View Full Version : units look to be moving too fast
Callahan9119
05-22-2006, 02:18
i just viewed the gameplay videos from mtw2, and it seems they are importing the superman armies from rtw, that can run 10 miles an hour in full armor
i know this is pre release and may be changed....but i am discouraged that the trend towards more arcade style gameplay is trumping realism...there are plenty of arcade style games of this type...realism is whats kept me hooked since stw, that said i'll buy mtw 2 anyway
hope its toned down
Watchman
05-22-2006, 02:21
If the ground speed is as simple to change as in RTW, that's not much of an issue really.
Callahan9119
05-22-2006, 02:52
i guess but i find the scooby doo running that happens when ur zoomed up in rtr mod distracting...i know its minor, but i just hope they put as much effort into great ai and gameplay as they do the graphics...and from the movie i saw these dudes were flying around the map..seemed twice as bad as rome
i still think mtw just played better than rtw
but like i said i'll buy it anyway
Sir Robin
05-22-2006, 05:08
Unfortunately the trend seems to be to make games more "arcadish" or "twitched."
Hopefully MTW2 will be as moddable, hopefully more, as RTW. This will allow the talented modder part of our community to make it more realistic. However the fix will probably look odd to the eyes up close and considering the amount of additional animations being added to MTW2 be even more noticeable.
Again, hopefully, CA has noticed this common complaint and made giving the sprites a more realistic speed and kill rate more visually satisfying as well as adjustable.
Edit:Well I think I might have some good news.
Upon further review look at the high-quality clip at about 1min 4sec You can see the English heading out to attack the Tumurids(?).
Notice how fast those banners are flapping in the English units on the left and right side of the gate?
It seems that at least that part of the video was higher than normal speed. So perhaps more of the vid is faster than normal speed. I know its not much but at least its something.
Zenicetus
05-22-2006, 06:19
I wouldn't jump to too many conclusions based on these videos. It's a promotional trailer and it's supposed to look exciting. There are some visual effects that I suspect aren't in the actual game, like ground-level camera views and shaking camera from nearby explosions. It wouldn't surprise me at all, if CA (or their advertising agency) had sped up some of these scenes for visual "impact". The real test will be the first playable demo. Then we can debate combat and movement speed.
Ibn Munqidh
05-22-2006, 06:30
the first playable demo
Can't wait for that, when do you guys suppose it will come out?
Duke John
05-22-2006, 07:02
The movement speeds seem indeed as fast as R:TW. They just seem to slow down combat (from what I understood from the previews) so that the battle lasts longer, but that means that we are still stuck with frantic clicking. No time to look at the eye-candy without using the pause button.
If the ground speed is as simple to change as in RTW, that's not much of an issue really.
Changing all speeds is hardly a solution as it also slows down the walking speed.
Hopefully MTW2 will be as moddable, hopefully more, as RTW.
CA has never released a tool that lets us import/export animations or models. The signs that are there are showing that CA has no intention whatsoever to release a tool for MTW2. Vercingetorix has made a tool to do so, but it is buggy and incomplete.
Callahan9119
05-22-2006, 07:19
guys, i'm not talking about the cinema preview...this was the gameplay clips that were in realtime from e3
it just felt verry warcraft/battle for middle earth to me...it is very upclose with the camera, for effect and to impress with graphics i can only assume...but i noticed with the transition to rome the camera felt more restricted and upclose and i couldnt get the great strategic view of the landscape like i could in mtw...i just hope this trend isnt continued...i just feel they are gonna try to lure new customers and make it even more arcady...i'm not hating on mtw2, i'm just explaining my fears, and from what i saw guys in 30 pounds of armor were running faster than the best sprinter the world has ever seen
Orda Khan
05-22-2006, 16:05
We could argue that it is worse than RTW simply because there is more armour. Let's hope we are wrong
......Orda
DukeofSerbia
05-22-2006, 18:18
If the ground speed is as simple to change as in RTW, that's not much of an issue really.
Agree.
If the ground speed is as simple to change as in RTW, that's not much of an issue really.
It's a HUGE issue in multiplayer. You can't pause and you can't mod the speeds.
I can't tell if they're moving too fast or not. I hope not, as this was one of the unredeeming features of RTW.
SpencerH
05-24-2006, 17:48
If the ground speed is as simple to change as in RTW, that's not much of an issue really.
Not at all. As others have said, changing the ground speed merely slows all units down. The problem is that the relative speeds between inf and cav are bizarre and there is no differentiation between fresh and tired troops. How many times must I watch routing pikemen run away from my fresh pusuing troops. Even cav have a hard time catching up to some inf units.
I wouldn't jump to too many conclusions based on these videos. It's a promotional trailer and it's supposed to look exciting. There are some visual effects that I suspect aren't in the actual game, like ground-level camera views and shaking camera from nearby explosions. It wouldn't surprise me at all, if CA (or their advertising agency) had sped up some of these scenes for visual "impact". The real test will be the first playable demo. Then we can debate combat and movement speed.
Unfortunately when the demo is out we can debate all day long and it wouldnt make a difference. There were lots of threads on the speed in the days of RTW demo and CA still dismissed our arguments.
If the ground speed is as simple to change as in RTW, that's not much of an issue really.
Except that it hurts marching speed too (which is fine as it is and actually precisely the same as in STW/MTW) so the march/run speed ratio stays the same when applying the changes to overall speed. Its really the runspeed that we want to have reduced without worrying too much about more fatigue from simple marching. And of course the fast speed will be default in MP.
CBR
sunsmountain
05-30-2006, 09:03
I wish the speed could be modded, so everybody could play it at their own speed. Shouldn't be too hard. MTW had a sliding speed bar. RTW has only 3 speeds, but the marching/charging speeds can be set to any value. Those values SHOULD be changeable in the Game Options menu.
Orda Khan
05-30-2006, 16:33
There is no point going on and on about huge battles etc, etc if the unit speed means these 'huge battles' are over quicker than a minor skirmish. IMO, if CA do not address this issue, most die hard fans will quit playing and MP will be a waste of time
........Orda
sunsmountain
05-30-2006, 17:28
Perhaps not for you and me, Orda, but what about the 90% of Rome TW gamers (they exist, this is a fact), that do NOT visit these forums, that ARE challenged by the AI, and that DO enjoy the battle speed as it is?
If you were a company, would you cater your default speed to the 90% or to the 10%?
On the other hand, seeing as how easy it can be modded anyway, i'm sure they'll listen to our comments this time. IIRC, Time Commanders also featured the RTW engine but battles were much slower than in the release. Perhaps they just wanted to see how it panned out.
Lord Adherbal
05-30-2006, 18:07
IMO, if CA do not address this issue, most die hard fans will quit playing and MP will be a waste of time
exactly. If CA still didn't get that, or thinks pleasing the <14 year old community is more important then listening to what the true TW fans want (who are just basing on how STW and MTW were, nothing new) then MTWII will not be for me. Apart from saving money it would also save me a lot of time I would otherwise spend on playing and modding that game. If that vanilla game is still not worth playing (MP) then I'm not willing to sacrifise that money and time on a TW game again.
Orda Khan
05-30-2006, 18:28
Perhaps not for you and me, Orda, but what about the 90% of Rome TW gamers (they exist, this is a fact), that do NOT visit these forums, that ARE challenged by the AI, and that DO enjoy the battle speed as it is?
If you were a company, would you cater your default speed to the 90% or to the 10%?
On the other hand, seeing as how easy it can be modded anyway, i'm sure they'll listen to our comments this time. IIRC, Time Commanders also featured the RTW engine but battles were much slower than in the release. Perhaps they just wanted to see how it panned out.
I agree with you entirely sunsmountain, there are plenty also who DO visit these forums that are happy enough with the speed. Let's not forget though, CA increased unit speeds for RTW, there was no unit speed debate before that. Both STW and MTW had a large MP community so what was their basis for implementing the change? There are countless MP vets who quit the game due to RTW.
Already we have seen the response by [cF]Adherbal and I am quite sure there will be others too.
A speed toggle would be a very nice feature, in fact the host should have access to many settings and this has been mentioned frequently but unfortunately it has never been implemented
......Orda
Lord Adherbal
05-30-2006, 19:05
exactly, if they are so worried about disappointing a large number of customers by moving back to proper movement speeds, then include this super speed in the "arcade mode" option, or if they want it on by default they could easily add a "realism mode" option. If they don't do anything at all to solve this problem, then their clearly show the MP community should be looking for a different game, and not waste their time on MTWII.
A.Saturnus
05-30-2006, 19:27
Adherbal']exactly. If CA still didn't get that, or thinks pleasing the <14 year old community is more important then listening to what the true TW fans want (who are just basing on how STW and MTW were, nothing new) then MTWII will not be for me. Apart from saving money it would also save me a lot of time I would otherwise spend on playing and modding that game. If that vanilla game is still not worth playing (MP) then I'm not willing to sacrifise that money and time on a TW game again.
I'm worried about the unit speed too, but I don't think a condescending attitude like that is helpful.
Hochmeister
05-30-2006, 22:46
Perhaps not for you and me, Orda, but what about the 90% of Rome TW gamers (they exist, this is a fact), that do NOT visit these forums, that ARE challenged by the AI, and that DO enjoy the battle speed as it is?
If you were a company, would you cater your default speed to the 90% or to the 10%?
Or hopefully like me there are many gamers who visit these forums and share the same views but do not post that often. I for one agree that MTW unit speed was far superior to RTW and accounted for many hundreds of hours absorbed in the strategy of what is a truely amazing game (thanks CA).:2thumbsup: I think it is great that you guys are passionate enough to post your concerns and I hope CA pays attention to the opinion of what I am sure is a lot more than 10% of the community.
Lord Adherbal
05-31-2006, 10:43
I'm worried about the unit speed too, but I don't think a condescending attitude like that is helpful.
I hardly care whether I'm being helpfull. I'm just stating that if CA chooses to go for the same approach as RTW, and not revert back to their old gameplay I'll have to give up on the TW series. I hope this will be MTW2, not "RTW: The Middle Ages"
Callahan9119
05-31-2006, 11:05
i just want the good tactical battles we had in stw and mtw, i played rtw all of a week in mp <play alot still sp>
i just miss the good old days of rtk guys beating my arse, cursing Amp and laughing at elmo's gun armies...just seemed before rtw there was more strategy and more fun...i was quite fond of nazari heavy armies :2thumbsup:
the arcade antics of rtw ruined it for me at least
Duke John
05-31-2006, 12:33
I hardly care whether I'm being helpfull. I'm just stating that if CA chooses to go for the same approach as RTW, and not revert back to their old gameplay I'll have to give up on the TW series. I hope this will be MTW2, not "RTW: The Middle Ages"
I agree 100%.
And I hope that more people start to see that CA's modding support is practically non-existent. They had a complete campaign and battle editor hidden in the exe and only the latter did they make public with the second patch. They still refuse to release a model/animation importer/exporter after almost 2 years. If they continue this then modding M2TW will be an even bigger struggle.
Lorenzo_H
05-31-2006, 13:11
That video was probably sped up on purpose to fit more into the video and not make it boringly long.
Duke John
05-31-2006, 13:21
I doubt it.
But perhaps this is just the way CA has decided to go. TW is starting to look more and more like a RTS: lots of relatively insignificant 10 minute battles, pumping out units (new feature that lets you recruit up to 6 units per turn). There are no peasants gathering resources, but the new merchant agent is kind of like that as he can claim resources (trade). Turns instead of years to reduce the length of a complete game. Everything seems to be geared towards a quick and "thrilling" experience.
I can only hope that the unit speed is exactly like RTW. They finally fixed the slow plodding pace of STW and MTW battles. Which I couldn't stand and never played much.
Wandarah
05-31-2006, 14:23
agreed. the yawn fest of endless 2 hour battles certainly wasnt my cup of tea. that said, the 3 minute battles that RTW sometimes (not always) bought to the table also annoyed me.
hopefully this is somewhere in the middle. i like the speed of EB battles personally.
Lord Adherbal
05-31-2006, 14:55
the yawn fest of endless 2 hour battles certainly wasnt my cup of tea. that said, the 3 minute battles that RTW sometimes (not always) bought to the table also annoyed me.
I can only hope that the unit speed is exactly like RTW. They finally fixed the slow plodding pace of STW and MTW battles.
that's nonsense. In MTW the AI attacked with multiple stacks at once so you had to fight off 40-50 units in one battle. That's why they lasted long, not because of the realistic movement speed. Actual fights never took more then a couple of minutes. MP only took long because of the skirmish phase.
I guess I'm supposed to respect other people's oppinions, but IMO if you thought MTW/STW were too slow you shouldn't be playing TW games. But apparently CA itself agreed with you.
Adherbal']... but IMO if you thought MTW/STW were too slow you shouldn't be playing TW games.
Um, let's not go there. They like apples, you like oranges. Let's debate about other things. De gustibus non disputandum. Or some such.
Orda Khan
05-31-2006, 16:30
If we are talking purely SP, there is no need for any 'yawn fest' because we have the ability to increase the speed. That is all very well for SP but where does that leave the MP community?
As for slow plodding units in MTW, that is about all an infantryman in armour could manage. Take a look at some re-enactment and test the weight of a chainmail hauberk. Not even a doped up sprinter could match RTW speeds in full chainmail
.....Orda
A.Saturnus
05-31-2006, 18:20
If we are talking purely SP, there is no need for any 'yawn fest' because we have the ability to increase the speed.
Still, defending a bridge from 10,000 mongols was boring, because even with maximum speed it took quite long and needed no interference by the player. But I agree, what made MTW battles long was the fact that after the first stack, AI armies arrived piecemeal.
Rodion Romanovich
05-31-2006, 20:57
But I agree, what made MTW battles long was the fact that after the first stack, AI armies arrived piecemeal.
I agree, the "battles took too long" arguments against MTW kill rate isn't really an argument. RTW mods with MTW style kill rates have more enjoyable battles and they still don't take nearly as long as MTW battles.
I personally enjoyed fighting the golden horde, because of the odds, but with hindsight it was a bit of cheating that the khan could only send in one twentieth of his army at the time... I'd like to see more massive battles with very difficult odds in MTW2. And above all - make the battles fewer, but larger and more important when they happen, so I get an epic feeling of each battle being important!
The bottom line is that if you say things to yourself like "Well, they probably sped it up for the video" and don't make yourself heard before release, you won't have any say in it.
In my opinion we have to be as vocal as possible that we were not happy with the run speed of RTW and do not want our game to suffer to please the ADHD kiddies (who should be playing AoE or something else instead). What I don't understand is why CA seemingly want to take their franchise, offering gameplay that is almost completely unique and turn it into a poor clone of the other moronic clickfests which used to be specifically WHY people bought TW games and not AoE or whatever.
Basically I would be satisfied if they just include an option in the "game options" menu along with all the other realism options like "limited ammo" and "fatigue" that just said something like "realistic speeds" so that all the ADHD kiddies can uncheck it and get their moronic fast action fix (maybe an option that said "totally submissive easy AI" too so they won't have to think either) and left the real game unspoiled for us TW veterans.
I remember how much I was pissing my pants watching the RTW videos and how disappointed I was after a week of playing it.
MTW is one of my favourite games of all time. Let's hope they don't ruin this one.
Callahan9119
05-31-2006, 23:11
"the battles took too long" i dont think thats really relevant, it never really bothered me...but i didnt really enjoy the sp in mtw or stw...it was a design flaw...and after u beat the peasant army, or whatever rabble they happened to send at you all u had to do was line up and quickly rout any reinforcments and turn the game speed up..the problems with previous TW games was the crap AI, restricted unit deployment and <as mentioned> the way reinforcments enter the battle.
yet the balance of the gameplay was magical in mtw when u got down to the nitty gritty of MP. skirmishing had a very real and very strategic role in the battles... even in the early game when it was simply just archers and no arbs, this became a nonfactor with the release of rome. units moved to fast to be able to effectivly use your skirmishers to any effect
the more i read the more i become discouraged...the "turns" instead of years, the multiple recruitment of units and the novelty new world aspect does not sit well with me. if they would have just made dynamic AI, used the rome style campaign map and updated the graphics i would have been beyond happy :furious3:
i bet i'll be playing rtr more than mtw2...until those guys can improve mtw2 with a mod
also BRING BACK GLORIOUS ACHIEVMENTS!!
Adherbal']that's nonsense. In MTW the AI attacked with multiple stacks at once so you had to fight off 40-50 units in one battle. That's why they lasted long, not because of the realistic movement speed. Actual fights never took more then a couple of minutes. MP only took long because of the skirmish phase.
That's why it was boring, it took 10 minutes (I know this is an exageration no need to tell me) just to get to where the enemy was. By that time I've lost interest in the battle. I really don't care who wins anymore, I just want it over.
Adherbal']I guess I'm supposed to respect other people's oppinions, but IMO if you thought MTW/STW were too slow you shouldn't be playing TW games. But apparently CA itself agreed with you.
Well geez. I guess I must have missed the memo where it was declared that you get to unilatterally decide who should be allowed to play TW. Guess I better check my inbox. Guess I'll just comfort myself in the knowledge that what I want in TW games will be in and what the Total Whiners want won't be. :2thumbsup:
That's why it was boring, it took 10 minutes (I know this is an exageration no need to tell me) just to get to where the enemy was. By that time I've lost interest in the battle. I really don't care who wins anymore, I just want it over.
I dont get it. MTW and RTW had exactly same marching speed. If you felt it took too long in MTW why do you think its fine in RTW? Or do you just run the whole way in RTW?
CBR
HarunTaiwan
06-01-2006, 07:42
I think I recall Lars saying in another thread he autocalcs battles in RTW anyways, no?
I remember in Shogung that if you had Naginatas, you realized they were not going to be moving too much, so you would sometimes not take them into offensive battles, etc.
Lentonius
06-01-2006, 08:52
CA are making mediaval primarily as a game, and therefore want it to look exciting and fast paced, they arent gonna care about movement speeds, because to be honest if i was having a battle with knights, and they took 10 minutes to reach the enemy because they were more realistic, i would probably tire of the battles rather quickly.
Also, the battlefields may be much bigger, so they will have to increase unit speeds to avoid boredom.
Also, in the promotion video, they probably increased speed to allow for enough action.
Callahan9119
06-01-2006, 09:23
fine, then ca or whoever is running them is throwing its lot in with aoe, warcraft and others, they might as well throw it under the bus. but if i want to play as samurai or medieval french knights in this respect i will play rise of nations, or any other rts game that does this better. rome and further mtw2 look to be a sham and a deviation to what made this series great.
i can totally understand yet dont agree with many campaign changes...sure i spend maybe 10 years now putting together an army and putting it into the field and the changes will alter this allowing the benefit of being able to much sooner get to the blood and guts, yet there are also many things that happen over this time, such as creating new buildings and dealing with the smaller issues that tend to be "fun" in my opinion
but most importantly in my opinion is the ruin of the MP that many of us have purely loved in stw and mtw...i swear, in the 6 months i enjoyed unemployment benefits i played mtw mp about 8 hours a day < god bless you euros and your time zone :bow:
rtw and its crap gameplay destroyed this, at least for me....and mtw2 looks to go a step further, appealing to the lowest common denominator isnt always a good thing, especially when its negating such great success from critics and its fan base
but /applause on the graphics:shrug:
SpencerH
06-01-2006, 13:05
What I'd like to know is why the movement speeds have been linked to the animations? As I understand it, thats the reason we cant modify unit run speeds etc.
I dont get it. MTW and RTW had exactly same marching speed. If you felt it took too long in MTW why do you think its fine in RTW? Or do you just run the whole way in RTW?
CBR
Because in Rome the armies would start closer together 75% of the time. And you could run to close the gap. Which I usually do.
I think I recall Lars saying in another thread he autocalcs battles in RTW anyways, no?
That depends 100% on my mood. RTW was the first TW game where actually fighting the battles held even 1 iota of interest for me. You'll also recall I said that my enjoyment of STW increased 5 fold when I discovered auto-calc. Anyway if I usually fight birgands and rebels more than other factions armies. Those are what I'll mostly auto-calc (along with 75% of my sieges). Unless I'm taking my Palatinae army horde hunting in BI, where the objective is to use Scholae's to kill horde family members. But you only go horde hunting after the horde stacks have been worn down to nubs via auto-calc.
Because in Rome the armies would start closer together 75% of the time. And you could run to close the gap. Which I usually do.
And time acceleration is not an option? I have used it for both MTW and RTW.
One thing with RTW campaign were the endless amount of battles I had to fight. None of them felt very important and especially not rebel armies, so it ended up being either autocalc for small battles and a quick charge for the big ones I had to fight. It was rare to have battles were the AI actually had a good enough army to make it interesting.
RTW killed MP for me so I ended up playing campaign more than I ever did for MTW. But in the end the crappy operational AI, the crappy battle AI and the crappy "what units to buy"" AI makes the game very difficult to like. And I could fill a list with stuff but that would turn this post into a rant...
CBR
Time acceleration is where MTW other gaping black hole of a flaw was made appearant. That gods aweful battle interface. I lost 50% of my troops at hyper speed more than once because of that counter inteutive mess.
On RTW's AI. The AI was actually better with less than half stack armies. Hence why I fought rebels and brigands. You could still trick the AI into doing something really moronic but with fewer than 10 units it wouldn't be as bad. Not that it was great, RTW is really indered by less than stellar (I will be generous) AI. Which is great for when your learning the game but after a while it gets old.
Time acceleration is where MTW other gaping black hole of a flaw was made appearant. That gods aweful battle interface. I lost 50% of my troops at hyper speed more than once because of that counter inteutive mess.
Hm thats interesting. My feeling is the opposite. MTW time accel is much better than RTW as its easier to use the slider than hitting some key that doesnt always work because of input lag in RTW at higher time accel (Im using minimised UI in RTW)
CBR
Rodion Romanovich
06-01-2006, 15:49
@lars573: what is it you dislike about MTW1? The large battle maps, or the realistic running speeds? Walking speed is the same in both RTW and MTW, and the time acceleration in RTW lags more than the one in MTW, so I usually had to wait shorter to complete the marching in MTW than in RTW. Unless you're saying you think MTW2 should have the smaller RTW style battle maps or you are running your troops to the enemy in RTW, what are you complaining? MTW2 will have the larger battle maps of MTW1, so unrealistic arcade style running speeds won't help you much. In fact, I don't see why, with the opinion you've expressed so far, would dislike about having realistic running speeds and better balanced battles making offense more difficult which would help the AI in the campaign considering that you're usually on offense in the campaign after a quite short time?
I missed that slider with my cursor much more than the buttons. The buttons work better for me.
Rodion Romanovich
06-01-2006, 16:05
Well, there was always Ctrl+T in MTW... In RTW I tend to miss the buttons more easily than the slider in MTW, due to lag ~:) Well, so apart from interface you too agreed with the MTW running speeds then? Good to hear that most fans agree on this point, so there's a chance of CA implementing the realistic running speeds! :2thumbsup:
Lord Adherbal
06-01-2006, 16:23
it makes me wonder why some people choose to play (R)TW and not some other clickfest RTS (mind you, I enjoy those too, I've been playing the AoE series for years). Is it the large army scale ? it must be that, cos listening to their oppinions clearly indicates they don't care for the realistic and tactical combat that S/MTW offered. Or are some people so short of free time that they consider 2 minutes to get from one end of the map to the other to be too long ?
Adherbal']it makes me wonder why some people choose to play (R)TW and not some other clickfest RTS...
This sounds like you are saying RTW is a clickfest RTS. :inquisitive: This is getting perilously close to RTW bashing and we don't do that in this forum.
Lord Adherbal
06-01-2006, 17:32
how is that RTW bashing when I state I actualy enjoy (some) clickfest RTSes - just not the RTW clickfest :P
I think it's bashing in the same way as likening my expensive Porsche to an old banger is bashing. Well, it would be if I had an expensive Porsche.
@lars573: what is it you dislike about MTW1? The large battle maps, or the realistic running speeds? Walking speed is the same in both RTW and MTW, and the time acceleration in RTW lags more than the one in MTW, so I usually had to wait shorter to complete the marching in MTW than in RTW. Unless you're saying you think MTW2 should have the smaller RTW style battle maps or you are running your troops to the enemy in RTW, what are you complaining? MTW2 will have the larger battle maps of MTW1, so unrealistic arcade style running speeds won't help you much. In fact, I don't see why, with the opinion you've expressed so far, would dislike about having realistic running speeds and better balanced battles making offense more difficult which would help the AI in the campaign considering that you're usually on offense in the campaign after a quite short time?
Large maps I'm on a fence post about. The "realistic" running speeds need never return to torment me again. And the horrid horrid horrid (did I mention horrid) battle interface is dead. That and MTW's binary AI was very tiresome. RTW may have moronic AI but I enjoy it far more than MTW's. What I'd really like are maps that scale along with the unit sizes. RTW's big problem was that huge units mean't that your army was a size too small for most field battle maps.
[
Well, there was always Ctrl+T in MTW... In RTW I tend to miss the buttons more easily than the slider in MTW, due to lag Well, so apart from interface you too agreed with the MTW running speeds then? Good to hear that most fans agree on this point, so there's a chance of CA implementing the realistic running speeds!
NO! I never want another TW to have "realistic" running speeds. I wouldn't mind if they ran faster, or had two running speeds.
Adherbal]it makes me wonder why some people choose to play (R)TW and not some other clickfest RTS (mind you, I enjoy those too, I've been playing the AoE series for years). Is it the large army scale ? it must be that, cos listening to their oppinions clearly indicates they don't care for the realistic and tactical combat that S/MTW offered. Or are some people so short of free time that they consider 2 minutes to get from one end of the map to the other to be too long ?
I'm still wondering wher you figure you get the right to judge who should be playing TW. And 2 minutes to get to one end of ther map is too much time. And having a job that is 2 hours a day to get to and from 4 days a week means I don't have 20-30 minutes to spend on 1 battle. Which are second banana anyway. My main focus is the strategic map.
Divine Wind
06-01-2006, 19:32
Hm thats interesting. My feeling is the opposite. MTW time accel is much better than RTW as its easier to use the slider than hitting some key that doesnt always work because of input lag in RTW at higher time accel (Im using minimised UI in RTW)
CBR
I agree, the input lag i get from the time accelration key has probably caused me more casulties in RTW than anything else. Sometimes it takes several clicks too actually hit it. The speed slider was by far superior.
This sounds like you are saying RTW is a clickfest RTS. :inquisitive: This is getting perilously close to RTW bashing and we don't do that in this forum.
It's CA bashing that isn't allowed. The game can be criticised. You don't have enough time to issue individual orders to all of your units in RTW/BI multiplayer. At .com players advised me to click faster. I already click as fast as I can. I'm not slow. I took a reaction test that CBR showed me, and I was almost as fast as he was. I also have above average hand/eye coordination and spatial perception. However, I'm not fast enough to play RTW/BI.
M2TW won't be the answer. We can already see that from the promo's that have been released so far. I would advise multiplayers who find RTW/BI gameplay to be too fast and MTW/VI gamplay to be too slow to play Samurai Wars for MTW/VI v2.01 (Too bad MTW Gold Edition purchasers. You can't play.) Samurai Wars addresses the battle pacing issue with large scale battles of 6000 to 8000 men (3v3 and 4v4) typically lasting 20 to 25 minutes. The gameplay is intuitive. Units work the way you expect them to work. Spears actually defeat cavalry which is something that hasn't been properly implimented since STW. The tactical gameplay requires a combined arms approach. You don't have long boring shootouts with weak shooters. The morale level of the units is adequate without the need for upgrades. There are no battlefield upgrades. You can clearly distinguish the factions from one another, and clearly see units against the ground textures from a distance. Good battleplans and proper tactical play achieve good results. Simply being the faster player isn't enough to win. All you give up compared to the newer games in the series is the 3D men which turn into 2D men at a distance anyway. Of course, if Activision pulls the plug on MTW/VI multiplayer then "Game over!".
It's CA bashing that isn't allowed. The game can be criticised. You don't have enough time to issue individual orders to all of your units in RTW/BI multiplayer.
Yes, the game can be criticised, although if it goes too far off-topic, I'll shunt it over to the Colosseum.
But, no, I won't accept RTW bashing here. The no CA bashing rule was intended precisely to refer to the wearisome bashing of their last game that often goes on here[1].
Where do I draw the line between criticising and bashing?
=> Saying speed is too fast for MP is clearly ok. ~:thumb:
=> Abusing the game is stepping over the line. :no:
=> Saying RTW is an "RTS clickfest" probably exactly pinpoints the line so precisely that I can't decide whether it is over it or not. :shrug:
[1]EDIT: the announcement for this forum lists the following rule first:
"1. No CA/RTW/MTW/STW/Modification Bashing"
Callahan9119
06-02-2006, 04:50
i dont agree, i havnt noticed any hostility, abusive language or blatant misinformation...lets not get draconian over peoples analogies, metaphors and comparisons
i think this thread is constructive and so far has remained quite civil....but i'm not the mod so...:hide:
Duke John
06-02-2006, 07:27
It is a clickfest. CA intentionally made historical battles where the AI was placed at a very close distance to the player. Without using pause it is impossible to save yourself out of the scripted mess. CA is starting to admit herself that R:TW wasn't all that perfect so I think it is only right if we can keep on pressing the gameplay issues that lots of players are having problems with.
And the speed slider was far superior. I've never lost an unit because of that, but I have lost many because of the lagging when on 2x or 4x speed.
Cesare diBorja
06-02-2006, 08:04
I like it when I read that people think units move too fast. Did you know that the average knight could walk efficiently, crawl, and run very fast in a full suit of armor? ever see Excalibur. if you wear the stuff alot, you tend to grow into it. much like a football player, but more massive. The word 'hunk'(of man flesh.....) comes from this period. No he wasn't as limber as an archer but he'd kill 10-50 archers before one got him. Read about the Knights of St. John in their defence of Rhodes...........'The Shield and the Sword'. British volume. Read it the first time when I was twelve.
diborgia
Callahan9119
06-02-2006, 09:07
so your basing your argument on fiction? most estimates of historical battles are embellished, and excaliber is fantasy. most combatants were not professional soldiers anyway.
the marching speed is not the problem its realistic...the fact that men in full armor can charge as fast as calvalry is the thing that isnt good....it imbalances or ruins gameplay and renders skirmishing useless
Duke John
06-02-2006, 09:08
So a man in armour with a shield could run 17 km/h, charge at 21 km/h and not be out of breath when he reaches the enemy?
sunsmountain
06-02-2006, 09:09
Speed wouldn't be such an issue, if morale were higher. The range of some ranged units (yes) could also be increased and speed would be a non-issue. Guess we're stuck with modding, because why lose the WCIII audience? Flanking? Huh?
Lord Adherbal
06-02-2006, 10:52
speed is EVERYTHING. TW battles aren't up to scale, so if speed isn't "slow" you won't ever get interesting battles. I'll give an example: in RTW it doesn't matter what flank your cavalry is on, because they can get to the other flank in 1 second. This makes deployment fairly unimportant because any unit can be anywere in a second or two. Also, with these high speeds archers need to have intercontinental ranges, or else they wouldn't even get a volley off before the enemy reaches them. This has a severe effect on the skirmish phase. There is no more "pav tagging" because everything goes way too fast for that.
even with low kill speed and high morale, the game is still a about rushing and clickfesting (that term is hardly abusive, it just describes the high speed of the gameplay), and not tactical maneuvers.
Cesare diBorja
06-02-2006, 10:54
The guys in 'Excalibur' were in real 13-15th century armour so it isn't total fiction. The stuff was real and they were actors who had to work out alot to make the movie and actually pulled it off. Fictional movie, yes. Armour real, yes. Get my point! The premise was fake. The action was real(them in armour, going through the motions, axe and sword blades it hitting the armour were blunt, essentially crowbars, these guys got hurt making the movie!). I met some of the guys(Patrick Stewart, Nigel Terry, Nigel Bruce) from that movie.
For those whom are doubters read about the battles of Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers! Agincourt was a running battle that took place over a wide expanse of territory. Adherbal says it right!
sunsmountain; imagine if you had to carry 29 kgs of weight and had been doing it for 10-20 years at the age of 34. I am 34 and go camping at times with 20-30kgs of weight and run trails to make. I carried up to 32 kgs(dead weight; 6months training) in the US Navy and could run, Commonwealth SAS often have more, jogging sometimes 5 miles and sometimes having to go up hill. Its not impossible.
diBorgia
Duke John
06-02-2006, 11:01
I know that plate armour wasn't that restrictive at all. But I am not convinced that it is possible for 200 soldiers to maintain formation while running at 17 km/h and still be combat worthy after 500 metres.
Cesare diBorja
06-02-2006, 11:17
Drop your pack, still at weight+20 kgs, and I would use the my weapon as a brunt and push you over with my body weight and maybe a few of your friends. You are excluding shock force and thinking I am going to stop and swing my sword(or rifle w/bayonet) at you. Think steam-roller. 5'11'' 102.27 kgs(a Scotsman's build, I am Scotch/Irish, French, Prussian, Polish, Ukrainian, Jewish, African and American Indian) and pissed off. A double time until the last 30-50 metres then all out. If I am running at you and you swing to hit, unless you are a g-d of war, most of your blows will be glancing at best.
You know I just did a test with some guys about two months ago at my favorite pub and I told these to stop me. There were one time 3 of them the first time and then the next time, 4. I, both times, ran right through them, pushing them aside and blocking their punches, kicks and what have you, without being touched(receiving a blow). Trained military(intelligence and operations) versus what could be called militia. Hands, elbows and fists, no armour. Demonstration on shock force and initiative. We had all just gotten there within about 30 minutes, I had had one pint.
diBorgia
Subotai my crossbowmen regularly skirmish and then help out the heavies when it comes to the mosh pit fighting. they are responsible for at least 10, sometimes 30 percent of enemy casualties. The changes I made to the Chivmod are based on many books I presented at twcenter.net as 'monkeytool'.
Duke John
06-02-2006, 11:51
Well, you may be heavy and having a death wish, but not all soldiers would just charge headlong into a wall of spears. Just like with horses you will have your surivial instinct kicking in and you will slow down. Of course some soldiers may continue to charge.
I cannot believe that medieval soldiers charged like that. The first rank might be able to contact with the enemy but then because of the speed there will be a clash of bodies resulting in grappling and wrestling. Then the second charging rank would arrive. If they also charge like you described than there would quickly be one big pile of soldiers on top of each other as men come charging in as fast as they can.
And isn't double time twice as fast as walking? That would be 10 km/h. That would be realistic but seeing armoured men walking at 17 km/h as if they were featherweights comes across as unbelieveable to many. Seeing that you immediately breaks the illusion of being there on the battlefield and makes TW quite clearly a game, an overdramatized game.
[1]EDIT: the announcement for this forum lists the following rule first:
"1. No CA/RTW/MTW/STW/Modification Bashing"
So a rule was made in Feb 2006 for this forum that can be interpreted as "no game criticism". That's interesting. BTW, the rule forgot to list M2TW which is the game this form was created to discuss.
The fact remains that I can't click fast enough to play RTW/BI multiplayer, and it looks like M2TW will be the same. My response time on average is 250 milliseconds between seeing a change on the screen and clicking the mouse button.
R'as al Ghul
06-02-2006, 13:22
I'd say that anyone who has seen Horses and men run and walk in real life should be able to tell that what Rome presents is not a realistic representation.
Of course, it's a game and some things can't be represented and/ or wouldn't be fun to play with, but run speed is not one of these things.
Personally I've only bought BI to play the upcoming mods like Ran no Jidai, Nap Mod and Bue Lotus. I've always liked the 3d battles and think they are what makes Total War special, not the campaign map. As others have stated, the R:TW battles are too fast for me.
Atm, I'm enjoying Samurai Warlords, our mod for M:TW/VI and have a lot of fun with people like Puzz3d and CBR who want the same gameplay as me. But there'll eventualy come the time when gamespy turns off the server support for M:TW and then we are forced to move on to newer titles. I'd hate to see Total War MP die because it's not enjoyable. I hope CA reads some comments and fixes what needs to be fixed. They can always have an option to personalize the speeds, camera, interface etc.
:bow:
R'as
Gah well if we are going to talk about speed and realism (which we talked about a long time ago) Im just gonna give a link to a thread from RTW demo days: clicky (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=35875&highlight=double+quick) and to be more precise my post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=577023&postcount=28)
But just to be clear: I dont care about if speed is realistic or not, I care about control.
IIRC escavations near the site of the battle of Visby showed skeletons with lots of wounds on arms and legs (and thats just impacts that can seen on the bones) That directly goes against this IMO "Hollywood" style of charging into each other but points towards a more careful style were soldiers actually used their weapons and not their bodies to run down people.
Plus men-at-arms of later ages didnt have any shield or just a small buckler shield. Only way to defend against a thrust would be to actively use your weapon (or buckler) to block or simply move back or to the side, cant just hide behind a shield and run forward and hope for the best.
I just dont the point in your test. Would you be using same tactic if they were armed with swords or pole-axes?
I certainly have books on Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers but where is all the running in those battles?
CBR
Kralizec
06-02-2006, 16:37
Another issue with RTW walking/running speeds (and MTW2 as it appears), as Chivalry: Total War has pointed out, the consideration of scale. While it might be easy in RTW to have a cheap unit pin a phalanx and circle a cohort around to annihalate the pikemen from behind, in real battles that would require more planning and soundly implemented tactics.
A personal dream of mine is that you can trust units (units in the broad sense) to operate on its own, kinda like group AI in RTW but with more intelligence. Roman troops would have excelled at this as the centurions attached to maniples and cohorts most definitely were men with valour and tactical insight. You, the player could only take control of local troops if your general was nearby. Then you could actually cut off the enemy's army from command by pinning down the enemy general!
That's far beyond the TW approach though, but a man can dream :jumping:
Callahan9119
06-03-2006, 10:36
i just watched the movies again, it seems worse every time i see it,,,gameplay trailer 2 on most i have seen ~:(
look at those animals using "charge" /run, its really bad..if it stays like this i can surely bet i wont touch mp... graphics are damn pretty though
i recently heard cannon elephants are gonna be in mtw2....i grow more worried as i read :wall:
screwtype
06-05-2006, 09:45
I agree with you entirely sunsmountain, there are plenty also who DO visit these forums that are happy enough with the speed. Let's not forget though, CA increased unit speeds for RTW, there was no unit speed debate before that. Both STW and MTW had a large MP community so what was their basis for implementing the change? There are countless MP vets who quit the game due to RTW.
Already we have seen the response by [cF]Adherbal and I am quite sure there will be others too.
A speed toggle would be a very nice feature, in fact the host should have access to many settings and this has been mentioned frequently but unfortunately it has never been implemented
......Orda
In my opinion the speed problem in STW/MTW was not so much the speed of the battles themselves but the awfully long time it took to chase the enemy off the battlefield once you had won.
Mind you, it didn't bother me that much, I liked the epic feel of battles in those games, but I can understand how CA would want to cut down the battle time for a wider audience. I just think they went about it the wrong way. The solution wasn't to speed up unit movement and kill rates, it was just to make the routing stage quicker. That could have been easily accomplished just by, for example, giving the player the option to quit the battle with a victory as soon as he had all enemy units routing, and just autocalc the remaining casualties.
The other obvious solution, as many others have pointed out, is to have an "arcade" mode for the youngsters and a "realism" mode for the buffs. Or to have a lot more options you could set to your taste. I mean, there are all sorts of ways they could have approached the problem other than dumbing the entire package down for the kiddies. But they chose not to make use of them.
Lord Adherbal
06-05-2006, 10:00
The solution wasn't to speed up unit movement and kill rates, it was just to make the routing stage quicker. That could have been easily accomplished just by, for example, giving the player the option to quit the battle with a victory as soon as he had all enemy units routing, and just autocalc the remaining casualties.
and killing routers was MUCH to effective anyway. If you had enough cavalry you could always destroy 90% or more of the enemy army. How realistic is that.
Atleast in MTW the routing units still fought back a little, and didn't die instantly by just being touched by an enemy soldier. And they were actualy capable of breaking through a surroundment. In RTW a routing unit has no brain and no defence, making most routing units get annihilated almost instantly. On top of that the direction they chose to run in makes MUCH less sense then how they did in MTW.
That could have been easily accomplished just by, for example, giving the player the option to quit the battle with a victory as soon as he had all enemy units routing ...
We already have that option.
screwtype
06-05-2006, 12:30
We already have that option.
Yes, you've got it in RTW. I was talking about STW/MTW. In those games, every enemy soldier had to rout off the field before you had a victory.
What I'm saying is, they ONLY needed to include the RTW option to end the battle quickly after all enemy units are routing. That would have been enough to shorten the battles down to an acceptable time. They didn't need to add the fast movement and fast kill rates as well. That just ruined the battles.
screwtype
06-05-2006, 12:45
Adherbal']and killing routers was MUCH to effective anyway. If you had enough cavalry you could always destroy 90% or more of the enemy army. How realistic is that.
Well, I don't know. It seems pretty realistic to me that if you have cavalry you are going to greatly increase the enemy casualties, after all, pursuing a broken enemy is one of the main purposes of having cavalry. I didn't think the kill rate of routers was excessive in STW/MTW. In fact, sometimes I found it frustrating that the cav. took too long to kill routers.
In RTW though, I agree with you that killing routers is too fast, along with most everything else in the game. In RTW, there are generally NO enemy survivors when I have cavalry, LOL. In fact, I adopted an iron man rule, that many others also used, of just taking the autocalc results of pursuits rather than running down every last soldier myself, to give the AI slightly more of a fighting chance.
Adherbal']Atleast in MTW the routing units still fought back a little, and didn't die instantly by just being touched by an enemy soldier. And they were actualy capable of breaking through a surroundment. In RTW a routing unit has no brain and no defence, making most routing units get annihilated almost instantly. On top of that the direction they chose to run in makes MUCH less sense then how they did in MTW.
I don't recall enemy routers fighting back in STW/MTW, but a handful would sometimes break through the surrounding soldiers. It was never that easy to kill every one of them.
As for direction - they used to run in stupid directions in the earlier games as well. There was nothing worse in STW than having one of your units rout when it happened to have the enemy between it and the "safe" side of the map, because it meant your unit would rout right through the enemy unit and get slaughtered :wall:
But the rout that most annoys me in RTW is when enemy units defending in a siege rout through the city gates and straight back to the city centre - even after you have taken it! That one is really annoying and stupid, and can create all kinds of problems.
Callahan9119
06-06-2006, 07:29
Yes, you've got it in RTW. I was talking about STW/MTW. In those games, every enemy soldier had to rout off the field before you had a victory.
What I'm saying is, they ONLY needed to include the RTW option to end the battle quickly after all enemy units are routing. That would have been enough to shorten the battles down to an acceptable time. They didn't need to add the fast movement and fast kill rates as well. That just ruined the battles.
AGREED!! :bow:
sunsmountain
06-08-2006, 17:51
speed is EVERYTHING. TW battles aren't up to scale, so if speed isn't "slow" you won't ever get interesting battles. I'll give an example: in RTW it doesn't matter what flank your cavalry is on, because they can get to the other flank in 1 second. This makes deployment fairly unimportant because any unit can be anywere in a second or two.
Not if they march. Marching speeds are ok. It's just the running speeds, to quote CBR:
But the actual distance travelled over time is not that important for the game, its more the difference between march and double quick march. Even if we give the Romans the benefit of the doubt (and turn them all into US marines) and assume they can do 180 steps that would still only be x 1.8 the marching speed.
IMO the x 1.66 increase we had in MTW is more realistic than the x 2.5 we have in RTW demo
CBR
It's of course nice to get your reserves quickly to the spot where you want them to be, but they could take longer if the morale didn't cause troops to rout so quickly. Because of this the charging speeds need to be high, else it won't matter anymore.
Also, with these high speeds archers need to have intercontinental ranges, or else they wouldn't even get a volley off before the enemy reaches them. This has a severe effect on the skirmish phase. There is no more "pav tagging" because everything goes way too fast for that.
Well I've seen Chosen Archer Warbands keeping range in multiplayer, shooting infantry. Pesky little buggers. They're caught pretty quickly by cavalry though. Which is why you should protect them.
even with low kill speed and high morale, the game is still a about rushing and clickfesting (that term is hardly abusive, it just describes the high speed of the gameplay), and not tactical maneuvers.
Without a penalty to stacking all your units together and concentrating all your attacks, the charging speeds would indeed still make it rushing and clickfesting.
With that penalty, you'd lose the clickfesting, but still have rushing (to get to all the flanks).
But do notice how higher morale (and higher killrates) help: Your units will be engaged and cannot quickly rout 1 unit and help routing the next 1, without suffering massive casualties. There needs to be balance.
sunsmountain; imagine if you had to carry 29 kgs of weight and had been doing it for 10-20 years at the age of 34. I am 34 and go camping at times with 20-30kgs of weight and run trails to make. I carried up to 32 kgs(dead weight; 6months training) in the US Navy and could run, Commonwealth SAS often have more, jogging sometimes 5 miles and sometimes having to go up hill. Its not impossible.
Hey I don't argue with big fella's :2thumbsup: but can you do 250 steps/minute for half an hour? Roman principes can. :hide: It's not so much about whether it's physically possible, but whether it adds to gameplay or substracts from it. If you can charge to any point on a field within 10 seconds then it doesn't really matter how you deploy your troops. There is no point in a formation or a strategy, since you can hunt & kill every individual unit with your best anti-units.
This is something that has to change to give better gameplay, which we enjoyed with previous titles. Rome looks gorgeous, but it's all over too soon. With the battle lasting as long as the marching, nothing has changed with respect to MTW except now I can do 2 indecisive battles instead of 1 decisive one in the same amount of time.
Oh and when I did the tests back then I didnt realise that even a bit of fatigue lowered overall movement. A fresh infantry unit running is doing something like 280% of walk speed(Duke John did that calculation) So thats around 17 km/h, 69% faster than run speed on MTW.
IIRC some CA dev said heavy infantry speed was reduced a bit in BI. But I never tested it.
CBR
If you guys want to play a real good battle sim, this is the game you want.
http://www.madminutegames.com/
It's a civil war game (so maybe off-topic), but it's absolutely the best war game out there. You won't find anything to complain about here concerning movement speeds or anything else. Try the demo for TC2M and be amazed. You might just stop playing TW after this...
Perhaps not for you and me, Orda, but what about the 90% of Rome TW gamers (they exist, this is a fact), that do NOT visit these forums, that ARE challenged by the AI, and that DO enjoy the battle speed as it is?
Where are you getting your statistics as to how many RTW players there are, and how many of them find the AI challenging? Of those who find it challenging, what is the demographical age break down? I could see a 10 year old finding the AI a challenge, but a 20 year old? If your 20 or older and find the RTW AI a challenge, I have a couple bridges I want to sell you.
Besides Difficulty levels are there so that the game is a challenge for the best players on the hardest levels, not so some 10 year old can brag they beat the game on the hardest levels. When the highest levels aren't a challenge to good players, that's just sad.
I'm still wondering wher you figure you get the right to judge who should be playing TW. And 2 minutes to get to one end of ther map is too much time. And having a job that is 2 hours a day to get to and from 4 days a week means I don't have 20-30 minutes to spend on 1 battle. Which are second banana anyway. My main focus is the strategic map.[/QUOTE]
If your main focus is the strategic map, then aren't you just playing a board game on a computer? Go play risk! :wall:
sunsmountain
07-03-2006, 09:26
Where are you getting your statistics as to how many RTW players there are, and how many of them find the AI challenging? Of those who find it challenging, what is the demographical age break down? I could see a 10 year old finding the AI a challenge, but a 20 year old? If your 20 or older and find the RTW AI a challenge, I have a couple bridges I want to sell you.
The group under consideration consists of 100 physicist students, 10 of which own the game. Of those, I am the only one who is unchallenged. All my fellow students are, to a more or less extent. After a while, they find out cav works best (it does, simply trample and rout all opposition) and beat the campaign game fairly easy.
Their ages are 20 years old on average, with me upping the average a bit. Let me tell you something: I remember fondly my first battle experience in the campaign game in Medieval Total War. It was against the AI, we had roughly equal troops, but needless to say, i got my *** handed to me on a platter. I had to learn to form a cohesive battle line, which i didn't at first, i got outflanked and my urban militia's routed.
If the AI doesn't force you to do this, and is fairly challenging if you simply point and click (most do, it's a warcraft 2 & 3 conditioning, games which almost everybody owns), then give us 1 reason not to be challenged by that?
Besides Difficulty levels are there so that the game is a challenge for the best players on the hardest levels, not so some 10 year old can brag they beat the game on the hardest levels. When the highest levels aren't a challenge to good players, that's just sad.
Yes, and after about half a year (again on average), most of them left the game for other games. This is what separates a hyped game from a true classic. A true classic still gets played. A hyped game doesn't.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.