View Full Version : Creative Assembly The latest Q and A is now up...Happy Holidays
Intrepid Sidekick
12-21-2007, 18:40
http://totalwarblog.com/
Something to chew on over the Christmas period :2thumbsup:
Q: Will you be able to see men jumping off the ship when it is sinking?
A: Yes. Some will be holding on for dear life as the ship slips beneath the waves and visits Davy Jones’ Locker. As most sailors of the 18th Century weren’t good swimmers, this is a very sad sight to see. The designers are still angling for ambient sharks (but without frickin’ laser beams on their heads).
Sweet. ~D
What has to be remembered is that most ships have two broadsides to fire, as well as boarding actions to fight.
Very nice
Would be kewl if you could individually order some of your men to the masts board from above! :P If the mast got shot off while they were up there, that would be fun. :P
Barbarian
12-22-2007, 03:08
This game seems better with each time I read a new info about it:pirate2:
... until you play it :D
Annie
S.Selim_1
12-22-2007, 21:10
i didn't like this Q&A coz:
1- talking only of navy
2- many of the Qs will be "answered/talked in another time"......just answer another Q:furious3:
Jack Lusted
12-23-2007, 00:24
1- talking only of navy
Naval battles is the big new feature in Empire(though of course we've got forgotten the other parts of the game), so it should come as no suprise we want to talk about them first, but do not be worried we'll talk about all the aspects of the game as time goes by.
2- many of the Qs will be "answered/talked in another time"......just answer another Q
That's more to let you guys know that we've read some of the things people have been discussing a lot(like how will players be ableto get to India), and we will answer them when the time is right.
Vladimir
12-23-2007, 00:24
It's good to see the heavy focus on naval combat. Arrrrrgg! :2thumbsup: :pirate:
how will players be ableto get to IndiaI'm picking an inset showing the area around capetown :balloon2:
I Am Herenow
12-23-2007, 10:08
Cape of Good Hope? I'm confused - what's wrong with the Suez Canal?
Mikeus Caesar
12-23-2007, 10:58
Cape of Good Hope? I'm confused - what's wrong with the Suez Canal?
If i remember correctly, the game goes up to 1820 at the very max - the canal wasn't even begun until the late 1850's.
I Am Herenow
12-23-2007, 15:55
Oh, right - I could have sworn EB had it in though :confused:
Anyway, will it be possible to build it (or something similar) during the campaign, then, to let your ships get to India faster?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-23-2007, 23:33
There has been a canal in the Suez region, on and off, and to various degrees of size and efficiency, since the time of Ancient Egypt.
keravnos
12-23-2007, 23:53
Oh, right - I could have sworn EB had it in though :confused:
Anyway, will it be possible to build it (or something similar) during the campaign, then, to let your ships get to India faster?
This was a canal from Nile to red sea created by Dareios I and rebuilt by Ptolemy III, I think.
S.Selim_1
12-24-2007, 01:41
This was a canal from Nile to red sea created by Dareios I and rebuilt by Ptolemy III, I think.
they also included it in M2TW..so i don't think it would be much of a problem if they included in empire
and no offense Jack if i thought not answering some Qs is a problem..i'm just curious 2 no as much info as possible :D
The "Nile-to-Red Sea" Canal completed by Darius I was "wide enough to accommodate two triremes crossing each other with oars extended" (according to Wiki). However, it was not usable at all at later time, and certainly not during the 17th century (as Napoleon Bonaparte considered repair it or construct or new canal). All ocean-going ships must go around the Cape in South Africa. Cargo may be unloaded, transported on land, then loaded again. Warships certainly could not go through Egypt.
Annie
i didn't like this Q&A coz:
1- talking only of navy
This month we are taking the fight to the seas with an indepth look at Naval warfare.
That's the whole point...
Rhyfelwyr
12-28-2007, 18:42
I think the naval battles sound incredible, I am going to pre-order one of the limited editions of this game if that is possibe, and I've never done that before.
I would like to see a little bit more on the campaign / land battles though, and I want some Jacobite screenies. Highlanders are not gorillas as in M2TW. I love M2TW but I was a bit disappointed with the Highlander skins, although the armoured Highland model as with Highland Nobles is IMO very nice.
Has anything been mentioned about a release date BTW?
Wolf_Kyolic
01-01-2008, 15:31
Q: Do you agree that etw is the final nail in the coffin for the mp community?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you agree that etw is the final nail in the coffin for the mp community?
What irritates me is the attempt to once again sucker people into buying the game by using words such as realism and depth. You'll be playing naval battles and having fun in less than one minute, but the battles are going to have depth? Sounds like double talk to me. It's academic anyway because this company is no longer able to get the coding details implemented correctly. So, what good is a great concept if you can't get the details right?
What irritates me is the attempt to once again sucker people into buying the game by using words such as realism and depth.
After RTW was released, multiplayer community probably represented only 1% or 2% of all who bought RTW. I always get the felling that I don't found out nothing new about the upcoming TW game until it is released and I can read other people opinions.
If by any chanse in near future anyone from CA will be addressing multiplayer issues, then there are only few questions:
Q: Will there be multiplayer included at all?
A: Yes./No.
Q: Will be lag problem solved?
A: Yes./No.
Q: Will be MP balanced as it should be (at least like retrofit mod)?
A: Yes./No.
Q: Will there be any new features in MP? If so which one?
A: Yes./No.
Q: Will there be any desync problems?
A: Yes./No.
Q: Will there be a feature for a simple mod upload?
A: Yes./No.
I won't bother you with this no more, because this are most cruical issues which multiplayer community is interested in it, but we guess they won't be addressed as they were not in RTW/BI as not in MTW2/Kingdoms yet they got closer to this, still far away. Thank you for your consideration.
p.s. I would personaly like to thank CA for hosting retrofit mod - it balances the MP aspect of the game. This is how MTW2 and Kingdoms should be done in first place to satisfie MP community expectations.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-02-2008, 10:26
p.s. I would personaly like to thank CA for hosting retrofit mod - it balances the MP aspect of the game. This is how MTW2 and Kingdoms should be done in first place to satisfie MP community expectations.
Retrofit fixes balance issues that's true but lag and connection problems will be there forever so the stituation does not seem so brilliant for the future. People won't be bearing those mp problems forever and since next tw is "ships", the end is very near.
Well we cannot blame CA because everyone knows that it takes some rocket science to release a game that does not lag and does not have connection problems. It is soooooo very complicated (especially if you have no clue about what is causing those problems). They tried hard but it was beyond their devs' coding skills. Ces't la vie.
lmao
BeeSting
01-04-2008, 01:31
This is all good but I’m concerned that the game mechanics might be too overwhelming and complicated for the battle and campaign AI. Could we get some more details assuring us that battle AI will be an improvement from the past? Love the graphics and new features but AI can spoil the overall game play in a heartbeat.
NimbleNota
01-04-2008, 02:35
Q. Will I regret buying this game too?
A. :yes:
Rhyfelwyr
01-04-2008, 23:01
Q: Will merchant ships be part of your fleet, so that the warships need to guard the merchant ships in a battle?
A: There are two types of merchant activity in Empire: trade routes and trade fleets. These can be guarded by your navies. There is a boatload to say about this so I think we are going to leave that for another time.
Sounds interesing. So will this mean parking some ships on those little dotted lines that represent trade routes block them like armies on roads? And will trade fleets function as individual, controllable units like merchants in M2TW?
Q: Will we be able to use captured ships in our own naval and merchant fleets?
A: Yes. There is a whole chapter that can be written about this but that’s for another time
A very cool feature. But can you just use captured ships if your faction can normally recruit them. Like when you bribe armies and M2TW, only units available to your faction switch sides, the rest disband.
Q: Will my faction’s navy be able to take on repairs at neutral or allied ports?
A: No. There are a number of issues involved in allowing the player’s warships to enter friendly/neutral ports that don’t really add anything good to gameplay. One of the challenges in Empire will be to maintain a fleet at sea and have sufficient ports around the world to carry out repairs and replacement of lost crew and ships. If you want to do well, you’re going to have to emulate the Royal Navy!
This doesn't sound like much but it could turn out to be a massive feature. That alone would encourage realistic growth of colonial empires, rather than great empires over landmasses I was a bit afraid would appear...
Q: Will Pirates/Privateers play any roles in the game? Can we hire them to harass ports of call or go after enemy nations merchant ships to disrupt their trade?
A: Yes. They will raid your trade routes and on occasion attack ports that are poorly defended. If they think they can outgun an isolated naval vessel they will give it a go too. The player can raid the trade routes of enemy factions and also blockade enemy ports with their naval vessels during wartime.
Ports are defended? So can battles be fought in Ports?
Q: How will we get to India? Will you incorporate a ‘warping’ system where you warp around the map or do we sail around the Cape of Good Hope?
A: We have a cunning plan but we can’t give too much away just yet. Keep an eye out as we reveal more in the fullness of time. You will like it.
Not the old Suez Canal trick then?
And BTW, I can't believe how negative some people here are being. This game sounds incredible, and any TW game, even if its had its problems, has always been a top quality PC-game to buy.
NimbleNota
01-05-2008, 02:44
And BTW, I can't believe how negative some people here are being. This game sounds incredible, and any TW game, even if its had its problems, has always been a top quality PC-game to buy.
I agree 100% for SP, TW is the best, no questions asked there
But you should try playing MP....... then tell me how top notch it is :thumbsdown:
Wolf_Kyolic
01-06-2008, 18:02
I agree 100% for SP, TW is the best, no questions asked there
But you should try playing MP....... then tell me how top notch it is :thumbsdown:
Ye try MP and then tell us what you think. lol
Wolf_Kyolic
01-07-2008, 07:05
Miserable Player
lol
Intrepid Sidekick
01-08-2008, 13:15
As we have already pointed out over at the .Com.
There are plans, nay more than plans, actual work, afoot to significantly improve the MP experience.
Here is the link: http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/16495/t/Multiplayer-Feedback.html?page=1
This is a post I made over there about 6 months ago.
"Hi guys
Thanks for all the feedback. Keep it up, but keep it constructive. If you can, describe clearly what the issue is and why.
As others on this thread have so clearly and concisely said: the more specific, coherent and defined the feedback is, the more likely we can evaluate it properly.
We are aware there are technical issues with MP that need addressing and although I can't answer for CA-OZ (I'm sure the OZ guys are doing work for Kingdoms), we here at CA-UK are most definitely looking at trying to resolve as many issues as we can, as a matter of course, for the next big TW title. We are actually at this time working on the next (full) TW title and we're rebuilding the MP section from the foundations up. There were a number of unfortunate limitations that the Rome and Med2 engines placed on us that should, fingers crossed, be less of an issue this time around. How well much we manage to fit in is still subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous games development, but we really are going for it.
As I mentioned to Toxic elsewhere, we have a very, very big list of new features, bug fixes and game improvements. Anyway to quote myself and save my fingers for work:
"Unfortunately, despite us having an amazing bunch of people working long and hard on producing a world class game, there just aren't enough hours in the day or the infinite amount of time we would like to do all the work we would like. This has meant that inevitably some game features have, in the past, had to take a back seat to others. This isn't what we want or ever have ever intended, but game software development has a terrible capacity to throw curveballs out of left field. Often, they hit you on the back of the head when you're looking the other way. "
So guys please don't despair but be aware that rebuilding code isnt a "quick fix". It takes time. But we hope you will think it's worth it. "
So to all the MP fans, we are doing what we can to resolve as many issues as possible and at the same time add more features. There will be a Q & A as well as magazine (on and offline) articles that will talk about this. We have several months worth of info to release, please be patient.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-09-2008, 00:39
Is there any word yet on copy protection that will be included in Empire?
Mouzafphaerre
01-09-2008, 05:25
Is there any word yet on copy protection that will be included in Empire?
.
Very good question. :yes: Securom or any other malware and bye bye Empire. :rtwno:
.
We are actually at this time working on the next (full) TW title
Does this refer to the Rome Total War II of rumors? :beam:
Intrepid Sidekick
01-09-2008, 17:38
We are actually at this time working on the next (full) TW title
Does this refer to the Rome Total War II of rumors?
No. As I said that was a quote from post that I made before we announced that Empire was the next TW project.
"This is a post I made over there about 6 months ago."
Is there any word yet on copy protection that will be included in Empire?
No info as yet on what kind of copy protection we are using on Empire.
NimbleNota
01-09-2008, 18:43
As we have already pointed out over at the .Com.
There are plans, nay more than plans, actual work, afoot to significantly improve the MP experience.
Here is the link: http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/16495/t/Multiplayer-Feedback.html?page=1
This is a post I made over there about 6 months ago.
"Hi guys
Thanks for all the feedback. Keep it up, but keep it constructive. If you can, describe clearly what the issue is and why.
As others on this thread have so clearly and concisely said: the more specific, coherent and defined the feedback is, the more likely we can evaluate it properly.
We are aware there are technical issues with MP that need addressing and although I can't answer for CA-OZ (I'm sure the OZ guys are doing work for Kingdoms), we here at CA-UK are most definitely looking at trying to resolve as many issues as we can, as a matter of course, for the next big TW title. We are actually at this time working on the next (full) TW title and we're rebuilding the MP section from the foundations up. There were a number of unfortunate limitations that the Rome and Med2 engines placed on us that should, fingers crossed, be less of an issue this time around. How well much we manage to fit in is still subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous games development, but we really are going for it.
As I mentioned to Toxic elsewhere, we have a very, very big list of new features, bug fixes and game improvements. Anyway to quote myself and save my fingers for work:
"Unfortunately, despite us having an amazing bunch of people working long and hard on producing a world class game, there just aren't enough hours in the day or the infinite amount of time we would like to do all the work we would like. This has meant that inevitably some game features have, in the past, had to take a back seat to others. This isn't what we want or ever have ever intended, but game software development has a terrible capacity to throw curveballs out of left field. Often, they hit you on the back of the head when you're looking the other way. "
So guys please don't despair but be aware that rebuilding code isnt a "quick fix". It takes time. But we hope you will think it's worth it. "
So to all the MP fans, we are doing what we can to resolve as many issues as possible and at the same time add more features. There will be a Q & A as well as magazine (on and offline) articles that will talk about this. We have several months worth of info to release, please be patient.
I've heard these promises and a very similar speech before, hmmm just trying to think when and where..... oh yes, by CA right before MTW2 came out :drama3:
Not saying you are a liar, just I have been promised these things before and all that has happened is MP has been made steadily worse since MTW times. But if you want me to wait and see, I will
Also you say the post was made 6 months ago...... What has changed in Mp since then? if you don't mind me asking :)
Nimble
@Intrepid Sidekick
No doubts, it all sounds very promising and Im looking forward to play the game BUT:
What are you actually planning to do? Like... what kind of multiplayer features? Are there going to be things like proper friend lists? Clan support? Ladders? Quickmatch features? Decent maps?
And how are you planning to fix the massive lag we had to bother with during the past few years?
Please name a few things. That would be appreciated more than just "empty promises", many people from the mp community just find it very hard to believe, cause they have been dissapointed a lot during the past few years :juggle2:
And why the sudden interest in mp at all? . There is a huge singleplayer community so why spend money on mp if nobody plays it?
Many questions no answers :yes:
Wolf_Kyolic
01-10-2008, 09:13
Oh gawd!!! A dream comes true!!! A TW with good MP.
Bu it is ships!
lol
Jack Lusted
01-10-2008, 10:02
There will be both land battle and naval battle MP in Empire. I'm not quite sure where you've got the idea it would just be naval battles.
@Denali, more will be revealed in time, for now we've already revealed the following:
A brand new multiplayer component will include player rankings, leagues and ladders and completely new gameplay modes.
http://www.totalwar.com/index.html?page=/en/communityandforums/empire.html&nav=/en/6/8/
I appriciate your patience and your replys here. I just mention few issues.
A brand new multiplayer component will include player rankings, leagues and ladders and completely new gameplay modes.
Ok, fair enough. One question. Do you remember what MP elements Shogun had?
Why I'm asking this? Simple answer. I expect to see all those MP elements also in Empires and much more like capture the flag possibilities and so on.
A brand new multiplayer component will include player rankings, leagues and ladders and completely new gameplay modes.
Games with good MP support can be your guide. If that statement above is correct then I guess that in lobby there will also be no lag problems and no desync issues.
We have discussed all this for far too long and we also hoped for too long. Now simply is time for acts. We are all aware how high expectations are. Since RTW they were not realized. We will see how it will be this time.Every men patience has its limits.Thank you for interest.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-11-2008, 03:23
There will be both land battle and naval battle MP in Empire. I'm not quite sure where you've got the idea it would just be naval battles.
@Denali, more will be revealed in time, for now we've already revealed the following:
http://www.totalwar.com/index.html?page=/en/communityandforums/empire.html&nav=/en/6/8/
Lol that's ironic. You ask me where I get that idea and then post a link for Denali and that link has 5 ETW screenshots all of them being ships!
http://www.totalwar.com/index.html?page=/en/communityandforums/empire.html&nav=/en/6/8/
I haven't seen a single screenshot for ETW which was land battle yet.
And look at this:
http://www.totalwarblog.com/
About 15 Q-A and all of them are about naval battles.
I heard there will be land battles but looking at the info floating around, I get the impression that those land battles will be just for some added flavor to the naval battles which are the main stream of the game.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Kyo
Jack Lusted
01-11-2008, 10:09
I heard there will be land battles but looking at the info floating around, I get the impression that those land battles will be just for some added flavor to the naval battles which are the main stream of the game.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Yes you are. Land battles will be a key part in Empire just like in all Total War games. We have just shown naval battle pictures, and released mostly info on naval battles so far given the fact they are the major new feature in Empire and we want to show them off. You'll see pics of land battles, and more info about them soon enough. But they will not be a side show, they will be a major part of the game like in every Total War game so far.
Mouzafphaerre
01-11-2008, 11:21
.
Let's be fair guys! :bobby2:
Naval battles were virtually non-existent in Total War hitherto. I had taken the chariot warfare as a prequel to possible future naval warfare during the days of RTW. Honestly, I don't know any good strategy games with decent naval battles as of yet. Age of Sail series were reportedly over-buggy, Port Royal screwed up a potentially good system in sequels (thus losing me for one) and about Imperial Glory I haven't heard much glorification. Therefore, CA have all the right to promote the naval battles of their next game.
Developing, improving and, yes, repairing and completing the existing mechanics isn't necessarily contradictory to implementing a new, yet for long missing feature. I'm with you in urging CA to complete and perfect the existing, inherited strategy, diplomacy, land battles and all incarnations of the AI; yet naval warfare finally being implemented is what predominantly makes me have expectations about this game, if not solely.
:bow:
.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-11-2008, 11:50
Yes you are. Land battles will be a key part in Empire just like in all Total War games. We have just shown naval battle pictures, and released mostly info on naval battles so far given the fact they are the major new feature in Empire and we want to show them off. You'll see pics of land battles, and more info about them soon enough. But they will not be a side show, they will be a major part of the game like in every Total War game so far.
Ok that is good to know. But then we are worried that those land battles will be dominated by guns. The conventional skill required, tactical depth game play won't be there. One will bring his guns and click on enemy. The battle will be resolved according to who has the better guns. Like the guns of late era of MTW2. They just dominate the game. You bring other type of units (cav, swords, spears, etc) just to hold enemy troops while guns are doing the job.
Well actually I can't blame CA. Afterall the gameplay must be enjoyable and easy; "hey look at that daddy...my elephants killed all his army". Add some good graphs and music on that and you are done. Total fun.
Otherwise it won't sell millions. :idea2:
Oh btw do not get me wrong. I am an employer who is 35 years old. I know about marketing and finance and I do not expect CA to sell less to fulfill veteran players needs for game and stay as a small company. That would be stupid. What makes me upset is that there are ways of satisfying both groups (veterans who like the tactical depth of the game and like to share that online with real people and the single players who do not care about that all) but CA ignores the first group. Let's say they had to do that with RTW because there was no other way but how about MTW2?
They just did not care solving lag issue and even though there was a team gathered together for making a reasonable balance (they did their job), CA did not implement that balance to the game. It is a mod now (Retrofit). CA says "get your mod and play as an isolated community please" where it would do no harm to them to implement that balance to the game (mtw2 could be patched to retrofit balance with the kingdoms expansion) and now we are expected to believe that ETW will be a perfect TW for MP. Lol?
RTW was a disaster for MP. That did not change with MTW2. Still lags like mad and the balance is laughable. Well Kingdoms balance is not bad but CA decided it should be 4 seperate games (that was the most brilliant decision in their history) so noone plays it.
Now it is ETW. The TW which will make MP community happy. Well I heard that before both for RTW and MTW2 and for their expansions as well.
"Trust us...This time we are gonna manage it with ETW..."
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/positive6.jpg
Jack Lusted
01-11-2008, 11:55
Ok that is good to know. But then we are worried that those land battles will be dominated by guns. The conventional skill required, tactical depth game play won't be there. One will bring his guns and click on enemy.
That is a common misconception of combat of the period. It most definitely was not just standing in lines and shooting at each other. Manouvering for the best ground, use of skirmishers, artillery to bombard positions, cavalry flanking, dealing with enemy cavalry, artillery and infantry, infantry manouvering, firing, and bayonet charges. This era is all about tactics. If you tried to just stand in line and just shoot, you would soon find yourself outmanouvered, flanked, battered and losing.
Duke John
01-11-2008, 12:29
Ok that is good to know. But then we are worried that those land battles will be dominated by guns. The conventional skill required, tactical depth game play won't be there.
That all depends on the game design and how players get on with it.
If you read historical reports of medieval or ancient battles then you won't see much tactical depth beyond lining up, charge and the occasional flank charge. It is only because TW games use independent units and a quick resolve of who wins a combat between two units and that is stark contrast with the inflexible battlelines that could keep fighting on for hours but in sharp resemblance with the tactics of Napoleonic battles. Of course the latter are out of Empire's timeframe but seeing how far CA took her freedom to create the battlemechanics for the older TW titles they should do so now too.
We did our best to create good gameplay for NTW2 and if played against players with the right mindset it can be great fun to position your units at the right positions, weaken the enemy at a spot that you are determined to break through after a few close range volleys. Timing becomes so much more important because you cannot afford your men to stay idle in front of the enemy. On the other hand with the wrong players you might just as well get a battle where there are no charges and units just continue to fire at each other. But you should realize that the fault then lies with the game design and players and not the period.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-11-2008, 12:30
artillery to bombard positions
Hell Yeaaaa!! Artillery!! That is the key dude. Key to the perfect tactical depth.
I cannot believe you come here and post "etw will have a perfect tactical depth with artillery".
This is like a bad joke!
Jack Lusted
01-11-2008, 12:38
Hell Yeaaaa!! Artillery!! That is the key dude. Key to the perfect tactical depth.
I cannot believe you come here and post "etw will have a perfect tactical depth with artillery".
This is like a bad joke!
Notice how I also mention cavalry, infantry, the use of terrain, forgot to mention the use of buildings, and other things, not just artillery. Artillery was a key part of armies in this time period though, but as part of a combined arms approach. Could you please not misquote me as nowhere did I say:
"etw will have a perfect tactical depth with artillery"
This is what I said:
That is a common misconception of combat of the period. It most definitely was not just standing in lines and shooting at each other. Manouvering for the best ground, use of skirmishers, artillery to bombard positions, cavalry flanking, dealing with enemy cavalry, artillery and infantry, infantry manouvering, firing, and bayonet charges. This era is all about tactics. If you tried to just stand in line and just shoot, you would soon find yourself outmanouvered, flanked, battered and losing.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-11-2008, 12:40
Oh whatever. We all can predict what ETW will be like. Final nail in the coffin for the MP community and I really have no idea why CA hates us that much.
Anyway I had really good time online during mtw and vi and it seems "every good thing has an end" rule applies to TW too. Nothing will change that.
Mouzafphaerre
01-11-2008, 12:42
.
(veterans who like the tactical depth of the game and like to share that online with real people and the single players who do not care about that all)
Pointless and arrogant discrimination. I'm a single player who has never played any game online (uhm... I believe I did once on MSN) but I'm a veteran in all senses of the word and vouch for tactical and strategical depth. ~:handball:
Single players have much more to complain about than online battle players; the lack of strategic depth or realism, the absence of I in AI, diplomacy unfeature and a heap of bugs and nuisances on tactical level, mostly even stronger felt absence of the I of the AI.
As long as players keep forming cults and glorifying their cult at the expense of derogating other players, it will be impossible to form a solid fanbase capable of affecting the developers. :no:
.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-11-2008, 12:51
https://img162.imageshack.us/img162/5743/17205518tz5.jpg
Mouzafphaerre
01-11-2008, 12:58
.
Totalwar.ORG: Troll Invasion. How come this one has been lurking for three years? :gah:
.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-11-2008, 13:24
Don't you agree SP Rocks mate? :laugh4:
Ser Clegane
01-11-2008, 17:24
I guess decent manners are not everybody's cup of tea, eh?
Oh, well...
I'd like to point out that comments and updates from CA staff are always welcome here and are appreciated by the majority of the community ... and hopefully the willingness to provide these updates is not stifled by members who apparently do not respect opinions of other community members either
Obviously not everybody is happy with everything that CA is doing and constructive and/or civilised criticism should also always be welcome and respected.
Pure trolling is neither appropriate nor helpful.
:bow:
Did anyone here played NTW2? If so you know that tactical depth is perfectly possible with the armies of time period. In fact I dare to say it has the best MP since Shogun *bows towards Duke John*, and I always thought that it is a shame that NTW2 is just a mod. It has everything you need for a good game light, heavy cavs, light, medium, heavy infantry, strong but not overpowering arty. It is brilliant.
TBH honest I did not think that CA would dare to make a napoleonic game after NTW2 as it is hard to come out on the top in comparison with NTW2. If CA can (re)produce the balance of NTW2 then it will be a brilliant game. If they can get just close to it it still will be good. Of course there is no guarantee for this and the last CA releases had the etendency to have at least one game breaking bug (blobbing, pushthrough) which were ironed out only for the expansion packs (i.e. too late). If CA can get the first release without such a bug then it has the potential to be a very good MP (and ofc solves the lag, has better maps, etc as promised). If not it is the end for MP ... this is the last, last chance ....
ps. forgot to ask from the CA devs: have you guys played NTW2? If not, please do so ASAP!!! :yes:
I Am Herenow
01-11-2008, 18:12
I expect to see all [Shogun's] MP elements also in Empires and much more like capture the flag possibilities and so on.
Hey, CTF in an RTS (as opposed to an FPS) - that's a good idea! I very rarely play Total War MP, but if Empires has CTF, then you can count me in!
Maybe we could also have MP historical battles, as well as "hold building/area x for 10 minutes" (or King of the Hill, if you like), and "kill the enemy general" modes?
I'd like to point out that comments and updates from CA staff are always welcome here and are appreciated by the majority of the community ... and hopefully the willingness to provide these updates is not stifled by members who apparently do not respect opinions of other community members either
Obviously not everybody is happy with everything that CA is doing and constructive and/or civilised criticism should also always be welcome and respected.
Pure trolling is neither appropriate nor helpful.
Seconded. And can we ban this guy? We've got a thread with a CA member replying frequently ATM and he might ruin it for all of us.
Whats NTW2? And by the way, I've never played multiplayer either, and I've been playing the TW series since MTW, never got bored.
But each man to his own views, yet I do not think it is correct to despair.......why maybe this time ETW might actually meet you requirement and more...........wait for the game mates.....
After all it is the TW isn't it? One of a kind.....! :beam:
Well, the wolves are know for their *khm* "unique style" but it would be a bit harsh to ban Kyolic. He has a point here and there. ~;)
Also, NTW2 is a mod for RTW, called surprisingly: Napoleonic Total War!!! :inquisitive: :laugh4: Made by the Lordz, led by Duke John (correct me if I am wrong).
It is basically made for MP and you can play the major powers of the era, French, Russians, Brits, Austrians. It has a very good, well balanced play.
I would suggest everyone to try it before continuing the debate about balance. NTW2 is the proof that it can be done.
Big question ofc whether CA can do it too? ~;)
Hell Yeaaaa!! Artillery!! That is the key dude. Key to the perfect tactical depth.
I cannot believe you come here and post "etw will have a perfect tactical depth with artillery".
This is like a bad joke!
I think you are so locked up in your (apparently lost) MP world, you are forgetting your history:
"Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl." (Frederick the Great)
By the time of Napoleon, artillery was the main killer in battle. It is no coincidence that Napoleon was an artillery officer - his skilful use of that arm at Toulon and elsewhere helped propel him to power. It was also the most demanding in terms of officer training. That's one reason a smart but disadvantaged student like Napoleon could shine in that branch.
Historically, warfare in the period had lots of tactical depth. Not just artillery, but also infantry combat (linear, shock, skirmish) and cavalry vs infantry interactions (centring around the square). Those complex historical tactical elements will make modelling it in a game more challenging - both in terms of balance and more especially in terms of the AI. But the latter is one thing MPers don't need to worry about.
Please note that Kyolic was trying to be ironic. :help: Though apparently this is not his style. ~;p ~;)
Also in that "lost MP world" (which is moslty lost indeed) the "no arty" rule (i.e. no artillery) is a default rule from RTW to MTW2 (because even artillery like catapults and threbuchets are not balanced for MP), so worrying about napoleonic artillery (which is a bit more powerful then a catapult) is well understandable (even if we disgaree with the style).
But again, please all try NTW2 to see how it should be done.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-11-2008, 21:13
And can we ban this guy?
No we cannot, sorry!
Please note that Kyolic was trying to be ironic. :help: Though apparently this is not his style. ~;p ~;)
Also in that "lost MP world" (which is moslty lost indeed) the "no arty" rule (i.e. no artillery) is a default rule from RTW to MTW2 (because even artillery like catapults and threbuchets are not balanced for MP), so worrying about napoleonic artillery (which is a bit more powerful then a catapult) is well understandable (even if we disgaree with the style).
But again, please all try NTW2 to see how it should be done.
YES! "No artillery" is the default rule for TW since MTW (release date 2002) and now with ETW, we have artillery as a VERY important instrument which is necessary for "tactical depth"!!!!!!
Well I am really tired with all these after 6 years. I spent enough effort to make points clear about what made TW special and totally different from the other games and what must be done to preserve those but I do not care anymore.
:surrender2: ======> Kyo
Rhyfelwyr
01-11-2008, 22:57
@Wolf, do you not think you are being a little bit harsh towards ETW considering the only info we have on the game is a few screenshots and Q&A's?
For a start, you see a bunch of screenshots on naval warfare and so you presume that there are no land battles at all? The central feature of any TW game since Shogun?
You obviously have no idea of what battles in this period were like, and yet you are somehow convinced they will just be a shoot-em-up with artillery blowing everything off the map.
And you will not believe a word CA say, not with regards to battle balance, features, MP or any other part of ETW. If the MP community is unhappy with lag etc since RTW, then thats fair enough but the game must progress for the SP community who probably make up about 99.9% of all TW players.
I hope your attitude does not put off CA from communicating with their fans here, as most people here love TW and would like their reasonable opinions to be listened to, and in turn actually pay some heed to whatever replies they are given.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-12-2008, 00:31
If the MP community is unhappy with lag etc since RTW, then thats fair enough but the game must progress for the SP community who probably make up about 99.9% of all TW players.
That's what I say. :)
I hope your attitude does not put off CA from communicating with their fans here
Don't worry they come back every once in a while.
Btw my name is not Wolf. It is my clan. Which was formed when you were in elementary school most probably and I know that many people love this game.
You guys love the game, we have set the norms for it. ;)
But things are changing and as you mentioned above the game is not for MP anymore and nothing will change that. SP must be great fun especially where you have ships and artillery (may be ca throws in a couple of elephant units in etw too but i am not sure if they fit in ships). You will be mastering the new TW and may be one day you will be able to beat even the AI when you get really good. I am jealous with you guys. I admit it. :shame:
IrishArmenian
01-12-2008, 01:30
If you have a problem with artillery being a large part of the battles, then you have a problem with the tactics of the time and not the game.
I think that ETW will have unrivaled tactical depth, what with artillery covering the advance, cavalry pushing on the flanks, skirmishers screening the main infantry contingents which shall fire and then charge into a melee! That is going to be a fun, never-a-dull-moment-unless-you-use-pause-which-is-not-nice-to-anyone, engaging and replayable scenario!
I also love the ability to control infantry fire! Wait until the enemy get close and open fire, oh that shall be fun!
Hate to rain on your condescending parade, Kyolic, but you should give the campaign a try. If it is no challenge, download an AI mod.
MP?
This is why CA doesn't care about online.
(may be ca throws in a couple of elephant units in etw too but i am not sure if they fit in ships)
I'm sure they'll figure something out, balancing them on the ship's sails, perhaps.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-12-2008, 02:04
Hate to rain on your condescending parade, Kyolic, but you should give the campaign a try. If it is no challenge, download an AI mod.
I can win 6 of the 10 games vs AI mate (even in difficult mode). No real challenge to me. But I will look for a AI mod as you suggested. May be challenges me better. Thank you for that AI mod tip. ~;)
:surrender2:
BeeSting
01-12-2008, 02:09
Those complex historical tactical elements will make modelling it in a game more challenging - both in terms of balance and more especially in terms of the AI.
That's what i am concerned about from previous tw games, though great games they were, the AI had issues such as path finding during seiges and formations breaking up all over the map. All these hints to new and complicated tactical depths such as firing shots at the right moment before the cavalry charge will present further challenges for the AI, which makes me more concerned than amused by these previews. TW series are essentially single player games… and if the AI opponent is incompetent, the novelty of all these new game features will be gone in a week with the shame that the game would have been so much better. I just don’t want to go through the torture of ending up waiting for future patches or mods from the tw community.
Lusted and other CA game designers.... as a fan of tw game since shogun total war, I beg you to do what you can to lobby on our behalf to make the AI count and on top priority list for the upcoming tw title.
Barbarian
01-12-2008, 06:37
About the tactics. How can anyone say that the previous games had a strategical and tactical depth that this one will lack?The same could be said then for previous games as well, cuse what tactics can there be, when 2 long lines of barbarian hordes or medieval knights meet into half-an-hour long melee?
18th and 19th century warfare was some of the most complicated in history. Some historians believe, that tactics really appeared only by the use of the gunpowder weapons. Until then, battles were mostly about numbers and the fitness of men.
One thing, that i see interesting about this game, is that many veteran Total war players (maybe you can coun't me in) will be forced to adept completely new actions on the battlefield. We will all be something like newcomers, when we firt play ETW. If someone of you disagree, then question to you: how many sea battles have you won in Empire:TW? :beam:
This I got to say too, a betterment in the AI will go a long way in making the game better.
Look..since RTW CA is doing good job on SP part of the game. We have shared our views in previous posts what will take for CA to make good MP game again and no need repeating this and thanks for CA attention. At least we know you are aware of the discussion so you won't be able to deny that you have not participate in it if by any case MP of ETW won't be as mentioned.
Anyhow what we are facing here are different perspectives. SP is something tottaly different from MP. Those who have never tryed not even one multiplayer match (what ever the game you pick) then you can't be aware of the differences between AI and human inteligence. There are also different rules for SP and MP battles, because in MP battles there occures something what can destroy the fun of MP and that is called ''unbalance'' which can be cause by bad estimations and generalizations that units effec/costs etc are same in SP as in MP. They are not they are different.
I don't know why Kyolic didn't mention nothing about Shogun for example and how it was made. It's beta testers were mostly MP players who balanced the game for you (SP players) so that you could enjoy it. Of course bugs occur here and there and this is another problem which can unbalance MP battles as well as SP but on a lot minor scale.
What Kyolic could also mention (or someone else who is aware of that) is the fact (as I've heard and got it confirmed) in those days 3 CA developers played against 3 TW MP players who were ''ellected'' for that friendly match. Now I wonder how come that CA players managed to lose? Here questions arise for me. Were they not the developers of the game? They were so how come that they did not understand game mechanics so well?
About the tactics. How can anyone say that the previous games had a strategical and tactical depth that this one will lack?The same could be said then for previous games as well, cuse what tactics can there be, when 2 long lines of barbarian hordes or medieval knights meet into half-an-hour long melee?
18th and 19th century warfare was some of the most complicated in history. Some historians believe, that tactics really appeared only by the use of the gunpowder weapons. Until then, battles were mostly about numbers and the fitness of men.
To make game enjoyable and also historical accurate is sometimes almost impossible to do. I would say that Shogun and Viking Invasion were the closest emitators of this. For example you have Gettysburg, which is excellent recostructional game for those who like historicall accuracy. Do you want to know what is the bad side of it? It is dull. Close combat is also close to ''historical accuracy'' but I would not play it in MP mode.
What works for SP battles doesn't works for MP. There are many factors which prevents this. That's it.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-12-2008, 14:20
Why Kyolic did not mention about those because single players cannot discriminate the difference between AI and a real human. They think it is more or less the same. Actually when you play campaign, you can choose "auto resolve" and that way you do not even have to make a single battle. You just focus on diplomacy and stuff and battles are resolved by cpu.
They won't interpret ANYTHING about BATTLES and balance. They have no idea what balance is. When we say combat points for example it is hebrew to them. When we say armour piercing bonus they go "armed pieces bounce?...what's that?".
They come here and advise me to get an AI mod and play vs AI so that it would be a challenge to me.
But of course CA is right. Why should they get bothered with stuff like that too? It is a lot of work when you want to achieve a proper balance and tactical depth. Instead of spending effort on that you just get rid of the ones who ask for those and its much more easy.
CA devs are NOT able to balance the game because it is only the real players who know it. They do not play the game. They just make the calculations and stuff. Theory and practice are different things and they know nothing about how real players play it.
Aonar mentioned a bit about the story; CA devs logs on in Shogun days and they play vs vets of the day like Kocmoc, MagyarKhan (Wolves and some others). As far as we know, they were not even able to face the enemy. Facing armies wrong way, total lack of control, silly army selection and etc.
I am not telling this as something to be ashamed of. This is just the reality. Developing the game and being good on it are different things. Henry Ford for example was never known with his incredible driving skills although he is the establisher of Ford Company. If you want to be good on the game you must practice and master it and you CANNOT do that vs AI, you must have real oponents that think in a vertasile way.
AI moves in a scripted way.
There are some pre designed scripts and the AI is triggered to those scripts according to your moves. For example when you divide your army into 3 and deploy separately it just cannot figure out what to do and starts moving in a silly way. Then it takes less then a minute to hunt AI down. It has been improved a lot when comapred to past but the fact is that AI CANNOT beat a real player who knows the game (given that both ai and the human player has got identical armies). That is against physics.
However single players do not understand this. They never played vs a real oponent so they think that is all about the battlefield. It is like describing snow to someone who has not ever seen it -even a photo of it. How well can he understand what snow is with some descriptions?
And now single players will blame me as being arrogant again. I am not! Just talking about the facts. Anyway MP is not like SP like Aonar said. Possiblities are ENDLESS there just the opposite of scripted, one dimensional AI. So that requires a proper balance and presence of tactical depth is extremely important otherwise everything is messed BADLY.
However CA ignores this fact. They are aware actually but it seems they do not want to get bothered with it because it is a bunch of people who asks for a proper balance and tactical depth based on RPS (rock-paper-scissors) and they have some more important things to focus on to satisfy the majority.
People demand to be amazed by the game and a proper balance is the last thing that will amaze them.
TW was a game to be mastered. It was not one of the arcade games out there. You guys know that it is the FIRST and the ONLY game which brought "morale issue" to the scene? It was different. There is a strong game mechanic behind it and you have to interpret it first. And then you must have skills to cope with that mechanic and command it. And what did CA do? They raped the basics of the game with Rome. It became an arcade game. They tried to fix that with MTW2 but although the mechanics were a bit better, this time balance was not achieved. Ah they gave us Retrofit mod but. God bless them!
Now with ETW they talk about tactical depth and stuff. Yep tactical depth for SP because it is normal for them when a peasant unit holds a sword for 3 minutes. They think it is normal so no need to suffer. But how about for those who know what real TW is? "Ah you mean those 300 peeps? We sell 2 million copies who cares about them man lol?"
What pisses me is that they come here and post things about tactical depth and stuff. That is a LIE! And they mention artillery while doing that. LMAO. Something that is banned by MP community till the begining. And then they go "it is not the only thing we mentioned you misquote".
You mentioned it dude. And it was over at that second. You say art, it's over. Because MP bans art. Simple as that.
Anyway they are extremely busy developing their latest master piece right now (they must find a way to fit the elephants in the ships and they must create some uber units that will make people go woaw -i suggest dragons...scares enemy and throws fire from mouth as the special ability...best suited unit for jimmi1995-) but I guess they can still find time to come here and shed a light to the incredible tactical depth they are planning for ETW.
Last of all, the new fan base simply wants an easy played, a lot fun (?), eye candy game. No need to master it or anything. You just select and click and the rest is chaos which is total fun. There is a winner and a looser and that changes randomly because randomness is the keyword for the new TW series. Well do not worry guys. CA will give you that. They aim for a selling record this time so it will be the best TW you can ever imagine. "Age of Empires... The era where guns and ART pwns!!!" :laugh4:
Geoffrey S
01-12-2008, 17:25
Edit: nevermind. This is all enough off-topic as is. All that needed to be said on the Q&A has been said, and the perceived priorities of CA and criticism thereof don't really have any place here.
Rhyfelwyr
01-12-2008, 19:14
Sorry if I sounded harsh Kyolic, I just thought you were being a bit despondant. It is true that MP players could show CA the light when it comes to unit balancing, but ultimately for most players that balancing counts for little if the AI is unable to deal with it.
It is certainly not true that all SP's want to see nice graphics over gameplay, the conflict here is just because the SP communities priority is improved AI, whereas the MP community seek balance. If CA ever combine the two, it will make a very special game.
And MP's are not the only ones capable of actually using strategy on the battlefield. Indeed, that level of strategy is simply not required for SP's against the AI, but just because people prefer the storyline and roleplaying elements that come with SP does not mean they are incompetent at the game.
EDIT: I can see this argument going round in circles. I suppose we could just agree that CA will prioritise the SP community over the MP community and that they do that out of necessity. If they improve the AI I will be happy anyway, I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't be too harsh on CA for this.
Ozzman1O1
01-12-2008, 19:41
Heres something you forgot in m2tw,can you change your religion in the game like the visigoths in bi?
Mouzafphaerre
01-12-2008, 19:48
.
single players cannot discriminate the difference between AI and a real human.... They won't interpret ANYTHING about BATTLES and balance. They have no idea what balance is. When we say combat points for example it is hebrew to them. When we say armour piercing bonus they go "armed pieces bounce?...what's that?".
Baloney. Nonsense. But I agree with Geoffrey...
*leaves the thread*
.
No we shouldn't be too harsh with CA but heck if they would at least listen just for once. :idea2:
The mp community tried to provide CA with feedback, suggestions how to improve the balance, how to make mp better and yet CA did nothing. Zero. Null. You don't even see the ping in the lobby, one of the very fundemental things a decent game needs.
This list was written on the ccs a time ago by YellowMelon. We didn't even get a feedback as far as i know... :juggle2:
Originally posted by YellowMelon
Dear Creative Assembly,
It is unfortunate that my favourite games of all time have been ones that lack a solid MP foundation. The Total War Series is the best RTS of all time; it has a beautiful single player campaign, and is probably has the most innovative RTS gaming engine to date. Yet during prime time hours, you can see only around 50-60 people, and at night in North America it falls to around 20 people. Why would a game that sells so many copies and is enjoyed by so many people, has barely anyone playing online? This is a question that all competitive players in the total war community have been asking time after time. I will outline here what RTS rivals of Total War have done, as well as why people aren't playing on the current online platform.
Bugs and Patches
We understand that Total War is designed as a single player game, but can't the same be said about all other RTS games? The difference is, that other companies put an effort and prioritize their multiplayer community. The game has been out for several months now, and we know that there is a patch coming out (when exactly?), but still, this fails in comparison to what other companies are doing. Command and Conquer had a patch out the day is was released; Supreme Commander has had 4 patches (maybe more at this point) since being released in February. We understand that bugs do happen, but they should be fixed as soon as possible, not released in massive patches that attempt to solve everything at once. When you have a bug (say the two handed bug for instance), that completely unbalances the game, it needs to be ratified immediately.
Also, I think that an auto-patcher is required when people login online. Both C&C and Supcom have this feature. It is extremely frustrating when people come online and say, why are no games showing? Well, there should be measures in effect that force people to get the newest patch before the login.
Settings
Another huge issue is the limited settings that we can choose from. I don't know why it rains so much in total war land, but it certainly causes lag. The peasants must be happy at least. Why are some maps not able to choose the weather? On top of that, there needs to be some additional settings. All competitive players have come together to devise rule sets that attempt to balance the game as much as possible. We know that due to the unique situation of the game, it is impossible to make units ranging from different eras come together and fight on the battlefield, as well as factions having chronological advantages, but what we are proposing is that you make an in game feature that allows us to limit the cavalry, limit the pikes, or something along those lines. Make it a settings just like weather, and map, and season. That way we don't have to leap into the game hoping everybody follows what we said.
Lag and Errors
We understand that the lag is somewhat unsolvable because it caters to the lowest common denominator of computer performance, but there are some odd things about total war MP that don't appear in other games. SupCom for instance won't even let you install the game if your system does not meet the requirements. I am not saying this is the best way to do things, but people who can't handle online play should not be allowed online. Perhaps a computer performance bar or something to that effect, I don't think anybody has done that yet, but if the game autodetects the system performance and gives you a grade, it would be most beneficial when we invite unknown people into our games. Similarly, there should be a ping meter (that works) beside each player and every game. We know that lag happens, but we NEED a way to limit the effects on our games.
For some reason, TW has the weirdest errors. I know some are user based problems, but some people are able to play any game online, then come into M2TW and they cant even connect to a game. The NAT negotiation error is bothersome, cannot connect to game errors, in game crashing errors, I mean, this makes hundreds if not thousands of people move onto other games. The reason why there are few people online is mainly because of this.
Maps
I understand why there are maps that are slanted to one side, but there certainly should be symmetrical maps for multiplayer competitions. Every MP map in every game is symmetrical so that you both have an equal advantage. The only fair map in M2TW is grassy flatlands, and we can't even change the weather on it. We need more maps that are symmetrical, maybe flat with trees here and there, a desert map, twin hills, SOMETHING other than grassy flatlands.
Factions Reusable
For balancing purposes, I think it is necessary to have factions usable by both teams. Online play is not about realism, it is about competition. Again, this can be something that is allowed in the settings, say like, same to usable or something. For instance, the competitive clans all jump to Scotland since they are the best for current strategies, so it would be nice if both teams could have them instead of arguing over it.
Enhanced Deployment Zones
I think it would be beneficial if all teams on the same side would be allowed to use their combined zone to deploy units. This will make it so that people fight as a team, instead of individuals. It will also allow you to help newbies by setting up with them instead of them deploying way out in the middle of nowhere to get double teamed.
Unresponsiveness of Staff
I understand that there are a lot of jerks in the community who probably send junk mail to you guys requesting ridiculous things, but there should be some two-way communication between the community and the staff. People have sent very intelligent emails in the past that I fear have been overlooked, which is why I am writing this. Games like SupCom have staff members in the chatrooms, probably a third of the times I am on playing. They also have a feature that allows people to send comments and suggestions in game. CA has largely disregarded the concerns of the multiplayer community, and a great many players have left because of this. If there was some communication, at least somebody who would reply an email or two, or somebody who held chat sessions with community leaders, it would mean a great deal to us. There are large community sites like the .ORG and the many TW community leagues like the CCS, TWPL, CWC, CWB, that have hundreds of clan players, and these are a great resource for future developments. Please use them.
Multiple Lobbies
Pretty self explanatory, it is a simple issue, but I think that people need at least three lobbies to meet other players and set up games. When the lobby gets full during prime time it makes it more difficult for people to host, an issue that should be resolved, but can easily be avoided by simply added a new lobby or two.
Now I will give you some insight on what other companies have done to make the gaming experience greater.
Automated Rankings
Both C&C and SupCom have an in game ladder system for both 1v1 and clans. This allows an official ranking that people can compete for, rather than the simple gamespy ladders that are broken and don't work! I set up a ladder on GS and have 190 members, yet the settings don't work and it is basically ruined. An official standing would be crucial to the development of online competition and community expansion. They also have auto-matchups that pair you with somebody of your own rank on a random map so that you can duke it out.
Replay Vault
SupCom has a feature called the replay vault that allows you to store your replays online after each game, and they can be used by other players to learn the game and learn strategies to enhance their own gameplay. Again, this allows the level of competition to increase, as you wont have clans 'whoring' tactics. Plus, it means that people will have to adapt a wider array of strategies instead of relying on a single tactic that is reused against people that have not seen it yet. It makes players more versatile and enhances the difficulty of the game.
Observers
Both C&C and SupCom have an observer slot. There are many times when people want to sit in on a game, but they have to fill a slot and bring in one unit or something like that. They also screw up the deployment zones. C&C also has a feature that enables people to watch games without owning it. Now that is advertisement you can't buy...or need to even.
There are many more things, but these are the most important. I think that even if a few of these things are ratified, then we will be a happy bunch. This is not solely looking out for our own interest. It will in turn raise the number of people that buy the game, and stick around to buy the expansion. There is no reason why TW should not have the same amount of people online that SupCom or C&C have. Please give this some consideration. Thanks.
Wolf_Kyolic
01-12-2008, 21:12
Sorry if I sounded harsh Kyolic, I just thought you were being a bit despondant. It is true that MP players could show CA the light when it comes to unit balancing, but ultimately for most players that balancing counts for little if the AI is unable to deal with it.
It is certainly not true that all SP's want to see nice graphics over gameplay, the conflict here is just because the SP communities priority is improved AI, whereas the MP community seek balance. If CA ever combine the two, it will make a very special game.
And MP's are not the only ones capable of actually using strategy on the battlefield. Indeed, that level of strategy is simply not required for SP's against the AI, but just because people prefer the storyline and roleplaying elements that come with SP does not mean they are incompetent at the game.
EDIT: I can see this argument going round in circles. I suppose we could just agree that CA will prioritise the SP community over the MP community and that they do that out of necessity. If they improve the AI I will be happy anyway, I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't be too harsh on CA for this.
SP community has its own concerns and I respect that. They play vs AI and the AI has to be as good as possible and that is fair enough. CA as the developer should take this into account and try to fulfill their needs (actually when you compare AI to the old times they did a significiant job on that). I guess SP community has some other problems as well regarding to campaign so those should be dealt with too because people pay for the game and they deserve the best.
MP community wants proper balance, a proper game engine (movements, morale cycles, fatigue, charge bonuses, rps and etc) and lag free games.
However instead of acting professional and spending effort for making everyone satisfied, CA always acts like if there was nothing wrong with their game. The game is perfect in fact, it is the players who are mistaken. Well tbh it is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from perfect after VI and instead of insisting in an amateurish way they have to bite the bullet and revise the game from the begining to the end.
They always do the same mistakes. For example there is always a deadline for the release date and they always have to rush for it. They cancel the release date for a few months but it is never enough and the released product is UNFINISHED somehow.
Rome, BI, MTW2 and Kingdoms. All the same. All... They were never able to finish it until the deadline. Never and ever. Now there is a deadline for ETW too and they will not be able to finish it until that date (i'll bet if anyone wants to). They are gonna cancel it for a few months and then gonna release it with hundreds of bugs in it. Major or minor. And then there will be a patch which makes things even worse (we witnessed that before) and then an expansion which is rushed to deadline therefore still buggy or weird like in Kingdoms (4 seperate games).
They repeat the same mistakes over and over and one has left with no other chance but questioning their IQ level. May be they do not mind repeating their mistakes because they simply have no other competitors and even if their game is unfinished and full of bugs people have no alternative to it which means they will buy it anyway.
Well I always tell this: "Right game, wrong company".
It is certainly not true that all SP's want to see nice graphics over gameplay, the conflict here is just because the SP communities priority is improved AI, whereas the MP community seek balance. If CA ever combine the two, it will make a very special game.
Wrong. Separation is the only way to go. SP and MP have too deep conflicts of interest (AI vs balance) to be able to happily live together in the same product. No, we MPers need our own product, free of those useless bells-and-whistles that excite the drooling SPers that only like to play with themselves. We need something that is built for real intercourse. For real battles with real tactics.
Rhyfelwyr
01-12-2008, 22:20
Balance is always nice for SP's as-well. Why could a single-player game not have balance? This issue with SP that MP does not have is obviously the AI. The ultimate TW game will be one which combines balance with a AI capable of working with it.
There should not have to be seperate rules for SP and MP, for exampling weakening cavalry just because their charge bonus can be exploited against the AI.
Balance is always nice for SP's as-well. Why could a single-player game not have balance? This issue with SP that MP does not have is obviously the AI. The ultimate TW game will be one which combines balance with a AI capable of working with it.
There should not have to be seperate rules for SP and MP, for exampling weakening cavalry just because their charge bonus can be exploited against the AI.
OK, balance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance) is the concept that each player has a fair chance of winning the game. How many players are there in a SP game. Well, depending on your attitude against non-human intelligence there are two possible answers.
1) Only one player. OK, the game is a puzzle, there might be difficulty issues but no balance issues.
2) Two (human vs AI). Well, eh, but the AI plays about the same level as an ant, they follow scripts. And humans crush ants with their shoes. So balance in this case must come from empowering the AI in one form or another, more units, stronger units, or (as other succesful wargames do) providing well scripted scenarios.
Rhyfelwyr
01-13-2008, 13:02
I do not expect a battle between a British army and the Zulu's to be balanced between the opposing forces in ETW.
Balance should be concerned with giving units realistic roles and strengths on the battlefield, so that no unit type is dominant.
This is a SP game first and foremost, if one MP choose the British and another the Zulu's, it would be slightly strange if the battle turned out to be well balanced.
And the AI definitely needs improved, but that's another issue.
I do not expect a battle between a British army and the Zulu's to be balanced between the opposing forces in ETW.
Balance should be concerned with giving units realistic roles and strengths on the battlefield, so that no unit type is dominant.
This is a SP game first and foremost, if one MP choose the British and another the Zulu's, it would be slightly strange if the battle turned out to be well balanced.
And the AI definitely needs improved, but that's another issue.
See that's what I mean, a real dilemma. MP players normally aren't interested in historical correctness. If liechtenstein beats russia.. so what? We have 15 factions to chose from and we want them all to be balanced. We don't want a superpower who beats everything else just because its historically correct. And thats where we have a conflict of interests, sp and mp players.
But then again... how come the native americans can beat the british in Age of Empires 3 without any problems? Because the game is balanced and still has a campaign where you have to push your tribe to the limit to drive off the british invader.
So yes, it doesn't have to be a dilemma if CA doesn't want it. I just started to play the campaign 2 hours ago and lost interested after 10 turns because the AI isn't a challenge at all, not even on very hard and I played with the factions that are described as "hard to play" in the manual. :/
Furious Mental
01-13-2008, 15:04
I'm not totally insane about historical correctness, but a modern European army should beat an army of blokes with spears and hide shields.
Err....going a little off topic, due to the fact that CA must be paying maximum attention to this thread right now (atleast that is what I hope and believe), I'd like to squeeze in a question I hope should now be answered considering so much has been said about else;
So this ones been bugging many since ages,
Will we be able to mix land and sea battles? Like attacking a costal fort with a ship? Unloading troops onto the coast in real time while the opponent tries to prevent landing?
Furious Mental
01-14-2008, 12:51
I get the feeling that if we could it would already have been made clear because that would be a big selling point.
Oh well I just thought maybe..........never mind though. Guess it'll be clarified in time.....
:focus:
Wandarah
01-31-2008, 18:27
:daisy:
The Q&A Thread on the .com seems to be somewhat dead... any chance you are going to answer a few more questions in the near future CA? :dizzy2:
The Outsider
03-08-2008, 14:53
yup! denali is right there is absolutley nothing for more than one mont now, i am checking it everyday but there is nothing, do you guys want to kill us from curiosity :)
YellowMelon
03-08-2008, 15:56
Patience my Swiss friend :iloveyou:
Intrepid Sidekick
03-11-2008, 13:01
The Q&A Thread on the .com seems to be somewhat dead... any chance you are going to answer a few more questions in the near future CA? :dizzy2:
We regularly answer the Q and A thread via the TW blog here: http://blogs.sega.com/totalwar/
We will be answering more and more of those questions as the project roles on to its conclusion. :2thumbsup:
YellowMelon
03-12-2008, 00:45
I think Den meant he wants a new FAQ, not wondering where the current FAQs are located *hides*
And it is the 12th of march after all you know........!! :helloo:
Caerfanan
03-12-2008, 14:05
Well, I sort of understand the MP concerns about battle, but clearly MP and SP games are not at all the same....
As to the historical period, artillery was a key factor, and that's pretty much it. Stupid chargers would get cannonballs. YOu had to use smartly your artillery to outmanoeuver the enemy and engage him in good conditions, this is what can give outstanding victories, like Austerlitz, however stupid and under-average the french. On the other hand, naval control of the sea t that period was important, look at Trafalgar, however stupid and under-average the english were.
Tacitcs in this time period is not about giving the right charge order to the right troll or many orders at the same time.
And speaking about a game is not about claiming how intelligent and good gamers we are...
I'm pretty excited at the idea of seing it live acutally, and hope dearly that they will sort of make the RTW-like maps with the STW like AI + features from the 18th century!!!
I have a few questions concerning siege battles (the ones on land not water/sand). And since there is a decent CA presence here I might as well.
First question:
Will we be able to fight relief battles where a relief army and the siege armies are the ones duking it out while the garrison stays behind their walls or entrenchments and watch the battle go on. IE. say you're sieging a city/town/whatever, and a relief force shows up and you go into battle mode. Now, instead of having to face the garrison ,as it marches out to commit suicide, and the relief, you instead only face the relief force outside the walls while you can continue on with siege and protect your camp and rear? Also, say the relief force is winning (now pretend you are the rescuers), I think it would be cool to be able to have some sort of button in which that once activated, the garrison, upon seeing you make progress towards them, takes a bit to form up(like a time delay kinda like reinforcements), but when they do they march out and enter the battle.
Second Question:
Say two sizeable armies are clashing out in the field, or there is a siege. Can you fight multiple battles over a period of days or months(if it's a siege) instead of just one go? Like Waterloo how it took place within several days of Quatre Bras and that other place(hey my memory is fried atm, give me space), so part of your army could fight one day while another part of fights the next and then there is the "big showdown" or whatever the next.
Third Siege Question:
And since battles/sieges had redoubts, farther out from the main city, like the battle of Yorktown, will we see smaller seperate battles happen for these first before the main siege battle? Or when you walk up to a city and lay siege to it, will there be a redoubt number of how many that place has and during the siege you can like on them and choose which one you are going to take and how many you want to try and take at a time or altogether. And as the siege goes on and you make progress, you can see how many are left. Also, would it be possible, say, that for the major cities, that there is some mode where you can go down into the cities and place the specific redoubts, and depending on the size of the city and its' garrison, how many you can have placed. These also cost money, etc...
And will musket and cannon smoke come into play on the battlefields during the battles? And could it be customized? IE. being able to turn it off and on in the main menu kinda like fog of war?
And speaking of naval battles. Will fireships be implemented? Say in a defensive role, like if port sieges are implemented and a naval force is trapped and need to break out, could they use fireships while open water naval battles not, unless in a custom battle?
Had those on my mind for quite some time, figured I'd get 'em off my chest.
Divinus Arma
05-02-2008, 02:07
How long has it ben since we have seen something new of any significance?
How long has it ben since we have seen something new of any significance?
I posted some new ideas but everyone kept talking about Zulus (which should be in it's own thread btws). My post is 6 posts up but it's in the spoilers below:
I have a few questions concerning siege battles (the ones on land not water/sand). And since there is a decent CA presence here I might as well.
First question:
Will we be able to fight relief battles where a relief army and the siege armies are the ones duking it out while the garrison stays behind their walls or entrenchments and watch the battle go on. IE. say you're sieging a city/town/whatever, and a relief force shows up and you go into battle mode. Now, instead of having to face the garrison ,as it marches out to commit suicide, and the relief, you instead only face the relief force outside the walls while you can continue on with siege and protect your camp and rear? Also, say the relief force is winning (now pretend you are the rescuers), I think it would be cool to be able to have some sort of button in which that once activated, the garrison, upon seeing you make progress towards them, takes a bit to form up(like a time delay kinda like reinforcements), but when they do they march out and enter the battle.
Second Question:
Say two sizeable armies are clashing out in the field, or there is a siege. Can you fight multiple battles over a period of days or months(if it's a siege) instead of just one go? Like Waterloo how it took place within several days of Quatre Bras and that other place(hey my memory is fried atm, give me space), so part of your army could fight one day while another part of fights the next and then there is the "big showdown" or whatever the next.
Third Siege Question:
And since battles/sieges had redoubts, farther out from the main city, like the battle of Yorktown, will we see smaller seperate battles happen for these first before the main siege battle? Or when you walk up to a city and lay siege to it, will there be a redoubt number of how many that place has and during the siege you can like on them and choose which one you are going to take and how many you want to try and take at a time or altogether. And as the siege goes on and you make progress, you can see how many are left. Also, would it be possible, say, that for the major cities, that there is some mode where you can go down into the cities and place the specific redoubts, and depending on the size of the city and its' garrison, how many you can have placed. These also cost money, etc...
And will musket and cannon smoke come into play on the battlefields during the battles? And could it be customized? IE. being able to turn it off and on in the main menu kinda like fog of war?
And speaking of naval battles. Will fireships be implemented? Say in a defensive role, like if port sieges are implemented and a naval force is trapped and need to break out, could they use fireships while open water naval battles not, unless in a custom battle?
Had those on my mind for quite some time, figured I'd get 'em off my chest.
pevergreen
05-02-2008, 07:04
Ooh nice questions Decker. I hadn't even thought of half of that. I would post that over on the .com forums if you havent already, more likely to be noticed/answered.
Ooh nice questions Decker. I hadn't even thought of half of that. I would post that over on the .com forums if you haven't already, more likely to be noticed/answered.
Thanks. I don't have a profile over there but thanks for the idea.. I'll go and do that now
Divinus Arma
05-02-2008, 22:33
Hi Decker. I meant something new and significant from CA. Good questions you have there, regardless. :yes:
Hi Decker. I meant something new and significant from CA. Good questions you have there, regardless. :yes:
Well it seemed like people were asking questions so I fired away haha. But glad ya like 'em.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.