CA clarifies turns

[Duke John]

Posted on .COM by prasthereaper

Reading through these forums, it seems there's a number of issues with the whole turn limit thing and there seems to be a tendency amongst some of the more vocal members to start making a lot of assumptions. Given that we are limited in what we can tell you at any given point, I guess that's only natural. The issues I have identified from reading through all these posts seem to be:

1) Game length - too few turns to suit certain play styles
2) Role-Playing - how do characters age?
3) UI - not showing the year
4) Eras - lack of multiple starting positions

Just spoke to Bob, our lead designer, for further clarity and taking each in turn:

1) The game is currently paced to be a 225 turn game, and is optimally played at that length.All this information is still being kept in .txt files.
2) Characters still age 1 year every 2 turns, so you will be a ble to roleplay them as you did in Rome. This issue is actually one of the reasons for dissociating years and turns. We wanted to cover a large period of history and streamline the gameplay whilst still allowing players to get some kind of attachment to their characters.
3) While some may argue it eliminates immersion, as wikiman mentioned previously, it's surprising how little you realise the change once you actually play it.
4) Each era is effectively a completely new campaign that needs to be individually setup, tested and balanced. Having multiple eras would inevitably delay release of the game.

So 500 years played in 225 turns while characters still age 1 year per 2 turns. That means that you will get 112 years of character development if you played the game optimally. However it appears that if you play less optimal (by roleplaying, not rushing or doing silly things) you could play more than 225 turns.

I agree with point 3. If the game shows events anchoring the turn into history then it will give me enough immersion and I won't realise it. But I think that the people who roleplay their characters or pay much attention to them will notice how the entire middle ages can be played with just 5 characters or so and that might kill the game for them.
And I am glad that they won't bother with multiple eras. I rather have the game released sooner than they spending time on something that could easily be done by modders.

[screwtype]

Dammit you beat me to the punch Duke John. I was just going to start a thread here with the same title!

Yeah, it appears that avoiding turn dating is just a very kludgy way of getting around the uncomfortable fact that characters "live" four times longer than they should in this game. I suspected I was kidding myself to think this was ever going to be anything more than an awkward kludge, LOL.

[Duke John]

From a modder's perspective I think this provides more opportunities to do some interesting things. The aging system of R:TW seems to be untouched. The only thing changed is the exact year is no longer shown. And for that loss we (hopefully) gain more possibilities in showing events, which is far more valuable for immersion than "1350 AD".

[screwtype]

Yeah, look this is obviously a problem that arose because they wanted to confine the game to 225 turns in order to appeal to the mass market. I don't think it's of much consequence provided they give modders the usual tools to tinker with stuff like dates, events, number of turns etc. And there is no reason judging by pras' post to believe they won't be.

[Quietus]

Reading through these forums, it seems there's a number of issues with the whole turn limit thing and there seems to be a tendency amongst some of the more vocal members to start making a lot of assumptions. Given that we are limited in what we can tell you at any given point, I guess that's only natural. The issues I have identified from reading through all these posts seem to be:

1) Game length - too few turns to suit certain play styles
2) Role-Playing - how do characters age?
3) UI - not showing the year
4) Eras - lack of multiple starting positions

Just spoke to Bob, our lead designer, for further clarity and taking each in turn:

1) The game is currently paced to be a 225 turn game, and is optimally played at that length.All this information is still being kept in .txt files.
2) Characters still age 1 year every 2 turns, so you will be a ble to roleplay them as you did in Rome. This issue is actually one of the reasons for dissociating years and turns. We wanted to cover a large period of history and streamline the gameplay whilst still allowing players to get some kind of attachment to their characters.
3) While some may argue it eliminates immersion, as wikiman mentioned previously, it's surprising how little you realise the change once you actually play it.
4) Each era is effectively a completely new campaign that needs to be individually setup, tested and balanced. Having multiple eras would inevitably delay release of the game.

Wait a sec.

Character age = (1 year/2 turns)(1 turn/2 campaign years)

Character age = 1 year/4 campaign years.

Characters age 1 year for every 4 campaign years?

Hence a 50 year old character is 200 years old...? Maybe we're missing something.

The implementation of 1 turn per 2 years has to be explained further.

[Duke John]

No, you understood it right. It is the opinion of CA developers that while playing the game you will not notice this. Impossible when looking at the bare facts, or when you get too worked up over this making it impossible to forget it while playing.

It is a game and mechanics have to be introduced to make it interesting to play. And some may not appeal to everyone. I think it is a bit silly for people to say that they won't buy this game for not being able to see what year it is, while army organization and battlefield tactics are nowhere near resembling history.

[TB666]

Well atleast it seems to be moddable.

[Zatoichi]

OK - well this is good additional information - props to CA for trying to keep us in the loop. I'm glad that the number of turns will be mod friendly. I was hoping for the more dynamic turn system Screwtype was proposing, but I still think this new system will be OK. Not neccessarily my preferred option, but I'll not rush to judge it until I've given it a decent try.

[Voigtkampf]

Personally, I liked one year/one turn of Medieval, but I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt that the game will work well this way, as CA claims, and that players will not notice much change…

But, the comment

All this information is still being kept in .txt files.

is what I am still glad to hear the most. I wish MTW2 to be moddable to its greatest possible extent, and few tiny details is something we can change ourselves if we do not like them.

[doc_bean]

It seems a little strange to have 200y old characters, but then again, they were immortal in MTW (w/o VI) weren't they ?

[screwtype]

It seems a little strange to have 200y old characters, but then again, they were immortal in MTW (w/o VI) weren't they ?

Yeah, I was going to say, it's not as though it's the first time a computer strategy game has done this sort of thing. In the Civ series, the leaders live for the entire span of world history!

[Duke John]

Well the thing is that they aren't exactly 200 years old. They might exist for 200 years, but they are only 60 years old. They live for 120 turns or so and each turn makes a character a 1/2 year older. But at the same each turn also represents an average of around 2 years... And now I dare anyone to say that CA is dumbing down the TW series

[Prince Cobra]

Then maybe the season system will be better ( with the years i.e. 1321,1322,1323.., more historically accurate).
The three eras- I am patient, if that will make the game better .

And why only 225 turns?

[Bob the Insane]

And why only 225 turns?

Play testing?

It was indicated that the mad rusher type of player can finish the game is 115 turns (which sounds much like RTW) so they have balanced the game to incorporate that fact and to allow much of the time period as possible to passed even for the "rusher"... (this is obviously idle speculation)

By the sound of it there is going to be a lot of pressure on the modding groups (RTR being my personal favourite at the moment) to get a mod out ASAP after release...

If they can have two turns a year via a simply mod I will certainly be happy (making a 900 turn game) I could even try to ignore the turn counter unless an enterprizing method of making it tick over once every 2 turns could be found (then you could start the game on turn 1080)...

It was a pretty reasuring post...

[Puzz3D]

No, you understood it right. It is the opinion of CA developers that while playing the game you will not notice this.

You might not notice it if you are stupid.

[Vladimir]

Ah yes. Wait for the first price drop AND when the first mods are finished.

[econ21]

You might not notice it if you are stupid.

Oh come on, it's not a matter of IQ. It is how much abstraction you are willing to accept in a strategy game based on history. I've been amazed to see the kind of people who hang out in the Civ Fanatics forum. You have these PhDs in Maths who can effortlessly crank through the most complicated mathematic formula to work out the combat mechanics. But these "stupid" types aren't bothered at all by the Praetorians wearing the wrong type of armour or having redcoats shoot down pikemen.

[Puzz3D]

Oh come on, it's not a matter of IQ. It is how much abstraction you are willing to accept in a strategy game based on history.

Wrong. The statement by CA is that you'd be surprised how little you notice it. I'm going to notice it, and I have an average IQ. They might as well get rid of aging altogether. That would streamline the game further. Streamlining is being presented by CA as a benfit. The question is to whom is it a benefit?

[Kraxis]

I don't mind 3 that much as long as you can somehow get a feeling of the date fairly easily.
I do not like being put in a situation, in a historical simulation (as this type of game is being labeled), that I can't figure out where I am.

This unfortunately conflicts with the character age. For they could give an aproximate period of the current 'year'. Now they seem to be oddly aged.
I mean if the people age about one year in 4 years how am I going to get a feeling of the time?
Apparently the 450 years have not only been compressed into 225 turns but abstracted so that the events and progress over those years will now happen in 112½ years. Nice... This is only a short step away from the AOE games, with their abstract timeperiods.

Agreed on 4, but it worked very well in both MTW and STW:MI. It was fun trying out other ages, and it gave a good spread of technology.

On a more positive note 1 does seem to indicate that the game can actually play for more than 225 turns, but then again so could RTW past AD 14.

The more they say the more I dislike it. This is no longer the TW games I grew to love. Well, that is the way with most revolutionay games...

[NagatsukaShumi]

I think this is excellent news and I'm alot happier with the way that CA are answering questions this time round.

I knew, even now, this would upset some people but by the sounds of things these are entirely moddable and if you really do not like them, they can be changed.

Like DJ said, I think the addition of our own events and such forth adds to immersion far more than "Oh look, its 1178, in this year.....". My personal opinion is that you really shouldn't give a damn what date it is, fact is from turn one's completion history is different, NO faction will act exactally as it did in history and I somewhat doubt everyone will refuse to invade any further than the respective faction did in reality simply because that is accurate. (Not trying to plug in here, but Medieval Auctoriso is addressing the fact you will be creating an alternate history whilst trying to cater for those who want accuracy and I can imagine it will be a task that will not please everyone and I certainly see why its difficult for CA).

Fact is the moment you start a campaign it won't follow a historical accurate line, unless you plan to fight every battle of certain years and deliberately lose them to keep it accurate, which I somewhat doubt you would do. Its something I've pointed out before, your game isn't accurate and never ever will be unless the AI is scripted to act a certain way every turn which makes it very dull and predictable, it also would mean you could place certain armies in certain times because you know of a faction's weakness that is approaching and so on, its a bit daft and I support CA's descision and always would on the basis that anything they did was moddable.

It may not have the year anymore, but personally its not a worry for me, I treat the game as my own history, panning out as I wish to influence it and although accuracy in units and certains things are a must for me, the dates don't really fuss me too much, I will be roleplaying my way through my own history, not real history and I'm afraid this is true for everyone.

[econ21]

Wrong. The statement by CA is that you'd be surprised how little you notice it. I'm going to notice it, and I have an average IQ.

Well, I suspect that after a while, I won't notice it - as the CA folk said they didn't. How stupid of us.

[Butcher]

The lack of Era's is a big disapointment. I missed it a lot in RTW.

[Braden]

Whilst I’m against this abstracting of Dates in relation to Agent and Family member aging, I’m at least glad that CA are starting to give us some firm details so we can make an informed decision.

I still though am finding it impossible to reconcile how this will work. I’m familiar with the 1 year = 1 year and the 1 turn = 6 months systems now in place. I just can’t get my head around it. So the game will be 225 turns, characters age 1 year for each turn so the turns are 6 monthly aren’t they? Meaning 112.5 years, too short a game for me as a Vanilla but I feel I’m still not grasping what or how this works in practice and potentially never will. I can’t detach how my Characters Age to how the world around them grows. To me, both are linked as they are a total organism, a total game.

If I’m playing and my characters are aging then I’m going to go by the characters ages, to be honest that’s what I do mainly anyway. I don’t worry in Rome what year it is I worry more about how many potential years I’ll get out of my faction leader for example, dates are very handy though for narratives which I do like to write up as well. I’m certainly confused by this system.

The info will still be in .txt files and I hope they mean the linking of Turns to Age. Potentially the first mod would be to change the turns back into a realistic number and one that directly relates to the Age of your in-game Characters, but would this make a shorter or longer game? See how confused I am! I’m sure the game will “work” mechanically but will this system be “user friendly”, the raw explanation isn’t.

Right, I’m going to stop thinking about this as it’s giving me a headache now. Suffice to say I won’t be buying this when it’s released, I’ll wait until others start giving feedback or even perhaps wait until some patches, Mod tutorials and even an Expansion are out before buying. Sorry but I just want to make sure I have a workable game when I get it – or not get it if I decide this isn’t for me. After all, I waited before buying Rome, waited until patch 1.2 to be honest.

Getting off the confusing bit – Era’s. You have two “Era’s” in Rome – Pre-Marius and Post-Marius. They are effectively “Era’s” much like Medievals Early/Late/High as the turn from one to the other starts an immediate update in units whilst its different as its linked to a Faction performance rather than a Date. I never had an issue with either way of doing it, I think CA are trying to get a smoother, organic progression in the Tech tree but I’m not sure if this bizarre method will do that and I’m not sure if something like that is possible in an RTS of any kind due to balancing issues.

[Servius]

1) so happy to hear at least something's being left in a .txt file. If it's anything like MTW, it will be easily modable, which would be wonderful.

2) If 2 turns = 1 character year, but 1 turn also = 2 calendar years, then 1 character year = 4 calendar years. That means that characters will age 4x more slowly, relative to the calendar years at least.

But since there's only 225 turns, that's 112 character years, which is barely 4-5 generations. That means, if you imagine yourself the last king, the game starts with your great grandpa...

For you LOTR fans, MTW2 is ruled by Numenorians :-)

3) I don't like this either, but who knows, he might be right and we really might not notice. And even if we do notice, the game could be so cool that most of us don't care. Puzz3D will care, and I probably will as will others, but we won't really know how much this will bug us until the game (or demo) comes out. And, if CA continues to use .txt files for much of the game, the way MTW did, this, too, might be modable. I hope so.

4) I agree that it would take longer I guess, but it just seems odd that MTW had this feature but RTW and MTW2 won't. However, to be honest, I never played the High or Late ages, I always started with Early, but then again I was invulnerable about half way through the High age too.

So CA, please be sure to make this game super-easily-modable.

[Kraxis]

Getting off the confusing bit – Era’s. You have two “Era’s” in Rome – Pre-Marius and Post-Marius. They are effectively “Era’s” much like Medievals Early/Late/High as the turn from one to the other starts an immediate update in units whilst its different as its linked to a Faction performance rather than a Date. I never had an issue with either way of doing it, I think CA are trying to get a smoother, organic progression in the Tech tree but I’m not sure if this bizarre method will do that and I’m not sure if something like that is possible in an RTS of any kind due to balancing issues.

No you did not have two eras in Rome. Besides the post Marius Roman units the game was surprisingly indifferent to the change. Also you couldn't go in and select the post-Marius era. You had to play through it each and every time unless you modded it.

NagatsukaShumi, you seem to forget one thing. We aren't all EB or RTR fans, we aren't all "OMG France invaded the HRE?!?!?! This is sooooo wrong!" We are talking about immersion. If you are making a historical simulation you want the players to actually feel that what they do could have hapened to an extent. But fast forwarding the pace of events fourfold and not telling us, removes any historical connection the game ever had.

M2 has in my eyes now become "another game including knights and abstract time."

[Dead Moroz]

This thread is like zombies fiesta. CA said you that black is white, and you all: "Cool! The black is white! In CA we trust!".

Oh come on, it's not a matter of IQ. It is how much abstraction you are willing to accept in a strategy game based on history.

Then you gotta play Tetris: Total War.

[econ21]

This thread is like zombies fiesta. CA said you that black is white, and you all: "Cool! The black is white! In CA we trust!".

A game is a model. A key part of modelling is abstraction. Unless you expect real people to stick their heads out of your monitor and try to brain you with a halberd, it's always going to be a matter of where you draw the line about how much realism you want.

Making time fuzzy seems rather sensible to me, if the alternative is the current 8 year sieges and campaigns that make WW1 look like a lightning war. I think of CAs move as similar to what people do when editing a film - sometimes events move fast so you spent screen time on them, sometimes little happens so it gets cut. You don't need an hour clock on the screen (unless you're watching 24).

Then you gotta play Tetris: Total War.

Nah, way too busy with RTR, BI and EB.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Making time fuzzy seems rather sensible to me, if the alternative is the current 8 year sieges and campaigns that make WW1 look like a lightning war.

I'm curious as to how having more years per turn will make for shorter sieges and campaigns. Is it like doublethink - thinking, 'these turns are an abstraction, it's really just 5 turns to siege this place' while knowing that each turn is over one year? This system confuses and angers me.

Crazed Rabbit

[Puzz3D]

Whilst I’m against this abstracting of Dates in relation to Agent and Family member aging, I’m at least glad that CA are starting to give us some firm details so we can make an informed decision.

I still though am finding it impossible to reconcile how this will work.

I know how it will appear to me. The aging of people and movement of armies will seem ok to me, but the technology tree and historical events will seem compressed into 1/4 the time. The campaign will seem like it's 112 years long with 2 moves per year.

Since I'm mostly focused on battles, I don't need the big tech tree to enjoy the game. I'd be ok with 112 years of tech tree. Since I don't expect MTW2 multiplayer to be well balanced, I'm hoping that the campaign is good. That means carefully balanced gameplay and features that work properly. If CA is going to throw those two things (balance and working features) on the modding community, then they are going to have to wait for their money from between 6 months to a year after the game is released.

[NagatsukaShumi]

No you did not have two eras in Rome. Besides the post Marius Roman units the game was surprisingly indifferent to the change. Also you couldn't go in and select the post-Marius era. You had to play through it each and every time unless you modded it.

NagatsukaShumi, you seem to forget one thing. We aren't all EB or RTR fans, we aren't all "OMG France invaded the HRE?!?!?! This is sooooo wrong!" We are talking about immersion. If you are making a historical simulation you want the players to actually feel that what they do could have hapened to an extent. But fast forwarding the pace of events fourfold and not telling us, removes any historical connection the game ever had.

M2 has in my eyes now become "another game including knights and abstract time."

Lets be honest, how does not having dates take away any immersion? Yes, you can't see what date it is but I stand by my point that its not historical once you end the first turn. Fact is, if its accuracy people want no game will provide and thats a fact, only in the units will you see anything approaching it. It may go faster, but events will still occur, just not on specific dates, ideally I'd love a game to have hundreds of events and I would rather it was dated not marked as turns, but all I'm saying is TW has never been entirely historical and never will be. What you feel could have happened depends on how you look at history, what if Henry V had become King of France, England could have gone on to conquer yet more land, thats one way of thinking what could have realistically happened but didn't because one event never occurred for example. I prefer turns to be years and have lots of historical events, but I aren't going to jump on the "omg CA are doing this all completely wrongly" bandwagon that many have done, I will reserve my judgement to the release of the game or atleast the demo. I have faith, some people think thats daft but I think its unfair to crucify a game thats not yet released, it may be great, it may be not so great but its a bit early to be against it just yet. Bare in mind I'm not suggesting your one of them, but there are a great number of people who have been quick to dislike new ideas from CA and I think its a tad unfair when their usual argument is its not historical, now if people say its too short I fully understand, but most think its just too unhistorical yet conveniently forget no Total War has been.