New MTW2 Q & A at Gamespot [Archive]

Dutch_guy

02-18-2006, 13:26

It does seem new, though the interview doesn't reveal to much new information, by glancing the article this is what caught my interest :

The campaign will feature summer and winter turns as in Rome, but we're trying to get away from the idea that a turn represents a specific amount of time, since it's impossible to reconcile the scale you need for army maneuvers with the scale you need to cover a decent slice of history. The history of the period will unfold in around 225 turns.

GS: Naval combat was abstracted very heavily in Medieval and Rome, to the point where the computer automatically generated battle results whenever hostile fleets clashed. Will we see that same level of abstraction in Medieval 2, or will naval combat be fleshed out a bit more?

BS: Creating full-scale 3D naval battles is a massive task; creating them to the standard we'd want to achieve for a Total War game is an even bigger one. Consequently, we decided not to embark on such a task this time around. Naval combat will be handled similarly to the system employed in Rome but polished and tweaked.

Plus, of course, there will be improved artificial intelligence on both the battlefield and the campaign map.

GS: Will the multiplayer gameplay in Medieval 2 still be restricted to being able to battle other players? We know that one of the impediments to creating a fully multiplayer campaign game is that, by Creative Assembly's calculations, it would take years to play an epic game from start to finish online.

BS: A full multiplayer campaign is certainly an idea we've discussed, but the time it would take to play out a full game to completion would seriously affect the number of players who could commit themselves to such a game mode. With this in mind, it makes far more sense for us to spend our time developing features that'll be enjoyed by a larger numbers of players. Having said that, we do have some exciting plans for multiplayer battles. We can talk about these in more detail in the months ahead.

Also, yes there are new screenies, interesting ones worth clicking the link.

:balloon2:

Puzz3D

02-18-2006, 13:51

"The history of the period will unfold in around 225 turns."

That means the campaign is about half the length of a campaign in RTW or MTW.

"Plus, of course, there will be improved artificial intelligence on both the battlefield and the campaign map."

Well I hope the AI stops making frontal assualts it can't win with weak units as it does in RTW. BTW, the AI didn't do that in STW.

Templar Knight

02-18-2006, 14:12

Arrrh, I doesn't look like we will get different starting dates, probably just the one campaign 1080-1530.

USMCNJ

02-18-2006, 14:18

aw89

02-18-2006, 14:40

I really hope they make that modable.(..)

Garvanko

02-18-2006, 14:59

Never played MTW. But this game looks interesting.

Brighdaasa

02-18-2006, 15:34

Servius

02-18-2006, 16:10

Once again, I gotta say I'm concerned about the developer's focus. The article is two (web)pages long. The average reponse was like 4-5 lines long. But when GS asked about the graphics though, the CA response took up like 2/3 of the 2nd page...

I think the emphasis in RTW was too much on graphics and too little on gameplay, and while I know it's still early, I see signs that that is continuing. I never minded the graphics of STW or MTW (though I thought the RTW battle maps were crappy and I wasn't that impressed with the 3D improvement over the 2D MTW units). What I did mind was the crappy AI, especially in RTW, and the amount of Sim City-like municipal micro-management that RTW required.

I'd really like to hear CA rave about how badass their AI is going to be this time around. I want them to promise the AI will never field an army without a general leading it again. Since they're using the RTW map, in which provincial borders basically mean nothing, I want them to promise that rebel bands won't wander aimlessly around the map. I want them to promise the AI will look after it's own economy wisely, so it doesn't bankrupt itself with a stack of Royal Knights like the Danes and Aragonese always seemed to in MTW.

I'm also a bit concerned about this castle-OR-city idea. It's completely innacurate from a historical perspective. I believe the gameplay choice they're trying to force (economy or military, but not both, at least not in the same "settlement", whatever that is) could be forced in another way. Time could be the limiting factor instead of the use of a settlement. Time was the limiting factor in STW, MTW, and RTW, in that you could only build one type of structure at a time, and all the time you spent building farm upgrades was time you didn't spend building military structures. I never saw a real problem with that way of forcing a balance between economics and military, so I'm not sure why we need this new system. I'm gonna be quite peeved if Constantinople can't be an economic AND military colossus. If it truely was both about a thousand years ago, it's kinda pathetic if we can't/won't recreate that in a game a thousand years later...

In general, I say graphics be damned. I have an imagination and I can compensate for less-than-stellar graphics, but I can't imagine my way past a crappy AI or dumb game mechanics.

JR-

02-18-2006, 18:46

i'm not keen on this 225 turns business.

if its 450 years i'd like 900 turns split between summer and winter.

Hurin_Rules

02-18-2006, 18:58

I agree completely with you Servius. They're focusing on their strengths and ignoring their weaknesses. The graphics for RTW were great, and were clearly not the main problem with the game. For me, the main weakness was gameplay, specifically a weak AI and battles that were too fast. This was why I played MTW for over a year, but RTW only off and on for about 4 months.

It seems that this article confirms that their priorities are directed not towards their base of loyal fans, but towards catching the eyes and pocketbooks of RTS and casual gamers. Disappointing. Well, thank God for modding.

Zenicetus

02-18-2006, 20:22

Arrrh, I doesn't look like we will get different starting dates, probably just the one campaign 1080-1530.

It would be nice to jump in at different dates, but I can understand why they'd have just the one campaign. Every new starting date would be another full round of balancing and playtesting for all the faction start positions, and CA doesn't have unlimited resources. I'd prefer they throw all their QA and balance testing into making sure the one long campaign is both realistic and fun to play, instead of having their efforts divided up into different historical periods.

Powermonger

02-18-2006, 22:18

Once again, I gotta say I'm concerned about the developer's focus. The article is two (web)pages long. The average reponse was like 4-5 lines long. But when GS asked about the graphics though, the CA response took up like 2/3 of the 2nd page...

I think the emphasis in RTW was too much on graphics and too little on gameplay, and while I know it's still early, I see signs that that is continuing. I never minded the graphics of STW or MTW (though I thought the RTW battle maps were crappy and I wasn't that impressed with the 3D improvement over the 2D MTW units). What I did mind was the crappy AI, especially in RTW, and the amount of Sim City-like municipal micro-management that RTW required.

Sadly the trend these days is for all developers to concentrate too much on the visuals and sacrifice the gameplay. I don't play as many games as I use to anymore, there just doesn't seem the same calibre of games to choose from. All this push to make everything 3D just doesn't make sense and seems to be in detriment to gameplay.

I was in EB the other day and was looking at all the titles and noticed Railroad Tycoon 3 sitting on the shelf. I picked it up and had a look and was severely dissappointed that the devs had gone full out 3D when the style of game doesn't even need it. The current situation in PC games reminds me of the early 90s when CDs were just starting to be used to distribute games and there was a big push by the developers to use as much FMV as possible. It was a bad time because there was crap title after crap title released until the devs finally came to their senses and realised that FMV would not make great games.

Anyway, MTW2 does look visually impressive but it all comes to naught if the rest of game falls far short. They need to make all the other aspects of the game just as polished if they don't want to release a dog.

Martok

02-18-2006, 22:49

Servius: I also wholeheartedly agree with everything you said; couldn't have put it better myself.

It would be nice to jump in at different dates, but I can understand why they'd have just the one campaign. Every new starting date would be another full round of balancing and playtesting for all the faction start positions, and CA doesn't have unlimited resources.

Except that CA did have the resources to do this with MTW, so why can't they do it with Medieval 2 as well? And only having one long campaign would be ludicrous. Shogun and MTW both have different start periods/eras, so there's no reason why Medieval 2 shouldn't also have them.

As for there bing only 225 turns for the whole campaign.... I honestly hope that's just a typo, because there's absolutely no way I'm going to buy a game where the campaign is that short. Yes, I can beat MTW in 200 turns if I wish; but it's not very fun for me, as I have to "rush" instead of "turtle" (which is my preferred style of playing). I have standard RTS's like Command & Conquer if I want to rush an enemy; I don't want to be forced into doing the same thing in an empire-building game like the TW series.

Alexander the Pretty Good

02-18-2006, 23:05

Psst! (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61416)

Maybe modding can add more start dates if CA doesn't want to!

Servius

02-19-2006, 00:03

Well, in the end, if CA goes in a bad direction, the only way to encourage them to do otherwise is to put our money where our mouths are and not buy the game. CA will do whatever is most cost-effective. Given the differences between MTW and RTW, it seems pretty clear they believed that it was more cost-effective to shirk on game design in favor of a snazy graphics engine.

How many of you bought the RTW expansion? If you did, you just encouraged them to do more of the same.

I bought RTW sight-unseen because I was so impressed with STW and MTW. I was so disappointed with RTW that I didn't buy the expansion right away. I waited and I read a lot of player reviews and played the demo. The demo had all the same crappy terrain and unit AI as RTW, the corporate hype focused mostly on graphics and not on gameplay/AI improvements, and I didn't read that many player posts talking about how much better the AI was, so I never bought the expansion. It looks like I'll have to do the same with MTW2.

econ21

02-19-2006, 00:44

...so I never bought the expansion. It looks like I'll have to do the same with MTW2.

Your loss. BI was the best expansion of the TW series so far.

And you are definitely losing out if you have not tried any of the major RTW mods like RTR or the EB beta. They make the game better than STW or MTW, IMO.

How many of you bought the RTW expansion? If you did, you just encouraged them to do more of the same.

Too right - there is no computer game out there that comes close to the Total War series as vivid historical wargames. Of course, I want to encourage them to do more of the same. The coming Alexander expansion, M2TW, the M2TW expansion, the third generation TW game - keep 'em coming CA. :2thumbsup:

Dead Moroz

02-19-2006, 02:00

BI was the best expansion of the TW series so far.
What grass are you smoking?

econ21

02-19-2006, 03:09

What grass are you smoking?

Well, your mileage may differ. But the scope of BI was far greater than either MI or VI. In MI, you had only two factions and a very simple (not to say hypothetical) strategic situation. In VI, you were stuck on a damp insignificant island with some squabbling primitive factions that lacked even decent cavalry. By contrast, with BI you got a full RTW sized map and a great choice of varied factions covering an earth shattering period of history. I personally think BI was almost a RTW2 rather than an expansion. Rome's fall has always captured my imagination more than the its republican period.

And the really nice thing about BI was - unlike the previous expansions - you were not forced to buy it if you wanted to patch the vanilla game.

Um, maybe this would be a good subject for a poll?

Zenicetus

02-19-2006, 03:52

How many of you bought the RTW expansion? If you did, you just encouraged them to do more of the same.

I bought RTW sight-unseen because I was so impressed with STW and MTW. I was so disappointed with RTW that I didn't buy the expansion right away. I waited and I read a lot of player reviews and played the demo. The demo had all the same crappy terrain and unit AI as RTW, the corporate hype focused mostly on graphics and not on gameplay/AI improvements, and I didn't read that many player posts talking about how much better the AI was, so I never bought the expansion. It looks like I'll have to do the same with MTW2.

I'm still having a lot of fun with BI. It's totally unlike RTW, where all factions start out weak and then expand, like most strategy games. The choices for starting factions in BI are incredibly varied... all the way from a fully-developed-but-falling-apart empire to hordes that are on the run, being pushed by other horde factions behind you. Or you can play something completely different like the Sassanids pushing in from the East, and see if you can establish your non-Christian, non-Pagan religion into Europe and the Med. The variety of ways to play on the strategic level is very interesting.

Yes, the tactical/battlemap level still needs some work. It's better than RTW (fewer suicide generals and overall buginess), but CA still needs to figure out how to make an army act more like a cohesive whole, as if it's being directed by a general.... or at least following training and orders.... instead of each individual unit thinking and acting for itself. That's still my main complaint about the AI, and it's only a *little* better than vanilla RTW in that respect. However, I don't know of anything else out there that hits this balance of historical semi-accuracy, "what if" historical scenarios, and pure fun.

screwtype

02-19-2006, 10:19

As for there bing only 225 turns for the whole campaign.... I honestly hope that's just a typo, because there's absolutely no way I'm going to buy a game where the campaign is that short.

Well, I don't know, to tell the truth, of the few RTW campaigns I played before I gave the game up as a pushover, I didn't play one that was more than 50 turns long because by that stage I was always so far ahead of the other powers it didn't matter. In fact, I usually became the biggest faction by about turn 20-24 as I recall.

So if they make the AI four times better, I guess it will take me four times as long or about 200 turns to get that same decisive break where I know there's no point continuing ~:)

screwtype

02-19-2006, 10:26

How many of you bought the RTW expansion? If you did, you just encouraged them to do more of the same.

I didn't buy it. Nothing anybody said about the expansion persuaded me it was substantially better than RTW.

Although now I think about it, the price may have come down to a more acceptable level by now...

I don't think I'll be buying M2TW sight unseen either. I'll probably wait until I hear how the grognard community receives it. I just recently threw away $100 on a speculative purchase of Civ4 that I regard as a waste of money, and I have no desire to repeat the experience any time soon.

Samurai Waki

02-19-2006, 11:36

has it ever occured to any of these game developers that nerds make better games than businessmen? Its like they're trying to be used car salesmen or something, this baby looks cool on the outside, but personally I'm more concerned about whats under the hood.

Such as a smarter dynamic AI, moddability, and User Interface. Not OUR UNITS NOW LOOK COOL BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT SHIELDS, FACES, AND LIMBS! BUY THIS GAME, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE THE BEST TACTICAL SIMULATOR EVER MADE!!!!

I think some of CAs marketers need to go back to college, if they ever did.

Dead Moroz

02-19-2006, 14:49

Well, your mileage may differ. But the scope of BI was far greater than either MI or VI. In MI, you had only two factions and a very simple (not to say hypothetical) strategic situation. In VI, you were stuck on a damp insignificant island with some squabbling primitive factions that lacked even decent cavalry. By contrast, with BI you got a full RTW sized map and a great choice of varied factions covering an earth shattering period of history. I personally think BI was almost a RTW2 rather than an expansion. Rome's fall has always captured my imagination more than the its republican period.

And the really nice thing about BI was - unlike the previous expansions - you were not forced to buy it if you wanted to patch the vanilla game.

Um, maybe this would be a good subject for a poll?
The real advantage of BI over RTW was in 2-3 new features. The rest was the same. The same bugs plus new ones. The same stupid AI. The same weird fantasy units fiesta. The same poor GUI graphics. The even more acid colors of units then in RTW.

BI was so poor made that I even suspect it was made not by CA itself, but by temporary hired unknown studio or just amateurs. It is level of standard fan modification, not the level of professional product. I was going to mod the map and just after quick look at it I noticed so many bugs. We all saw holes and dislodged textures in models of units. Did you see Berber units? Even my grandma could make better models and textures! And many many other things too. Who the hell did test the game before release? ...if it ever was tested. It was made anyhow, in a slipshod way, just to make more money out of nothing.

RTW itself was quite disappointing product. Though it had some really great and innovation features, the other things was disappointed. It inherit all weak aspects of previous TW games (ancestral damnation?), but some aspects became even worse. And this tendency was continued in BI. It was so disappointing and wretched that I played it just for few days. After this fault of CA I'm not going to buy MTW2 right after release, but will wait for community impressions. Moreover I'm not going to buy Alexander expansion at all, 'coz I'm sure there will be nothing really interesting in it. To say more, after reading recent articles about MTW2 I have big suspicion that this game will be just development of game graphics, not the real improvement of gameplay and quality of product.

Servius

02-19-2006, 16:50

I never bought STW: Mongol Invasion (because I didn't know about it at the time). I did buy MTW: Viking Invasion, and personally I thought it was a neat little addition to MTW. Basically the same mechanics, UI, AI, etc., but it was a neat perspective and told the background story of my favorite MTW faction (England). VI also added the cool feature of being able to see which units you and your opponent were taking into battle and which you'd leave for reinforcements. That was a neat thing to add.

The GS article isn't important enough to get in a tissy about though. The game is far away, and who knows, it could be bad or it could be great. I remember hearing that RTW was made by a different CA group than the one that made MTW, which helped me understand how it could be so different. Well, it seems that MTW2 is being made mostly by Aussies, who didn't make RTW, so again, we're rolling the dice, who knows what it will be like. I just wish the corporate reps. were touting all the time they're pouring into making the AI and UI badass, rather than how pretty the units look.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm of an age when I can tell a bimbo from a real woman. Bimbos are very pretty, but nothing upstairs, good for a hook-up, but not a long-term relationship. If MTW2 turns out to be a bimbo, I'll spend the price of a few drinks on it, but not the price of a dinner and a movie...

screwtype

02-19-2006, 18:41

BTW There are a few things I like the sound of in M2. Okay, the enhanced unit graphics we know about and that's good, but it sounds as though they've put a lot more effort into the appearance and battlefield functionality of the cities too, and the lack of interactivity in the cities was a big turn-off for me. For example, the way you could only mount one attack per wall section, or the silly cartoonish way the sappers would work, or the busted pathfinding, or the inability to maneouvre on anything but the roads.

Some of this has obviously been changed in M2, for example in this article it mentions that you can attack any part of a city wall now, and buildings as well. So it sounds a lot more interactive, which is a definite plus.

And they have said they're working hard to improve both the campaign and battlefield AI. Whether they're working hard enough - obviously I'm sceptical about that as are a lot of folks, but it's good to know they are at least aware of the dissatisfaction and trying to address the problem.

The way I figure it, most of the really hard yards were done in the four years it took to develop RTW. Hopefully now they have begun the work of polishing up the product to bring it to the standard of challenge of the earlier games. But certainly, I have few complaints over what I've been hearing from CA about this game so far.

Martok

02-19-2006, 19:02

I don't know about you guys, but I'm of an age when I can tell a bimbo from a real woman. Bimbos are very pretty, but nothing upstairs, good for a hook-up, but not a long-term relationship. If MTW2 turns out to be a bimbo, I'll spend the price of a few drinks on it, but not the price of a dinner and a movie...

LOL. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

That's funny, because I've told all my friends how Rome is the "dumb blonde" of the Total War games: pretty to look at, but that's about it. :wall: I'm starting to worry a little that the TW series is in danger of being turned into more of a "beer-and-pretzels" franchise, and away from the deep strategy "five-course dinner" that it was originally known for.

(Dang it, now I've gone and made myself hungry! ~:rolleyes: )

Samurai Waki

02-19-2006, 20:53

lancelot

02-19-2006, 22:43

BS: Creating full-scale 3D naval battles is a massive task; creating them to the standard we'd want to achieve for a Total War game is an even bigger one. Consequently, we decided not to embark on such a task this time around. Naval combat will be handled similarly to the system employed in Rome but polished and tweaked.

Been saying that for eight years now....change the record?

Plus, of course, there will be improved artificial intelligence on both the battlefield and the campaign map.

Like Rome had 'improved AI'... ~:rolleyes:

Seems like there is a lot of cynicism regarding MTW2...Im gonna buy it anyway but as many have already hinted at...people are getting tired of 'the talk' from CA and as the comments above show...we have heard these statements before.

Cmon, CA...get back to your ground-breaking roots ala STW & MTW!

LordKhaine

02-20-2006, 00:33

It really has become quite a chore to read the totalwar.org forums. Just people repeating the same things over and over. MTW was great, RTW sucked. CA are messing up MTW2. Putting Aztecs into the game is a bad decision! not enough mention of improved AI! etc etc etc..

Would it be too hard to wait a little before judging MTW2? Its release date is a long way away, and no-one here knows remotely enough about it to judge it. I for one like to see more than a few gamespot articles before I make up my mind.

And I thought *I* was cynical :dizzy2:

econ21

02-20-2006, 00:45

I've got to admit, I have some sympathy with LordKhaine. This thread risks spiralling into anti-RTW and anti-CA negativity. Please keep it constructive and try not to damn a game that has not even been released yet ~:grouphug: .

TB666

02-20-2006, 02:35

I agree with LordKhaine.
We have too little info on MTW2 to start bashing it already.
People complain about that they don't talk about the AI so they talk about it in interviews and on the .com they have said that they are working hard on the AI and people still complain.
CA can't do anymore then that so be happy.
RTW was a great game and I have no doubt that MTW2 will be great as well.
And I'm happy that they are trying new stuff like the Aztecs and Turn system.

Samurai Waki

02-20-2006, 07:32

I just want this game to be awesome, and perhaps my premonitions and anxiety are getting the better of me. Don't judge a book before it has been written I suppose.

Incongruous

02-20-2006, 09:05

Meh RTW WAS! A DIY project, nuff said.
MTW, had its faults but had enough give to make them hardly noticable at times. RTW had a massive trapdoar in the middle which gave in every time you walked over it.

I suppose people are just upset that CA are going down the track that leads to such abominations as AOE:embarassed:

player1

02-20-2006, 09:58

I don't think anyone saw this coming.

1530 - 1080 = 550
550/225 = 2

so each turn will be 2 years.
And they will capture summer and winter. how will they do that?
random turn length? anywhere from 1 to 3 years

I guess you have summer 1530, winter 1532, sumer 1534, etc...

The point is to have different seasons in the game, but also not to bog down game with too many turns like in RTW, when pretty much all game finish in 100 to 150 turns.

It would just suck to plan game for 900 turns, and never pass 1200AD, because you already conquered the world. It would make pointless most of addons in the game, like gunpowder or america discovery.

P.S.
I pretty much wanted to make mod like this for RTW, so that acutually there is a pressure to get to August empire before his at time. Or to make it gameplay balanced to have Marian refors around 110BC.

screwtype

02-20-2006, 11:38

I guess you have summer 1530, winter 1532, sumer 1534, etc...

When I think about it, was there actually any point to the changing seasons in RTW in terms of gameplay? I don't remember one, at least none that had any kind of real impact on play. I think one or two units got a bonus in snow. And fatigue was supposed to be higher, but fatigue had so little impact it may as well not have been included at all.

Seems to me it was mainly included for a bit of graphic variety. But the seasons ought to have an impact on gameplay, not just be there for show.

And BTW if it's going to be "summer 1530, winter 1532" I can't see why it couldn't be "spring 1530, summer 1532, autumn 1534, winter 1536" and so on...

Dutch_guy

02-20-2006, 13:02

You know I really was hoping for the return to the one year a turn idea.

I liked how that made it possible to play ( talking about Medieval here ) from early to late and enjoy every bit of it.
The season system in Medieval wasn't a s good as Rome's - with a clear turn based season variation - but it still had it.

As others have said in this thread, in Rome it was labouring to play more than ...say 200 turns. Normally you'd have won the game by then.
That really was a shame considering you had about the same amount of turns left to play.

I therefor hope they make each and every turn , all 225 of them, worth playing.
I hope they manage to find the balance between dragging the game on to far and finishing it to fast, the middle way would obviously be best.

Seems to me it was mainly included for a bit of graphic variety. But the seasons ought to have an impact on gameplay, not just be there for show.

Yes, would be great if they'd be able to make the weather and the seasons count.

In Medieval the weather played some role of importance - archers were less effective in the rain, camels got a bonus in desert - sand - storms and so on, still however it wasn't enough.
In Rome I missed the importance of the weather it played no role at all, archer armies could still decimate barbarians in the rain, even fire fire-arrows in the rain, certainly that would have been hard to say the least.

It would be a very good thing if in the next total war game CA would be able to make weather more important than it was in Rome, and even in MEdieval, because I think CA have - for lack of a better word - the power to do so.

:balloon2:

econ21

02-20-2006, 13:28

When I think about it, was there actually any point to the changing seasons in RTW in terms of gameplay? I don't remember one, at least none that had any kind of real impact on play. I think one or two units got a bonus in snow. And fatigue was supposed to be higher, but fatigue had so little impact it may as well not have been included at all.

I see your point, but I did notice movement on the campaign map was more limited in snow. That could have a real effect when you were stretched - e.g. trying to respond to multiple threats[1].

BTW: I think fatigue may have had big impacts in RTW battles. I suspect that is one reason battles with the AI often seemed unchallenging - they were tired or exhausted by the time they reached your lines. As a result, they routed easily.

[1]Edit: after posting this, I started to doubt myself. I may be rather confused with the EB mod, where the seasons have a major effect on campaign mobility and you are encouraged to hunker down for the winter (through traits and other scripting).

player1

02-20-2006, 14:35

And BTW if it's going to be "summer 1530, winter 1532" I can't see why it couldn't be "spring 1530, summer 1532, autumn 1534, winter 1536" and so on...

More production time?
Maybe for MTW3?

BelgradeWar

02-20-2006, 15:41

Maybe the game will have it's flaws, but I fell in love with graphics instantly...

Voigtkampf

02-20-2006, 15:46

First of all, I would like to ask all the participants of the MTW2 threads to restrain from mindlessly bashing CA or Rome or the oncoming MTW2.

That said, I speak in whole honesty, while I will not tolerate any rude approach to those mentioned above, I will by no means support the policy of mindless worship either.

I have loved Shogun and I have adored Medieval. Rome? I thought it would be on top of them all, and it was...but only graphic-wise. Gameplay went to hell, IMDHO of course, in comparison to MTW or STW.

Now, I remember the time preceding Rome and our lively debates here at the Org; I have gone estranged with one of my best virtual friends here at the Org when he became more and more aggressive towards CA and Rome for reasons of, some of you might remember, historical accuracy of the game. One part of the Org, including myself, was prepared to put gameplay ahead of historic accuracy; the other part was not willing to recognize any quality in Rome whatsoever until the game was completely accurate in terms of historic facts regarding nearly everything. Things got quite serious for a while, but at the end we were equally disappointed, since Rome was neither equal in gameplay to Medieval nor was it as historically accurate as the people now behind EB project wanted it to be…

The point is, I have defended Rome, and gave it the benefit of the doubt for a long time. I will not extend the same courtesy to MTW2. I have written a large announcement about it in the computer magazine I write for, not saying one bad word about it. My expectations are, however, far from positive. Why? Well, you know the old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me? Exactly.

Nice graphics sell. As a person who runs a construction company, I go for all the projects that bring money, if I want to express myself I write or engage in various hobbies in my spare time. It is unlikely to expect that the major efforts of the CA staff will be invested into an area that will impress a rather small amount of the buyers instead being directed into neat graphics engine and other “ahhh” issues that sell good.

First of all, the epic battles of Medieval will not reappear, since we will have the real-time map of Rome instead of province map of Medieval. That will bind to it a large number of features that were inherent in Rome, and not in Medieval (hence, once again, a legitimate inquiry whether this is Medieval 2 or, actually, Rome 2), altering the gameplay to the worse TW experience possible instead of pointing it to MTW. We might easily have dozens of rebel hunting battles instead of those epic encounters with thousands of soldiers with several forces converging at one point in a province. MTW is unrealistic? Yes. More fun? Yes, yes, yes!

The programmers obviously once again concentrate on graphics; thousands of unique looking soldiers, attack and defense moves… Oh, yes, and AI will be improved. No, again no naval combat (too hard to make), but as someone pointed out, this argument loses at its credibility after hearing it for…what, eight years straight now? Instead, naval battles will be “tweaked”… Oh, dear…

So, all in all, I have a bad feeling about this, and it is legitimate to speak out that way. It is true, you cannot judge the book before its been written completely, but knowing the writer, his previous work and what the latest book is about, I’d say you have a fairly good chance of hitting the spot damn close.

Martok

02-20-2006, 17:11

You're eloquent as usual, Voigtkampf. I can't really find a single thing I disagree with there.

I want Medieval 2 to be a good game; I want it to kick *** and blow me away. But given the direction the TW series has taken with Rome (and so far what we've seen of Medieval 2 has done little to alleviate my fears), I find it difficult to be optimistic. To quote my esteemed colleague here:

fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me

Couldn't have said it better.

screwtype

02-20-2006, 17:43

Yes, would be great if they'd be able to make the weather and the seasons count.

In Medieval the weather played some role of importance - archers were less effective in the rain, camels got a bonus in desert - sand - storms and so on, still however it wasn't enough.

Weather effects were there in MTW certainly but in STW they were really important. A wet battle day could really ruin your strategy. And boy, when it rained, it really rained! Those thunderstorms were just fabulous.

Fog also played an important part in STW, which made it easy to get ambushed, and snow exhausted your troops much more quickly.

All that was pretty much missing from RTW which was rather disappointing. I think I've read somewhere that weather will play a more important role in M2, I hope so because it added a lot of flavour to STW and it could do the same for M2.

Dutch_guy

02-20-2006, 17:56

Weather effects were there in MTW certainly but in STW they were really important. A wet battle day could really ruin your strategy. And boy, when it rained, it really rained! Those thunderstorms were just fabulous.

Fog also played an important part in STW, which made it easy to get ambushed, and snow exhausted your troops much more quickly.

All that was pretty much missing from RTW which was rather disappointing. I think I've read somewhere that weather will play a more important role in M2, I hope so because it added a lot of flavour to STW and it could do the same for M2.

I've never played Shogun, though I have heard of it's excellent weather features.

I agree Screwtype I hope it plays a more important role in M2TW too.

:balloon2:

ivoignob

02-20-2006, 18:00

It was a bad time because there was crap title after crap title released until the devs finally came to their senses and realised that FMV would not make great games.

Please excuse me. What is FMV?

screwtype

02-20-2006, 18:46

Full motion video.

BelgradeWar

02-20-2006, 18:46

Please excuse me. What is FMV?

Full Motion Video.

Dead Moroz

02-21-2006, 01:13

Voigtkampf, your post is almost exactly my thoughts. That's what I would like to say but could not because of lack of eloquence and bad knowledge of English.

But one thing I disagree.

Nice graphics sell. As a person who runs a construction company, I go for all the projects that bring money, if I want to express myself I write or engage in various hobbies in my spare time. It is unlikely to expect that the major efforts of the CA staff will be invested into an area that will impress a rather small amount of the buyers instead being directed into neat graphics engine and other “ahhh” issues that sell good.

I'm designer and know that nice cover is at least 50% of product's selling. But I'm sure that buttress on cool cover only is wrong marketing policy for company which wants to stay on top of certain business for long time. You can make money quickly by making vivid but empty products. But it's just a matter of time when your products become needless for everyone and you'll be kicked out of business by more diligent competitors. I'm sure that even in our era of primitive click-fast games such "more successful" competitors will appear soon or later. There are some of them even now, unfortunately they are not good enough yet. But it's just a matter of time. Quality is always quality and people will choose better product among similar vivid looking goods. So the question is just how long CA plans to sell their TW series.

Crazed Rabbit

02-21-2006, 01:48

I think good 3D campaign map AI can be done. Heck, it was done in Lord of the Realm II in 1997. The AI in that was driven and aggressive. It's armies always had a purpose.

What I think CA needs to move too is a real time campaign map, ala HoI w/o provinces or Knights of Honor. Have the AI concentrate solely on sitting in cities defending or attacking, not wondering stupidly like in Rome.

I am apprehensive about this. The same campaign map as Rome, the forced abstraction between cities and castles (Constantinople does not exist!), the great emphasis on graphics and the lack of any new content (ship battles are too hard!), all make me anxious.

I want gameplay dangit, I want great AI that will be relentless and cunning, I want an interactive campaign map where I can burn the farms of my enemies in raids (something the LOTR II AI would do to you, too), I want to place new cities and design castles, and have months long sieges with constant trebuchet firing, and good diplomacy. I don't want a prettier version of Rome. I want a better version of MTW.

Crazed Rabbit

screwtype

02-21-2006, 08:06

I think good 3D campaign map AI can be done. Heck, it was done in Lord of the Realm II in 1997. The AI in that was driven and aggressive. It's armies always had a purpose.

Yup. No sending you little dribs and drabs of enemy units in *that* game.

What I think CA needs to move too is a real time campaign map, ala HoI w/o provinces or Knights of Honor.

I am completely opposed to a real time campaign map.

Have the AI concentrate solely on sitting in cities defending or attacking, not wondering stupidly like in Rome.

Yes, that alone would make make the AI a lot more formidable.

I am apprehensive about this. The same campaign map as Rome, the forced abstraction between cities and castles (Constantinople does not exist!), the great emphasis on graphics and the lack of any new content (ship battles are too hard!), all make me anxious.

I like the sound of improved graphics and animation, but am not too happy to hear about "finishing moves". I like the fact they have said they are working on improving both the campaign and battle AI. I don't care about ship battles.

What does bother me a bit is the division of provinces up into "military" and "commercial" or whatever they are calling it. It sounds a bit cheesy to me, which suggests that the economic model is once again going to be silly and shallow.

Ultimately though it's how well the concept works and how well the game plays that matters. My guess is that you will only be able to build military units in castles now, which should make the game at least a little bit tougher. But I agree, I don't like the concept much.

I want gameplay dangit, I want great AI that will be relentless and cunning, I want an interactive campaign map where I can burn the farms of my enemies in raids (something the LOTR II AI would do to you, too), I want to place new cities and design castles, and have months long sieges with constant trebuchet firing, and good diplomacy. I don't want a prettier version of Rome. I want a better version of MTW.

Crazed Rabbit

Well said. It's interesting that so many of us here seem to have similar ideas about what we want to see in the game. I sure hope CA are paying attention. But perhaps we will have to wait for a future instalment of the series for that really in-depth economic model that many of us want to see.

Powermonger

02-21-2006, 08:32

I am completely opposed to a real time campaign map.

I would not be for any realtime campaign map either. What I enjoy about the MTW 2D turnbased map is that it is has just as much features to keep it entertaining without it becoming overwhelming or overly complex. Sure there are things that could be done to make management of agents or armies more efficient but mostly it is pretty good.

I don't agree with making the campaign map more complex or the inclusion of more features requiring greater levels of micro-management, I think any features that require more complexity should be kept to the tactical battles and leave the campaign strategic section alone. We already spend alot of time at the campaign screen, making it even more complex to move armies around or just controlling your empire just introduces more frustration.

That is why I am partial to the provinces and the 2D map, it was just an approximation of my empire and made getting to battles that much easier. I didn't have to worry about my stacks chasing enemy stacks all over the place or having them placed precisely on a particular geographic feature. Actually, at one time I thought that where you placed your attack stack dictated the type of terrain you would fight on, I spent a lot of time fretting over where all my armies were situated in their respective provinces.

What I am getting at I guess is that I felt in MTW that the strategic and tactical sides of the game were balanced against each other, with the former being fairly streamlined so to make getting to the real fun of the latter much simpler.

Voigtkampf

02-21-2006, 08:58

Thank you for your kind comments, Martok and Dead Moroz. :bow:

But one thing I disagree.

I'm designer and know that nice cover is at least 50% of product's selling. But I'm sure that buttress on cool cover only is wrong marketing policy for company which wants to stay on top of certain business for long time. You can make money quickly by making vivid but empty products. But it's just a matter of time when your products become needless for everyone and you'll be kicked out of business by more diligent competitors. I'm sure that even in our era of primitive click-fast games such "more successful" competitors will appear soon or later. There are some of them even now, unfortunately they are not good enough yet. But it's just a matter of time. Quality is always quality and people will choose better product among similar vivid looking goods. So the question is just how long CA plans to sell their TW series.

Peculiarly, I do agree with you, Dead Moroz, on this comment. You will find that we do not disagree at all.

Without going into too much debate on the percentages, I do not refer to merely the cover of the game (as I suppose you are well aware of), but to the general appearance of the game in comparison to the less flashy component; gameplay. Strengths of Rome are perceived to be within the graphics engine, which is true. It is sad to see that the developers are focusing their attention on these aspects instead of concentrating to bring back the spirit of the TW series into MTW2; a conclusion which can safely be drawn from the comments made in various interviews, where the emphasis is clearly, once again, on graphics instead of gameplay.

Now, even if the respective developers in Australia are indeed focusing on the gameplay instead of the graphics and huge battles, their interviews leave the impression that this issue is merely of secondary importance. Hence, the following conclusion is logically inevitable; they are either indeed focused on graphics, because they are under impression that this is the way to sell big numbers of copies, or they have focused their attention to regain the favor of community by offering improved gameplay and revitalized TW experience, but still put the emphasis on the nice graphics because they feel, once again, that this is their winning card.

You can make money quickly by making vivid but empty products.

Indeed, you have found a perfect description for Rome:TW.

I'm sure that even in our era of primitive click-fast games such "more successful" competitors will appear soon or later.

Actually, would you not agree that with this comment you admit that shallow, yet pretty games go better on the current market than those with deep, immersive gameplay? And that because of the market itself, where the major buying population are kids in their teens that indeed care far more for graphics then for the intellectual depth of the game, the mainstream of developers adapts to circumstances and where the games like AoE will never die out. Not that I dislike AoE, on the contrary, but TW and the rest of strategy games nowadays are like chess and checkers to me.

But it's just a matter of time when your products become needless for everyone and you'll be kicked out of business by more diligent competitors. ( ... )There are some of them even now, unfortunately they are not good enough yet. But it's just a matter of time. Quality is always quality and people will choose better product among similar vivid looking goods. So the question is just how long CA plans to sell their TW series

I have revealed my stance and honest opinion (and, frankly, it tears my heart that it is so) that the Rome is the worst sequel of the series. The quality has diminished significantly in comparison to Shogun and Medieval, yet the form itself, graphics and the engine, have improved. But I do not prefer form over substance. I remember that the some of the prettiest girls I dated were both uninteresting, shallow and, perhaps the most important thing, lousy lovers; my most interesting girls were, peculiarly, ordinary looking girls that nobody would turn around for, but they were funny and intelligent and most passionate when I’d take them into my hands. That is also the difference between Rome on one side and Medieval and Shogun on the other.

I have reviewed Rome when it came out, as well as I have reviewed BI; I have complained about the dropping qualities of the game and my editor thought he caught me in an inconsistence, an obvious self-contradictory statement.

“Hold on a sec”, he said leaning over his glass of beer, crossing the hands on the bar table and smirking viciously. “You gave that game 95% review, my friend, and here you come and complain on how bad it is. Guess you have messed it up there, am I right?”

“Au contraire, my dear Watson, not in the least. On its worse morning, with a hell of a hangover, halfblind and with one hand bound behind its back, a TW title will kick ass from any other strategy game, Civ series included! Cheers!”

I’ve said it then and still think its so; TW has no serious competitor, only few clones, and even as bad as Rome is, there is still no game with greater tactical and strategy finesse on the current market that can compare to it. Not by far.

But we spoiled TW community fans have not come to measure the quality of a TW game by other strategy games, but to those of TW itself; once also a league for itself. May it be so again. :knight:

Ignoramus

02-21-2006, 11:03

Truly the TW series has has dropped in quality, and all I can hope is that they stop the rot for M:TW2.:help:

I have not played Shogun, but Medieval: Total War was an eyeopener to me. The graphics weren't the best, and the immovable artillery did annoy me, but all in all, it was a great game. The strategic elements of the battles and the campaign was an exciting game experience that had me hooked for ages.

However, when Rome came along, it was a different story altogether. At first, I enjoyed the improved graphics and the new campaign features. But after a while, all the shiny stuff washed off. The campaign became plain and boring, frequently becoming one-sided. The battle AI was appalling. Not only did the AI generals, who according to the latest rules in warfare, charge headlong in enemy phalanxes as a simple way of committing suicide, they also had a soft spot for recruiting rubbish, such as peasants and militia, instead of heavy reliable troops. Now as for diplomacy...

Rome was a major disappointment because it could have been so much better. If CA had not rushed to get the game in time for Christmas, many people wouldn't be wondering why their Christmas present wasn't what it was cracked up to be.

Barbarian Invasion was pretty awful. It was enticing for a bit, however, I found that it felt like I was playing an arcade game, instead of a reasonably historically accurate strategy game.

That's my two cents.

screwtype

02-21-2006, 12:36

I don't agree with making the campaign map more complex or the inclusion of more features requiring greater levels of micro-management, I think any features that require more complexity should be kept to the tactical battles and leave the campaign strategic section alone. We already spend alot of time at the campaign screen, making it even more complex to move armies around or just controlling your empire just introduces more frustration.

I don't think the amount of time one spends tweaking the economy in RTW is due to too much complexity. The problem is the badly designed interface.

In my opinion, you could add quite a bit of complexity to the campaign without adding to the micromanagement at all. In fact I think it would be possible to add more complexity to the map and actually cut down on micromanagement at the same time. It's all in the implementation.

Just one approach by way of example: take a game like Imperialism II. It has a far more complex economy than RTW but it's way, way easier to manage. Why? Because instead of having separate production for each and every province, all the production for your entire economy is pooled together so you only have five screens to manage everything, instead of 30 or 40 or 50 screens for each separate province as in RTW.

That's just one way of doing it - there are many others, limited only by one's imagination. The RTW interface is just plain clumsy, and that's what causes the frustrating amount of micromanagement.

That is why I am partial to the provinces and the 2D map, it was just an approximation of my empire and made getting to battles that much easier. I didn't have to worry about my stacks chasing enemy stacks all over the place or having them placed precisely on a particular geographic feature. Actually, at one time I thought that where you placed your attack stack dictated the type of terrain you would fight on, I spent a lot of time fretting over where all my armies were situated in their respective provinces.

Yes, this is a valid point and I felt much the same way at times.

However, I still think the more detailed map has more potential than the risk-style map, it just needs to be better realized. One major improvement would be to the campaign AI, obviously. But there are plenty of other things that could be done to make it a more immersive experience.

What I am getting at I guess is that I felt in MTW that the strategic and tactical sides of the game were balanced against each other, with the former being fairly streamlined so to make getting to the real fun of the latter much simpler.

I disagree with that. I've always thought the campaign side of the TW series was too simplistic. And as I said, with a bit of thought it should be quite possible to create an economic model that is both more complex, more realistic, more immersive and more fun as well as having less micromanagement - or at least, with micromanagement features that are actually immersive and interesting rather than a chore.

But apart from that, as I've said elsewhere, I also think CA should provide an adequate automanage option so that those who don't want to tinker with the economy don't have to.

doc_bean

02-21-2006, 17:54

I’ve said it then and still think its so; TW has no serious competitor, only few clones, and even as bad as Rome is, there is still no game with greater tactical and strategy finesse on the current market that can compare to it. Not by far.

And that's why I, and probably most people on this forum will buy the game anyway, even if it is more like Rome than MTW.

I do wonder what all the publishers are wasting their money on these days though. I'm sure a well done 'similar' game could do quite well.

spanakoryzo

02-21-2006, 18:26

Though I'm new to posting I'd like to point out the game immersion factor. One of the things I truly loved in STW (no, not its historical "accuracy") was the fact that it really felt like feudal Japan. I believe that many other seasoned SP players will agree on this. When MTW came out things had already changed. I enjoyed playing the muslim factions far better than the catholic ones. The reason? They possesed a far more immersing "environment" than the rest of the factions. Unfortunately, that didn't work for e.g. the English or the Spanish. In RTW there wasn't even that "muslim" involving factor. It was a serious drawback - for me at least. I will of course buy MTW2, I just can't help myself. But I really am not optimistic about the whole game feeling issue. All the latest steps are in the wrong direction. We'll just have to wait and see.

Servius

02-21-2006, 18:29

screwtype

02-21-2006, 21:12

Though I'm new to posting I'd like to point out the game immersion factor. One of the things I truly loved in STW (no, not its historical "accuracy") was the fact that it really felt like feudal Japan.

Yes, STW had great atmospherics. I remember when I first picked up the game on someone's recommendation, I was thinking "feudal Japan - what a boring subject for a game!" But the minute I started playing, right from those first simple little snatches of traditional Japanese music in the opening screens, I was hooked.

Strange how they've never been able to recapture a similar degree of atmosphere in any of the subsequent games.

econ21

02-22-2006, 00:40

Strange how they've never been able to recapture a similar degree of atmosphere in any of the subsequent games.

Well, part of what is strange is how they pulled it off with STW. I think it was partly the excellent voice work, partly the ninja videos/throne room and partly the music.

In MTW, we lost most of that chrome - although as one poster said, the Islamic music was rather immersive. (There may be a degree of Western bias here - we find Japanese/Islamic stuff exotic and more intriguing than more familiar cultural references). I don't really fault MTW for it, though, because the substance was so greatly increased over STW, a loss of style was an acceptable cost. (It was interesting the way MTW units still shouted "Hi!" in the manner of STW when you separated them from a stack on the strategic map - CA really did not spend a lot of time on the chrome.)

In RTW, I never really felt that much like a Roman. A few cutscenes, better voice acting or something might have gone a long way. I suspect part of the problem was that the "chrome" was applied to the two advisors. But while they may have helped the newbies, they did not really help you get into character (they were explaining basic game mechanics afterall). If the advisors had been more in character - e.g. warning you when a diplomat approached that his people were enemies of the senate etc - they could have been fun. I really liked the squabbling advisors in Civ2 (Economic advisor: "Let us build market places, so the peasants can trade in needed goods" Military advisor "No! Build city walls, Sire, NOW!").

Dead Moroz

02-22-2006, 01:25

"Au contraire, my dear Watson, not in the least. On its worse morning, with a hell of a hangover, halfblind and with one hand bound behind its back, a TW title will kick ass from any other strategy game, Civ series included! Cheers!”

I’ve said it then and still think its so; TW has no serious competitor, only few clones, and even as bad as Rome is, there is still no game with greater tactical and strategy finesse on the current market that can compare to it. Not by far.

Once again my thoughts exactly.

Unfortunately TW series is still the best simulator of non-modern warfare. Indeed this monopoly allows CA to reduce quality of product. The cause is this monopoly, not "the common dispositions of the masses". It just reflects the global situation on games market. I think that primitive games fashion was created artificially. It's much more easy and profitable to quickly make dozen of simple games under brilliant cover and exalted advertising and sell them for $40/each than to prepare one good game for long time and get only single payment of $40 for it. Imho the problem is not in masses of stupid teens who dictates their desires to developers, but in game publishers who intentionally fills market with tons of similar primitive games and cultivates understated standards. Almost all really good games that I saw were made by studios which nobody new before. They made their good games to break into this business. But when these studios became leaders in their genres they didn't produce anything new and just exploited their primary ideas. Unfortunately today it's almost (or without "almost") impossible to be new studio and to have enough money for making good game. So without competitors monopolists in certain genres can produce the same old bullshit as long as people buy it. I hope that adaptation of recent TW games to standards of modern mass games will make this genre more popular and it will help some new studio to find enough money to make good TW game which will become another leader in the genre or at least will force CA to really improve their products.

Voigtkampf

02-22-2006, 13:07

Personally, were I a game reviewer, I would not rate a game based on how it compares to current competitors. I would try to take into account all the games I've ever played, and how awesome they were relative to the levels of technology at the time, and use that as my measuring stick. I think you should measure a game by how close it came to its potential.

It is not as simple as you've implied. If I have three horrible games and one mediocre game, I do not give it automatically highest possible grades only because the alternatives suck big time. Comparing the game to its current competition is only a part of that process, but it is still a viable part to the overall process. Some other viable features that should be taken into consideration are graphics, music, animations, length of the game, tempo, and of course, last but not least, gameplay. Put them all together, mix them and you have your cocktail.

Once again my thoughts exactly.

Unfortunately TW series is still the best simulator of non-modern warfare. Indeed this monopoly allows CA to reduce quality of product. The cause is this monopoly, not "the common dispositions of the masses". It just reflects the global situation on games market. I think that primitive games fashion was created artificially. It's much more easy and profitable to quickly make dozen of simple games under brilliant cover and exalted advertising and sell them for $40/each than to prepare one good game for long time and get only single payment of $40 for it. Imho the problem is not in masses of stupid teens who dictates their desires to developers, but in game publishers who intentionally fills market with tons of similar primitive games and cultivates understated standards. Almost all really good games that I saw were made by studios which nobody new before. They made their good games to break into this business. But when these studios became leaders in their genres they didn't produce anything new and just exploited their primary ideas. Unfortunately today it's almost (or without "almost") impossible to be new studio and to have enough money for making good game. So without competitors monopolists in certain genres can produce the same old bullshit as long as people buy it. I hope that adaptation of recent TW games to standards of modern mass games will make this genre more popular and it will help some new studio to find enough money to make good TW game which will become another leader in the genre or at least will force CA to really improve their products.

I agree completly.

GFX707

02-22-2006, 14:34

Its only a matter of time before other franchises start getting the idea of moving into CAs turf, and if CA wants to be at the top they're going to really have to knock the words out of all of the naysayer's mouths by making a product thats superior to everything that will become available, at the rate they're going, I highly doubt that is going to happen...

Actually, I think one of the unique and weird things about the Total War series is how few people have tried to copy it. In almost 8 years how many "Total War clones" have there been? Remember how many accursed "Doom Clones" there were? These at least resulted in the long run to much better FPS games like Quake and Half Life, and because of Half Life, Counter Strike (although I'm sure most hardcore strategy fans couldn't care less about those games). Then there were all the "Warcraft Clones" that gave us stuff like AoE (which I am not really a fan of) and the current selection of worthless clickfests which you could almost say are responsible for RTW's "clickfest" feel.

In all these other genres people copied what was original and by doing so evolved the genre....whereas there has not been one "Total War" clone in all that time.

Lack of competition is the reason RTW was bad and the reason why M2TW will be bad unless it turns out that the Australian CA team are hardcore Total War fans or just game design geniuses.

Italics show editing for language by moderator.

screwtype

02-22-2006, 14:56

I don't really fault MTW for it, though, because the substance was so greatly increased over STW, a loss of style was an acceptable cost. (It was interesting the way MTW units still shouted "Hi!" in the manner of STW when you separated them from a stack on the strategic map - CA really did not spend a lot of time on the chrome.)

I never forgave CA for not bothering to re-record the battle voices for the Western context. Those very Japanese cries and whoops of excitement when winning in combat, and as you say the "Hoi!" when separating troops - they really damaged the immersion for me.

The other things that really assisted immersion in STW for me were the little musical sound effects and, I think, the carefully done weather effects. There just wasn't the same attention to detail in MTW, in all sorts of ways.

In RTW, I never really felt that much like a Roman...If the advisors had been more in character...they could have been fun. I really liked the squabbling advisors in Civ2 (Economic advisor: "Let us build market places, so the peasants can trade in needed goods" Military advisor "No! Build city walls, Sire, NOW!").

I never played Civ2, but I've heard others mention the fun advisors in that game ~:)

Yeah I think they could have given Rome more of a "Roman" character. For example, I don't think the US marine style shouts of "Move out!" and so on helped a whole lot...

GFX707

02-22-2006, 16:10

Well I'm sure the american players weren't complaining about that. Just as I wouldn't have complained if they had the Romans and Greeks speak in accentless (think Gandalf in the LOTR films) English rather than barely-concealed (if at all) yankification. Neither is accurate but if they were speaking in Latin or Greek we wouldn't have a clue what they were saying anyway....although on reflection if there was a chance at getting it done that way I think they should have - but you really can't expect all that accuracy for a computer game that's to be sold to a bunch of 12 year olds.

spanakoryzo

02-22-2006, 16:42

I must thank you Screwtype for pointing out immersion factor of the TW series. I always found it odd that no other noticed the "surrounding environment" difference between STW, MTW and RTW. I don't believe in judging PC games by their level of historical accuracy (we had quite a few arguements over that back in the university) but I do want a great game "feeling". Apart from the obvious lack of chrome in MTW (japanese settler-soldiers in medieval Europe perhaps?) I think that all this is the direct result of a shift in game objectives. The developers moved from an in-depth approach to a more superficial "graphic" developement. There are though signs of improvement in MTW2 (movies) that point out to an eventual improvement.

Brian Mc

02-22-2006, 18:44

It's all rather depressing. People will complain, and rightfully so, that CA is trying to cater to the RTS fans, but in the end, everyone on this board who has the hardware will probably go out, buy the game, moan about it and then buy any expansion packs and moan about them too. If you're angry that the fantastic, engrossing gameplay of MTW is going to be lost (as it most assuredly is considering the responses in this interview, 225 turns should be sending fans through the roof) start a petition and swear that you won't buy this game if CA messes around with the gameplay you know and love then send it off to them.

CA will do what makes money, that's not a bad thing, they're a business, they have no responsibility to do otherwise. If they can be certain that the core fans of the TW series will come back no matter how much they muck about with the things that attracted them in the first place, then there is no reason for them not to go for the Rise of Nations crowd.

As for the posters that say "Stop badmouthing a game that isn't even out", with all due respect, that's a rather rediculous position to take. People should wait until the game comes out to try and stop it from being garbage? Or just until CA has been working on it for a year? Now is the time for the fans to make their voices heard, not when they put the cd into their computer.
Cheers.

Servius

02-22-2006, 19:14

And, while I'm a fan of the boycott idea, I also think there's a middle-ground. If the game is decent, but hasn't come near it's potential, I think it'd still be okay to buy it (maybe after the price comes down) SO LONG AS IT'S EASILY MODDABLE.

I have a lot of respect for the modding abilities of this community. I'm far from a pro, but even I could mod MTW it was so simple. So, while it still bugs me to pay full price for a game I (or others) have to clean up through modding, it's probably still worth the price. Because, in the end, we're paying to have fun. Whether CA makes a super-fun product, or whether we can help their game along and make it a super-fun product, that's slightly less important, to me at least.

King Yngvar

02-22-2006, 20:13

In VI, you were stuck on a damp insignificant island with some squabbling primitive factions that lacked even decent cavalry.

Personally I think VI was the best expansion pack... In the idea. But due to the fact that VI was using the old MTW engine and BI was using the RTW engine, I'd have to say otherwise. The new engine is much better than the old, I could not bother myself with playing MTW after getting RTW, I'm now used to good graphics and have no intensions of going back to bad graphics. But for MTW2, they really don't need to put their focus on graphics, it is good enough as it is, they upgraded the graphics with RTW and could spend their money and focus on upgrading the other aspects with MTW2.

player1

02-22-2006, 20:48

I don't see any problem with 225 turns thing.
Standard RTW map gets beaten quicker then for 225 turns, so I guess it's same for MTW2. That's just pace of the game like this.

I applaud CA for finnaly realising what correct game pace is.

RTW had fictive 550 turns, but that didn't lead to anything since every game was finished in 100 to 150 turns.

Ignoramus

02-22-2006, 21:53

But one turn for every 2 years? That doesn't sound too good.

player1

02-22-2006, 21:58

Well that's the only way to keep game going from 1080 to 1530, and see all various advanced in weaponry.

Otherwise if it's just 1turn year, all games would probably end before 1250, half of the things in MTW2 would get wasted.

Other option would be adding eras, like in MTW1, but then you could not have weapons rate effect, like you can get in epic scale from 1080 to 1530.

Servius

02-22-2006, 23:34

I really see no reason why there can't be an options where you can choose to play "standard" (2-year) turns or alter them as you wish. From an immersion point of view, I'd rather have 4 turns per year, where the battlefield changed based on the season.

I mean honestly, how would such an option screw with game mechanics. If certain events are timed to occur on a certain year, and not on a certain turn, then it doesn't seem to matter how many turns per year there are, at least as far as the game's concerned. If a building takes 2 turns to build when turns are 2 years long, then make that building take 4 turns when turns are 1 year long... Not that hard. It seems semi-equivalent to changing the unit sizes in the Options menu.

player1

02-23-2006, 01:20

I mean honestly, how would such an option screw with game mechanics.

I guess it would just get you stucked in late dark age for whole campaign, since campaign would still get finished in 100-150 turns, which means for 25-40 years, making all that weapon race (full plate, cannons, gunpowder, better seige enginees) irrelevant.

Cowhead418

02-23-2006, 02:39

"Of course, we're continually scanning the Internet forums for fans' ideas, and they do get incorporated."

I damn well hope you are!

Samurai Waki

02-23-2006, 04:43

The Problem with having the name Totalwar in a series, is it denotes the fact that there was indeed war ALL the time in a period. And while that may have been true, not every faction was at war at the same time. During the medieval era, diplomacy was as much a weapon as war was. You can still have the overal objective of conquering the map, even without taking it over by force. This approach restricts the immersion level, and you end up with this sort of dry taste of disappointment in your mouth. CA has to make a decision, either target the RTS crowd, or target the serious strategic gaming crowd. It seems like they are going the way of the fast paced, high action, low immersion RTS's.

The problem CA is facing in targeting a consumer is that you can't find a happy medium in the business world. It's either one side or the other, if they try to to make it strategically in depth, its going to scare away the RTS kiddies, if they try to make it a click fest, low impact tactical simulator, they're going to scare away the Strategic/Tactical Hardcore Gamers. If they continue trying to target both consumers, both sides are going to eventually start ignoring the franchise all together, because they aren't getting the fix that they desire. The Hardcore gamers will find their fix with Paradox Interactive (One Franchise that is hoping to branch into the Real Time/Realistic Battle Field) or the RTS gamers will find their fix with the Many, Many, Many different RTS franchises.

Obviously the RTS genre is the better investment in the short run, if CA can capitalize on the RTSers they'll make far more money, but then you have a heck of a lot more competition, if CA comes out with a huge hit (lets face it, the TotalWar series still has relatively smaller sales than most of the major RTS producers, like EA) than other Game Producers are going to get the idea and come out with a hundred clones, and CA will go the way of Westwood.

If CA targets the hardcore gaming community, they will have lower sales, and therefore the CEO and Publisher will not have made as much money...but, they'll have a stronger fan base to capitalize on, and therefore will have a more secure future in the gaming industry. In the end, it is a difficult decision for the Managerial Staff, the RTS world is high risk high reward, and the Strategic Gaming Community is High Risk, Lower Reward (unless they can maintain a solid fan base) by continuously coming out with very high rated games.

Eye Candy in itself is just a good idea, it turns the heads of the RTS crowd, and draws them into a sale. However, by neglecting the people who made CA what they are will only result in a continuously dwindling fan/mod base, which will result in fewer sales for their next release, which will have an even smaller fan/mod base, and then eventually all they will have left is fans, and no mod base, and then they will no fans, and then they will be nothing but a memory.

...Anyway, thats how I percieve CAs quandry.:2thumbsup:

Butcher

02-23-2006, 14:41

The Hardcore gamers will find their fix with Paradox Interactive (One Franchise that is hoping to branch into the Real Time/Realistic Battle Field) or the RTS gamers will find their fix with the Many, Many, Many different RTS franchises.

Yep. Gal Civ 2 is preordered already... main selling point for me? The fantastic A.I that can actually beat the developers.. :elephant:

doc_bean

02-23-2006, 18:13

I really see no reason why there can't be an options where you can choose to play "standard" (2-year) turns or alter them as you wish. From an immersion point of view, I'd rather have 4 turns per year, where the battlefield changed based on the season.

It should then take 10-100+ turns to conquer a region, there isn't really an interesting way of implenting something like that imho. Huge wars didn't happen every year, or even every couple of years, and it takes quite a long time to rebuild an army if it got badly beaten.

I think the new system might actually be *more* realistic. It should also ensure (hopefully) that the later ages remain interesting if you start early. Frankly, most MTW campaigns were over (sometimes literally) before you'd hit the next age. I don't wan't to go back to that.

We now have a chance for a balanced, well-paced campaign. Let's hope that's what we'll get.

player1

02-23-2006, 18:55

Well said doc_bean. :2thumbsup:

Servius

02-23-2006, 19:11

IMO, the fact that a player could dominate MTW or RTW so early in the campaign is not due to the number of years per turn, but the lack of resistance the player faces from the AI. If you are invincible after an hour or so, the game's over, regardless of how many turns have gone by.

I don't really think the number of turns will make that big of a difference though. So many things go into pacing, and since it's a turn-based game, the player determines how long it takes to go through 225 turns. Hopefully, if the number of years per turn does cause negative side-effects, CA will not hard-code it, and modders will be able to change it if they want.

Orda Khan

02-23-2006, 19:16

As for the posters that say "Stop badmouthing a game that isn't even out", with all due respect, that's a rather rediculous position to take. People should wait until the game comes out to try and stop it from being garbage? Or just until CA has been working on it for a year? Now is the time for the fans to make their voices heard, not when they put the cd into their computer.
Cheers.
I am one of those ridiculous posters. Do you know something that nobody else here knows? If so please enlighten us. As far as I am aware the game has not been released so how is it that the game will be garbage? What on earth will we do if the game turns out to be great? With no game or develpment team to pillary, how are some people going to pass their time?

.......Orda

Antiochius

02-23-2006, 19:52

I hope the modding teams will change this. Ich don`t want to play only 1125 turns. Every time, i played a campagin in Rome Total war, i played til 9 n.Chr.
I don`t want to play less than in Rome. that`s bad. I have played Shougun and Medieval 1 only a few times , als i stayed by a friend. I begin to believe that CA concentrate on the graphic. that`s good, of course, but i also want a CA team, who try to make the system every time better and better.
brief: cessation is regression.

Vladimir

02-23-2006, 21:57

A good way to limit the player's expansion is to have an exaggerated HRE effect. Lower loyalties when they're away from the king and loosing a war, and a "bloat effect" at a much smaller size. Among other things it will force the payer to devote more time to inspiring loyalty and building happiness buildings. The best historical example I can think of is the Barbarosa effect. When he would leave to fight the Pope the Saxons would rebel. Once he took care of them the Italians would get feisty. It creates more action and is more challenging.

Nelson

02-23-2006, 22:16

Once again, people are discussing graphics as somehow being the evil twin of game play. I’m sure glad some of you aren’t game designers because we would need C64s to play your titles! Because obviously, better graphics make for poorer games. If exploiting high-end video cards is troublesome for game play today then 16 colors and low resolution must have been GOOD for game play 20 years ago, right? I don’t think so.

Design is not a zero sum exercise. Good graphics and good game play are not mutually exclusive. Worry about game play and the AI if you must (I will join you) but neither are diminished by enhancing the looks of the game. The monitor is the principle output. We stare at the monitor for hours while playing. I want the game to look as good as technology will allow. Getting past the clone units is a great feature for MTW2. I’m looking forward to it. It represents one more step toward making things look and feel realistic. I like that a lot.

As for atmosphere, sure, Shogun had the best. It also featured ONE culture! For less than a century at that. It was much easier to produce immersive music, voices and cut scenes for a single brief window than it would have been for the many factions existing over centuries in Medieval or Rome. Immersion was traded off for more factions. Who dislikes more factions? Sometimes designers must make concessions.

As for naval battles, we aren’t getting them. We already get a land strategy game and a sea strategy game and a land tactics game. A sea tactical game would require a new design paradigm if not a new engine. I’d love to have a tactical naval game too but how much can we really expect? You know that if CA half-assed it we would be all over them about it. I don’t hold this decision against CA at all.

I hope the weather effects return to Shogun standards.

I haven’t seem moats mentioned anywhere. Surely CA can manage moats and drawbridges. Moats could get filled just like saps are dug.

As for the AI, I believe that it would perform a lot better if AI units could hang together longer and get decent commanders more often. The penchant for individual AI units to lunge out of the line to get a (sometimes questionable) match-up advantage usually leads to easy parries by the player that goes on to leave the AI bereft of it’s best troops. Some other sort of decision mechanic is required here.

screwtype

02-23-2006, 23:32

Design is not a zero sum exercise. Good graphics and good game play are not mutually exclusive. Worry about game play and the AI if you must (I will join you) but neither are diminished by enhancing the looks of the game. The monitor is the principle output. We stare at the monitor for hours while playing. I want the game to look as good as technology will allow. Getting past the clone units is a great feature for MTW2. I’m looking forward to it. It represents one more step toward making things look and feel realistic. I like that a lot.

Me too! One of my big disappointments about Rome was that to my mind the new 3D units did not actually look that good and the battlefields in which they moved were neither very attractive nor very interactive.

Now it sounds like we're going to have not only considerably enhanced graphics but also more interactivity. No more of that "one attack per wall section" crap. Now you can apparently mount your attacks at any point you please, which IMO should considerably increase the degree of immersion - for realism buffs like me anyhow ~:)

As for atmosphere, sure, Shogun had the best. It also featured ONE culture!

Good point. But there was still no excuse for recycling Shogun battlecries in a game about European Medieval warfare.

As for naval battles, we aren’t getting them. We already get a land strategy game and a sea strategy game and a land tactics game. A sea tactical game would require a new design paradigm if not a new engine. I’d love to have a tactical naval game too but how much can we really expect? You know that if CA half-assed it we would be all over them about it. I don’t hold this decision against CA at all.

I just don't care a whole lot about naval battles. To do them really well in 3D would be a game in itself, and I have my doubts they'd be much fun anyhow, at least before the age of cannon. One can't expect too much.

I'd be satisfied just to have the naval battles a little less abstracted. But then people would complain because they weren't fully 3D like the rest of the game.

I haven’t seem moats mentioned anywhere. Surely CA can manage moats and drawbridges. Moats could get filled just like saps are dug.

Yeah, that would be good!

As for the AI, I believe that it would perform a lot better if AI units could hang together longer and get decent commanders more often. The penchant for individual AI units to lunge out of the line to get a (sometimes questionable) match-up advantage usually leads to easy parries by the player that goes on to leave the AI bereft of it’s best troops. Some other sort of decision mechanic is required here.

I agree, I think the tendency of the AI to throw its units into battle piecemeal - in both the campaign and battle maps - is probably the AI's biggest weakness. And IMO it really shouldn't be that hard to fix.

Powermonger

02-23-2006, 23:46

Servius

02-24-2006, 00:06

Actually, game design is a zero-sum game if, as is usually the case, there are time and money limitations. It's certainly not all graphics or all gameplay, but game companies determine a balance, how much time and money to invest in each part of a game.

Basically, I just want the gameplay to be a polished and beautiful as the graphics, and if CA ever has to make one of those two better than the other, I'd prefer they spend less resources on graphics and more resources on gameplay. My imagination can compensate for below-average graphics better than it can compensate for below-average gameplay.

Dead Moroz

02-24-2006, 02:30

I'm graphics maniac and just cannot play game with poor graphics. But graphics is the last thing I wish to see improved in next TW game. For me in RTW graphics was good enough and I prefer devs to spend more time on improving AI and fixing bugs.

Btw, how could you all forget the fact that RTW battles are so speedy that just does not allow to enjoy new 3D graphics? What's the purpose of brilliant graphics if you cannot notice it?

Bob the Insane

02-24-2006, 13:19

I honestly can't take any more of this BS hero worship of MTW and STW... They were/are basically the same game as RTW with an older graphics engine. Same concepts, same basic design just minus a whole bunch of new features (and admittedly a whole bunch of new bugs) and some tweaking...

Personally I had (and still have) STW and MTW (plus VI) and I have to say that the TW series has never been a tool for serious historical reinactment...

In the past it was a simpler game so it was possibly more thoroughly tested and STW was inherently balanced because every faction had pretty much (if not exactly) the same units...

I am not blind to RTWs shortcomings, but it is unfair to brand RTW as the "bimbo" version of the game as if has more depth than any previous version... It is not that the AI is any more stupid on the battlefield in RTW (Especially with BI and all patched up) than it was in MTW, it is just that there is a lot more complexity in the game and admittedly I don't think the AI does a good job of handling it.

I do remain optimistic as everygame so far has been an improvment on the last.

As for the article I liked the line:

"Armor and weapon upgrades are also evident when you look on your units in battle."

A small thing but a nice detail amounst all the big things and in a game like this attention to details is good...

Servius

02-24-2006, 13:58

Bob, I mostly agree with you on specific points, but not as much with the overall gist of your comments.

I agree that STW and MTW weren't perfectly historically accurate. I don't think I've ever faulted RTW for innacuracies (though I'm sure they're in there). It's just not something I really neeed from the series.

I also agree that the AI in STW and MTW wasn't vastly superior to the one in RTW, but I do think that it was a bit better in general, AND it was relatively much better probably because those games had fewer variables to handle, which made the AI's job easier.

However, there are many features which I liked a lot in STW and MTW which were removed from RTW. Such features include: princesses, the ability to grant titles (including governorships) to any unit I like (even peasants), an independent royal family birth rate, rank bonuses for spear units, high advantages for missile units, a greater number of unit formation and behavior controls, greater control over the speed of battles, simpler unit commands, more information on the unit cards, weather effects on combat, terrain effects on combat...

And I also do believe that RTW was dumbed-down. I got that feeling when the battlefield controls were reduced, when the number of variables that effect battles was reduced, when the speed of the units was increased, when the defensive bonuses were decreased, when the killing speeds were increased...

For my part, I don't worship MTW, I just think that it had many cool features that were lost in RTW, and I think the AI was better able to handle the variables available.

And to similarly end on a good point about one of the articles, I did like this part where it talked about how the battle maps will have more terrain features, like buildings and such, that will have an effect on the outcome of battle (because you can use buildings to cover your flank, etc.). That is a cause for hope I think.

Bob the Insane

02-24-2006, 14:09

And I also do believe that RTW was dumbed-down. I got that feeling when the battlefield controls were reduced, when the number of variables that effect battles was reduced, when the speed of the units was increased, when the defensive bonuses were decreased, when the killing speeds were increased...

For my part, I don't worship MTW, I just think that it had many cool features that were lost in RTW, and I think the AI was better able to handle the variables available.

I have to agree with you there (plus I have calmed down now ;))...

BUt this is one reason I am so looking forward to MTW2 as it appears to be reintroducing some of those lost features...

Though I also agree that the timescale/turns things sounds a little vague and, well, odd... Though I can see their problem, put in realistic movment rates for units without any other abracted factors to slow them down and a good player could beat the game in a few turns(years). Leave realistic movement rates out and things look odd (it does not take two or three years to walk the length of Britain, it takes about 10 weeks...