the owner of Bavaria or the Bohemia becomes an elector for the office of emperor).
- Titles gained through elections should actually have to be acquired that way. The pope would have to be a cardinal elected by fellow cardinals. The emperor could be any catholic noble elected by the electoral princes. The owner of those titles, again, should be provided with special, very powerful political options, such as excommunication. Those titles cannot be inherited and can even be recalled by the electors.
- nobles can accumulate titles, the only limitation being that they cannot acquire worldly and clerical titles at the same time
- every time a ruler gives a title to a noble, there is a chance for other nobles to lose loyalty. This chance increases if the receiver already has other titles. Playing favourites can really become dangerous to a ruler. Other actions, too, always incude a chance to raise or lower the loyalty of all nobles.
- commoners would come in two varieties. As levies, extremely cheap but unexperienced troops that continually lose morale (their commanders: loyalty) the longer they are kept in arms and not disbanded. Every province can only provide so many levies depending on its population. Having any standing levies during summer season, moreover, should substatially decrease provincial income, as those peasants would be needed during harvest. disbanding levies would create the other variety of commoners, mercenaries. Only a small percentage of disbanded levies, however, should become mercenaries, maybe 10 or 20 percent. They'd cost substantially more to upkeep and have generally very low loyalty, which rises when they do battle but sinks when they don't. They'd have higher valor, too, but if you disband them, there's a slight chance that they just stay and become a rebel army.
- mercenary armies can be rent out to fellow rulers
- levy or mercenary commanders can be raised to nobility by giving them a title. at this point, they automatically found their own dynasty. this option is VERY unpopular with your other nobles, though, so it should be used sparsely. Also, the rest of the troop becomes the new noble's retainers.
- the highest-ranking commander of a rebelling stack of armies of commoners always automatically becomes a noble and thus begets a new dynasty.
- if a noble dies or is killed, his retainers simply disperse. if a commoner levy or mercenary commander dies, he is simply replaced by another random commander.

Well, I hope this about makes sense. Faction, dynasty and family are all supposed to be the same thing. Looking over it again, I become aware that the suggested changes are likely too much for a mod - consider them as suggestions for an addon or even an entirely new game http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

BTW, I disagree with dclare4's view on the relative wealth of medieval European and oriental provinces. Europe, at that time, was rather poor and definitely under-developed. What kept the mulims from overrunning Europe was at first the Byzantine Empire which effectively stopped muslim expansion in that direction, later on, when Constantinople's power waned, their inner divisions (which pull their realm apart once it expands beyond its means to rule it) and the corruption that inevitably destroys despotic states from within as soon as their expansion stagnates. It should be noted, too, that during most of the medieval (until well into osmanic rule), most islamic rulers considered occidental Europe not a threat at all but its conquest not worth the effort. These factors, too, are not really represented in-game.

[GilJaysmith]

A general comment:

There are very few games as complex as some have suggested MTW should become, and those that do exist are rarely AAA titles with number-one potential - which is the market we're in. How many people play "Decisive Action", for example? Or, going a long way back, how many copies of "The Campaign For North Africa" did SPI actually sell?

Complexity is appealing to many people but a huge turnoff for far more. Introducing extra complexity into MTW could easily prove counterproductive, and to avoid that would be time-consuming. It's not impossible to present a wealth of information to even the average user in such a way that it becomes simple to manage and process... but it *is* very difficult and takes plenty of iterations and lots of resources. Contrariwise, we only had a year for the whole process, including testing, and we had a lot to do already.

We live and learn.

Gil ~ CA

[Moorkh]

Thanks for your reply, GilJay - for a while there I regretted spending all that time writing that stuff down if it turned out that noone actually reads it http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

You are absolutely correct. Complexity is really a turn-off for anybody who isn't into just that sort of game (whatever that sort of game may be) very much. However, complexity also adds some advantages like depth of gameplay and longetivity. So what you need to do to get the best of both worlds is the following:
- complexity leads to micromanagment. allow the player to leave that to the ai whenever he wants to - this is very well done in MTW. I myself, for example, can hardly ever be bored to fight out the actual battles. others leave the entire provincial development to the ai. Complexity should always be an option, something the player can use to gain a certain extra advantage, not something he's required to make use of with each and every action (except maybe if he chose 'expert' difficulty http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif ) if he is to have a chance at winning the game/battle.
To a new player, complexity should even be hidden - he can't see it, and as he doesn't need to use it, he doesn't miss it. It should then only become available and apparent once he is familiar with everything else and wants to get more out of the game.

BTW, many of my suggestions are probably not even making the game itslf more complex. Au contraire, they'd actually reduce the number of types of 'game pieces' (nobles (generals & retainers), levies (generals & troops), mercenaries (generals & troops). As every noble could double as an assassin, a cleric or an emissary, you'd actually simplify things somewhat.

Still, of course, MTW isn't primarily a simulation of feudal dynasties - that's just one of the game projects I've been thinking about for a long time now, and your game comes so astonishingly close to my vision, it's rather scary. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[GilJaysmith]

Quote Originally posted by Moorkh:
Thanks for your reply, GilJay - for a while there I regretted spending all that time writing that stuff down if it turned out that noone actually reads it ;)
[/QUOTE]

I read everything in MTW, Support, and Modding, but I don't always have something to add (and saying "Read and noted" in each thread would soon irritate everyone :)

Gil ~ CA

[DoJo MoJo I]

Quote Originally posted by GilJaysmith:
A general comment:

There are very few games as complex as some have suggested MTW should become, and those that do exist are rarely AAA titles with number-one potential - which is the market we're in. How many people play "Decisive Action", for example? Or, going a long way back, how many copies of "The Campaign For North Africa" did SPI actually sell?

Complexity is appealing to many people but a huge turnoff for far more. Introducing extra complexity into MTW could easily prove counterproductive, and to avoid that would be time-consuming. It's not impossible to present a wealth of information to even the average user in such a way that it becomes simple to manage and process... but it *is* very difficult and takes plenty of iterations and lots of resources. Contrariwise, we only had a year for the whole process, including testing, and we had a lot to do already.

We live and learn.

Gil ~ CA[/QUOTE]

Yes & No Gil

Interesting you mention Decisive Action, as a Scenario designer,and someone envolved in the Fan Support Site at:

http://www.wargame.ch/hps/da/

I agree,you are right, it`s a niche product, very complex, not easy to "get into" but quite worthwhile when one does.

The publishers, HPS, also provide the best, and most comprenhensive support around IMO. This translates into customer loyalty for future niche products with small sales http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

FWIW CFNA sold out, and those wise ( or lazy ) enough to keep a unpunched copy have a valuable collectors item now.....so put a few cases of sealed MTW games away for 20-30 years or so.

Stop by our Site Forums and say "hello" if you have time and interest, it`s very quite and peaceful, and likly to remain so http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Thanks

Rich L. DA and MTW Fan.



[This message has been edited by DoJo MoJo I (edited 09-11-2002).]