Is this the worst out of the Total War series?

[econ21]

econ21's view of STW is one that:

-shows that he enjoys the campaign portion more than the battle portion - then it's difficult to have STW high in your preferences. This happens to many others, like for example Olmsted over at the .com. He doesn't get why i'm always complaining for the newer engine because he plays for the campaign mostly.

No, I like the battles best of course: they were amazing for their time with STW and still don't have much of a rival (I recently tried Mark of Chaos and found the battles underwhelming). It's just I'm not very interested in standalone battles - MP or historical. The campaign provides the hook to keep you fighting the battles.

Shows some unfairness as STW is not moddable.

I'm not convinced that it is "unfair" to criticise a game for being unmoddable. RTW has received an awful amount of stick from STW/MTW vets over the last few years, but my impression is that the modding scene has increased the fanbase of the series dramatically. And I'm not talking about "kids" and RTS fans here. I'm talking about hardcore historical war grognards, some of who even go so far as to want their Parthian units names to be in Pahlavian or what dead language was spoken at the time. The most reflective modders do readily acknowledge their debt to RTW, without which they could have produced nothing. Moddability is a definite plus of the game. I confess I would not get much use of my RTW CD without the mods - thanks to them, it is my most used game CD of the last 3 years.

In that respect it is entirely unfair to compare it to RTR and EB which have been invested with hour upon hour of development, tweaking, adjusting and playtesting. Despite that and although i liked both i still prefer Shogun as i without tactical battles for me its not a TW game

Not sure what you mean by "without tactical battles". The main attraction of RTR and EB to me is that they make the RTW battles very reminiscent of those I enjoyed so much in MTW. Modding the campaign aspects - even the gorgeous unit skins - is secondary (although EB is doing some fun things with traits).

[Noir]

Posted by econ21

I'm not convinced that it is "unfair" to criticise a game for being unmoddable.

Well it can't be the game's fault, can it?

Posted by econ21

RTW has received an awful amount of stick from STW/MTW vets over the last few years, but my impression is that the modding scene has increased the fanbase of the series dramatically. And I'm not talking about "kids" and RTS fans here. I'm talking about hardcore historical war grognards, some of who even go so far as to want their Parthian units names to be in Pahlavian or what dead language was spoken at the time. The most reflective modders do readily acknowledge their debt to RTW, without which they could have produced nothing. Moddability is a definite plus of the game. I confess I would not get much use of my RTW CD without the mods - thanks to them, it is my most used game CD of the last 3 years.

I agree with your points - however that has nothing to do with my opinion or enjoyment relative to the game. i enjoy the modding scene and the EB forums here are one of my favorite reads. The fact that this scene exists is good but irrelevant to how much i enjoy the older games over RTW modded or not. I certainly ain't gonna like RTW more because it expanded the fanbase with historical wargamers that prefer their Parthian units' names in Pahlavan.

Posted by econ21

Not sure what you mean by "without tactical battles". The main attraction of RTR and EB to me is that they make the RTW battles very reminiscent of those I enjoyed so much in MTW. Modding the campaign aspects - even the gorgeous unit skins - is secondary (although EB is doing some fun things with traits).

I played RTR v6 PE, with the Metropolis and Naval mod quite a lot as well as EB .74 and also tried the .8 for a bit. EB has done great things with the traits including the character basis for developing them or the "well supplied" traits etc I enjoyed the campaign immensely in both of them.

The battles in both mods are also enhanced over the vanilla version but i'm afraid nowhere near as tactical as they were in the previous engine in my experience. I believe that this has nothing to do with the high quality work of modders which i acknowledge as excellent, but with the game battle engine (that lacks several realism settings the previous had); this made me get rid of my RTW copies once and for all as i realise that i get 10x more enjoyment from MTW and STW battles - all the more if armies, and units stats provide for diverse and challenging gameplay (no peasants - no ubers - combined arms approach) - something done in several excellent mods for MTW.

One of my favorite posters, Pritzl (another EB addict that actually contributed in .8 as i found out in the credits) is hands down RTW modded too and we argued once at a thread again and again over how satisfactory are the battles in RTW vs STW/MTW among other things. He, much like you is convinced that "we can't go back" and that "the battles are tactical in mods of the magnitude of RTR and Eb". I am convinced that the new engine is simply awful at simulating combat and lacks many settings and moral penalties that before were the order of the day and if coming releases stay like this i'm not touching them much like M2 which i've tried and i deemed unsatisfactory for my taste (including the modding potential).

However i repeat that all this is only my opinion and it has nothing to do with making a case for smacking down RTW or making impressions etc - i just don't care enough about it to approach it that way.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What I didn't like about MTW was that the campaign had more depth to it, which meant the AI was at more of a disadvantage. The campaigns I played were all won on the campaign map, I never had any battles that would have been more than minorly inconvenient to lose. In shogun the campaign was won through fighting, I actually cared about my generals and the make ups of their armies and what season it was.

[Noir]

Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

What I didn't like about MTW was that the campaign had more depth to it, which meant the AI was at more of a disadvantage. The campaigns I played were all won on the campaign map, I never had any battles that would have been more than minorly inconvenient to lose. In shogun the campaign was won through fighting, I actually cared about my generals and the make ups of their armies and what season it was.

I agree, but i guess as for many things an advantage is at the same time a weakness. I've heard more than one person disliking STW for the same reason.

The loyalty feature could add for some interesting turns in Shogun where carefully made plans for domination are blown up... Akechi? Who is Akechi?

[Puzz3D]

What I didn't like about MTW was that the campaign had more depth to it, which meant the AI was at more of a disadvantage. The campaigns I played were all won on the campaign map, I never had any battles that would have been more than minorly inconvenient to lose. In shogun the campaign was won through fighting, I actually cared about my generals and the make ups of their armies and what season it was.

That's exactly right. STW was about the battles, and the campaign simply provided a way for losses from previous battles to carry over into the next battle. I'm glad there isn't much to do on the strategy map, so I can get on to fighting next battle. The battle AI was not easy to beat because it made excellent unit matchups which is important with RPS gameplay, and STW had the strongest RPS of any Total War game. The battle AI did not use ranged units very well because it moved them around too much, but at least it didn't stand there and get shot to pieces. If you shoot at an AI unit in original STW, it will move that unit away and into trees if possible unless it decides to attack. That AI is also great at setting up ambushes.

The battles take a definite downturn once the armies become larger than 16 units. It's not too bad when there are only a few reinforcements, but it's rather bad in the sense of being tedious when the reinforcements are larger than the armies that initially take the field. I only play a campaign up to the point where the battles become tedious, although I did persevere and finish one STW campaign and one MTW campaign. I've never had a problem with the limited factions in the STW campaign. As a matter of fact, I've always played the Takeda campaign, and have never even tried the other clans. MTW battles also became even more tedious because the maps were larger and it took so long for reinforcements to traverse the map. I had several MTW campaign battles that took 3 hours each to finish. A 1.5 hour battle was very common while that was the longest I ever saw in an STW campaign.

The features lost in the new battle engine compared to the old battle engine are like night and day to me. I'm bemused by players who don't even notice the difference. I wonder at what "level" they are playing the battles that the diffences seem insignificant to them. Also, mods can't fix some of stuff that isn't working or isn't working well in the RTW battle engine. For instance, mods can't fix the phalanx butt spike problem which has been a significant problem in the RTW campaign battles I've fought using the XGM mod (which improves the battles as much as is possible given the engine and battle AI). That problem causes me to sustain higher cavalry casualties than I should sustain, and is especially irritating when I've done the work to outmaneuver the AI to the extent that I can make a rear charge. This is the kind of proplem that makes me stop playing a game and wish I never bought it.

No, I like the battles best of course: they were amazing for their time with STW and still don't have much of a rival (I recently tried Mark of Chaos and found the battles underwhelming). It's just I'm not very interested in standalone battles - MP or historical. The campaign provides the hook to keep you fighting the battles.

STW has a campaign, so the battles aren't standalone. I find the STW campaign adequate to provide a framework for the battles. If I do poorly in a battle, I'm going to have to do well in subsequent battles to make up for it. A more complex campaign is unnecessary and may not even be desireable if it becomes tedious. It certainly isn't desireable to a player who puts battles first if it results in degraded battlefield gameplay.

[econ21]

I find the STW campaign adequate ...

That's where we agree - it is just adequate.

...A more complex campaign is unnecessary ...

and that's where we disagree. I prefer the complexity and bells of whistles of the later TW campaigns. I find them much more than adequate.

It's just a matter of taste. I think I understand your point of view much better, Puzz3D, when you said you used to be a keen chess player. Chess is an example of a rather simple game that really allows very complex and challenging tactics. It reminds me of the virtues you praise in STW. It's just for me, Chess has always been a great turn-off - I prefer something more representational and more complex. I find the battles of the later TW series more interesting as representations of historical battles and I enjoy the greater complexities of their campaigns. Different strokes for different folks.

[Noir]

With all due respect,

just allow me to comment that complexity comes in various shapes and sizes, much like everything else. Chess has tremendous depth and complexity that happens to be simply different than that in the more representational something (in absence of other term) you prefer.

However not all people are ready (understandably) to appreciate. The mere amount of possibilities, statistically speaking, towards the middle game is intimidating. Games tend to be like non-linear effects that govern the weather and other highly non-linear feedback systemes: one small side step from the opening pattern opens up a whole new universe.

Much like STW battles its a really ruthless game and it is exhausting mentally and psycologically - there are no lies and second chances there, neither playing out your dreams while awake.

[caravel]

This is all very Star Wars vs Star Trek. At the end of the day it's all a matter of opinion. STW and even MTW are very chess like in the functionality of the campaign map. RTW is more like a conventional turn based game.

Let's take Civ2 as an example (I want to use a basic example that I can relate to, and that most people have played at some point or other).

With Civ2 you have a settlement, production, population, population happiness,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

food production, and other such statistics.
There are armies that can be trained. There are also roads that speed up the movement of these armies, and later railways. Also there are no provinces as such. Instead of a province there are settlements, which you found and name. These settlements grow if there is enough food, and don't if there isn't. Surrounding these settlements are tiles, the map is entirely made up of tiles in fact, units move from tile to tile using movement points. Cavalry units usually have more movement points and thus can travel further in one turn, than an infantry unit can. Enemy units can enter the catchment area of a settlement and in doing so render that tile non productive. When they enter the settlement's catchment area it is not an automatic declaration of war either, there is no battle, no siege etc. This only occurs if the settlement or an army in the field is attacked directly. Otherwise neutral, allied and enemy units can walk about all over the settlement's land unchallenged, the latter requiring you to attack and remove them. Each of the map tiles has a terrain type. This terrain also effects movement. A unit travelling through a mountain tile for example can expect to use up all of it's movement points in one go, whereas if it was moving through grassland it may have moved about three tiles before running out of points.

This is hardly chess like, and it is certainly not Risk like in any way. But it bears striking similarities in it's function and principle to the RTW and M2TW campaign map model in many ways.

IMHO because of this, the idea that the RTW campaign map is something new innovative and original is a flawed one. It is basically an attempt to move with the competition, giving players of the turn based and real time strategy genre something for them.

Ok I'll try and employ some Game Developer logic: For players that are used to the type of map employed in popular turned based strategy games and now RTW and M2TW, a risk style map would be a big turn off. This type of player needs visual representation in any game. If they can't see things happening visually they will exit and play something else. Any level of abstraction is not a good thing. Their thinking is that a unit on a map should look like a man, and move around, it shouldn't look like a chess piece, and be static. The player should be able to click the little men and then click on the map to where they want them to go, it shouldn't be a case of picking up and dropping from one "square" to another - again too much like chess or a board game. The map should not look at all like a "map". It should appear like one is looking down from space on the actual world itself as if one were a "god". The terrain on this map should be 3D, not 2D like a map. There should be nothing like a tabletop - in fact the player will be totally removed from the idea that he/she is looking at a "map" at all. This is the world not a "map" of it. There should be trees, mountains and other features, and that terrain should have a purpose, not simply be the cosmetics of a paper map. Armyies should interact visually. One unit army attacking the other should visibly attack it - animated. An army needs to actually walk into a ship and travel on it, not travel on an abstracted fleet, directly from one location to the next. Agents should walk to where they're going on the map, not "beam up" from one port to the next, or be dropped chesslike from a "square" to an adjacent "square".

Eye candy plays a big part in any game these days. Try being a games developer and releasing a game with substandard graphics, and it will be murdered by reviewers both online and on paper. It doesn't matter if it's got the best AI ever, it simply won't sell well based on the poor graphics alone. TW games changed drastically to fit the majority consumer base of the teenage and younger player, whom of which have a tendency to be more interested in image quality. It also evolved to compete with other turn based strategy games, most notably the Civ and AoE series. Sadly for many of the veteran players that put CA where it is today, by going out and buying, "the worst out of the Total War series?", Shogun Total War, this new direction is often not to their tastes. I didn't buy into to Total War to play a tile based Civ game again. For me STW and MTW were something totally different to those, now those differences have become less defined.

Training units that are fit for battle is my primary interest in a TW game, and utilising those units in a formation of combined arms, using a particular strategy and set of tactics to win the battle, often against the odds, or lose it respectably. I like that fact that weather, morale, fatigue, height, climate, flanking and the individual attributes of the units and their general all play a part in this. The campaign map is simply a way for me to manage these battles, and it is this management - not micromanagement - that I enjoy also. As the effective faction leader, I don't worry about the population as such nor the people. Governors do that for me, and as such it is abstracted fully. The military and the construction of civil and military buildings are my only concern. Farmland improvements are not food for the peasants, they are more taxation for me. The increase in food represent more peasants being born and thus paying more taxes, and more food goods being sold in markets, bringing in more taxes still. I don't need to worry if they've got enough food to eat or not, as that's not my job. Also I expect my emissaries to leave, and return with preferably good news. I don't want to know about every stage of their journey. I am the foul horseshoe sucking, gluttonous, chinless fiend. What do I care? My minions and servants are there for that (once they've washed off the blue paint).

[Ignoramus]

I may not be the best person to comment on this, as I don't have Shogun, but I will compare Medieval with Rome and Medieval 2.

In my opinion, Medieval is more immersive than the two sequels. I can hardly remember a time playing Medieval when I quit the game because I became bored. The battles were immersive, and I never got bored of fighting battle after battle. In fact, I would still be playing Medieval now, if I hadn''t lost my CD. I know that Medieval and Shogun are different, but they are quite similar to each other, unlike Rome and recently Medieval 2.

Rome was exciting at first, but then the visual candy wore off. The AI was apalling; I never had much difficulty defeating larger, better equiped enemies. Cavalry was ridiculously overpowered; the only point in having infantry was for storming walls. The faction balance was terrible as well. The Romans blew everyone out of the water with ahistorical advantages. Having the best cavalry in the game, really good archers, war dogs, and "flamming pigs", they crushed eveyone in their path. Also, the Ptolemies were shockingly portrayed as Ancient Egyptians, who were also ridiculously overpowered. Other factions, on the other hand, were suprisingly underpowered. Carthage, for example, constantly got crushed by the Romans and Numidians, and never was the threat to Rome that it should have been.

My initial responses to the new Medieval 2 have been mixed. I appreciate that the AI has been improved from Rome, but it is still child's play compared to Medieval. Also, I dislike the "blitzkrieg" aspect of the game; it doesn't lend itself to realistic gameplay.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

[econ21]

Good post, Caravel.

No prizes for guessing that I like the idea of a Civ game with TW battles. On the building side, I like the guns or butter choices; and I also like the up-teching of units, although I can see that this may cause balance issues. STW had both aspects, of course. Just the later games added some more variety and importance to them.

Having just come out of a period of re-immersion in Civ4, I do think TW could still learn two things from that series:

First, the diplomacy - the AI personalities and diplomatic aspects of Civ4 are still far richer than those in TW. M2TW is improving the series here, as people learn more about what affects relations and reputations. But the AI still could have more "personality" - apparently AI factions do have various predispositions in terms of relations and play style in the code, but they are not communicated or represented well in game to the player.

Second, the strategic AI challenge. STW provided the most challenging campaign. But Civ shows that it is possible to have a challenging campaign with lots of complexity. Granted, it's done in large part by giving the AI bonuses, but that's what the hard difficulty option is there for.

BTW, it's interesting watching the opening videos for Civ4 and Warlords. They so resemble Total War battles. After loading them up, I'm often tempted to exit and start a TW game. Over time, I think we'll probably see more Civ/TW hybrids, and indeed probably more RPG/TW hybrids. I'm all for it.

[caravel]

No prizes for guessing that I like the idea of a Civ game with TW battles. On the building side, I like the guns or butter choices; and I also like the up-teching of units, although I can see that this may cause balance issues. STW had both aspects, of course. Just the later games added some more variety and importance to them.

You're not alone in that. There was a thread some time ago about an online Civ4 and TW game. It sounded rather unworkable to me at the time, but that isn't the point. It does show that there are people out there thinking along the same lines. TW attracts different kinds of players, attracted to different aspects of the gameplay. There are a lot of TW players that never play the campaign at all, and I mean never. The MP community is a good example of this of course. As I've said before I could live with the micromanagement aspects of the RTW/M2TW campaign map, the main problem I have is how armies and agents interact with it, in particular movement rates, and the high number of sieges.

Having just come out of a period of re-immersion in Civ4, I do think TW could still learn two things from that series:

First, the diplomacy - the AI personalities and diplomatic aspects of Civ4 are still far richer than those in TW. M2TW is improving the series here, as people learn more about what affects relations and reputations. But the AI still could have more "personality" - apparently AI factions do have various predispositions in terms of relations and play style in the code, but they are not communicated or represented well in game to the player.

Diplomacy has never been that great across the board, as far as TW games are concerned, though in STW you would see scenarios where you had attacked another clan and taken several of their provinces, doing them some serious damage. The following year, almost without fail, an emissary would request and audience, and a ceasfire! Brilliant. It almost made you think the AI was really thinking. This totally stopped occuring in MTW. In that game, factions are very sucidal. It is as if one bit of AI that was introduced had overridden another. With RTW the diplomacy is there, but sadly doesn't work. For example, if you are the Brutii and the Gauls offer you trade rights, you could then make a counter offer, of trade rights and offer them some cash and sharing of map info. I have seen them turn this down on many occasions. Also if they're getting absolutely trounced, they nearly always won't accept any offers you make. It seems like the "Helloooo??!! we're going to get wiped out!!" bit of AI is overuled by the "these are our enemies AI". I had always hoped the diplomacy would have improved vastly. Factors such as reputation and the AI learning from past experiences. For example if they were attacked from a certain province by a certain faction. They should remember that and better defend the border next time. A faction should have reputation factors that the AI can refer to. If you keep backstabbing your allies it should be almost impossible to get alliances. Weaker factions should seek the protection of a stronger one, if they are weakened. The diplomacy could also depend on a particular faction leaders traits. A coward would be more likely to be an appeaser, whereas a faction leader with e.g. pride and loyalty would rather see his faction die out than seek the protection of another. Greedy faction leaders would check their treasury more often when thinking about receiving payments etc. The possibilities are endless unfortunately not a lot of this has been done, and that which has is usually poorly implimented.

Second, the strategic AI challenge. STW provided the most challenging campaign. But Civ shows that it is possible to have a challenging campaign with lots of complexity. Granted, it's done in large part by giving the AI bonuses, but that's what the hard difficulty option is there for.

I really dislike the AI getting bonuses to give a more difficult game. This where the TW difficulty levels are not so good. I'd prefer if the harder difficulty simply meant that the AI would use more efftive formations, tactics and ambushes etc.

[Noir]

Many mods be it for MTW or RTW, give shining examples as to how the AI strategic performance can be improved.

In EB, diplomacy works more as one would hope.

In XL, the AI factions perform better overall (even the HRE survives longer) due to increasing the farming and decreasing the trade outputs.

Homelands/AOR also make for more realistic campaign development potentials as the size of an ethnicity/culture is introduced in the game (Vs Armenians or the Irish forming easily world empires which is something i dislike to see in my campaigns). In general i am in favor of keeping the game at a mid game stage to the end - even if artificial means are introduced for this. Becoming the size of two "nations" usually means the game is over in TW games other than STW. Playing the Casse in EB is great - your ambitions are to be a local power to be acknowledged by superpowers and not a superpower youreself.

There are workarounds that the developers simply dont have time or cannot afford from a marketability point of view to include. That's were the mods really come in.

M2 has a lot of potential for modding and assuming that people get the tools they need to change the game, i'm sure some very interesting mods will spring out.

If the battle engine settings return to the high standard they had in the previous incarnation, then we are looking towards an all around strong game.

Everytime i was going to battle in Eb, there were a million reasons that were turning it to a very emotionally charged event. However thebattle itself never managed not to make e feel "cheated" - was it this relatively quick rout all i was getting so worked up for? In MTW not only i've never felt let down, but in certain cases even "routine" engagements were proved interesting.

I have a feeling that the STW/MTW battles were too complex, difficult and unrewarding for beginners and players habituated to a more traditional RTS style and also they were lacking spectacle and motivation. Now they tend to be the opposite ie you can just click a few times, zoom in and watch. This is why i am satisfied with the older graphics: things are represented well to a degree necessary to play a tactical war game, not a FPS.

[Puzz3D]

If the battle engine settings return to the high standard they had in the previous incarnation, then we are looking towards an all around strong game.

Forget about it. It isn't going to happen. The trend of TW games is clear now. You're going to get more complex campaigns which are beyond CA's capacity to make work properly, and tactically simplified battles with so many unit types that they can't balance it.

I have a feeling that the STW/MTW battles were too complex, difficult and unrewarding for beginners and players habituated to a more traditional RTS style and also they were lacking spectacle and motivation. Now they tend to be the opposite ie you can just click a few times, zoom in and watch. This is why i am satisfied with the older graphics: things are represented well to a degree necessary to play a tactical war game, not a FPS.

CA has stated that the battles were simplified for the benfit of the new players. They then claim that the battles are being made to appeal to veteran players which is contradictory if they are referring to STW veterans. That's part of the smoke and mirrors marketing that they engage in because they never say which veterans. It's the reason I mistakenly purchased RTW, but I found out early in the RTW v1.2 beta what was really going on and that's what prompted me to start working on Samurai Wars only a few weeks into the RTW v1.2 beta teasting.

[EightDeer]

Since we're all giving opinions, here's mine:


STW: I never really got into this one. After doing a steam-roller act over 2/3rds of Japan with the Hojo, I tried the historical victors; the Oda. Same thing again.
Since I started with MTW, I was somewhat disappointed with the complete lack of personality of the commanders and other notables. Another factor against it was my lack of interest in the setting. The Heian period of Japan was far more interesting.


MTW: My personal favourite. The governors had personality(All hail Lord Drunken Madman, Margrave of Tuscany), and I really loved the battles.
I still remember a 12,000 man French army attacking my 2000 man garrison in Burgundy - and losing. Byzantine Cavalry just rocked so hard. And don't forget a battle in the Lithuanian forests; where the elite boyars of the Rus charged out of the trees - only to find themselves staring straight down the barrels of four V7 Culverins . And a desert battle in which the poor bloody Kataphraktoi had to face Spanish Jinetes while totally exhausted... okay I'll stop there. But I could go on all day!


RTW: When I first got it, I was completely turned off by the ahistoric division of the Roman Republic. I forgot about it for six months, until I heard about RTR. Now it's actually worth playing, even if I never quite figured out the correct use of Velites.
I actually prefer the campaign map of RTW; tell me to GB2/Civ if you wish, but I like the fact that you actually have to spare a thought for the populace of your empire.
Something else that RTW had that the previous two didn't: Diplomacy. I really did like the extra diplomatic options in RTW.


M2TW: Haven't played more than a few turns. This is because I happen to be a complete Byzantophile, and the news that the Byz don't get gunpowder weapons of any kind did NOT go down well. I'm going to wait for M2TR.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Eightdeer

The Heian period of Japan was far more interesting.

It's a very interesting period, i agree, but i wouldn't call it far more interesting than Sengoku.

For a military setting, sengoku is the epitomy as it includes "modern" warfare tactics based on guns as well as more traditional approaches as skirmishing tactics, brute melee force tactics, cavalry encirlement/flanking etc etc

Also characters in STW had personalities, not expressed through traits but through the daimiyo personality strategic preferences and their initial command stars (check, Nobunaga, Shingen, Kenshin, Ieyasu etc).

Originally posted by Puzz3D

Forget about it. It isn't going to happen.

I don't expect it at all. I know that the current level of battles is satisfying for the majority of players and so for the developers. I think that hybrids on the line econ21 decribes are the future. TW couldn't make it commercially without putting water in its wine and the other historical RTS's now look goofy - not-so-exciting without "proper" 3D batles. Their combination is inevitable and it will dominate the market for the years to come.

My future is centred around MTW mods and STW.

*Edit* Oops, wrong button!

[Puzz3D]

I don't expect it at all.

You can write off purchasing any future Total War product right now.

[caravel]

Forget about it. It isn't going to happen. The trend of TW games is clear now. You're going to get more complex campaigns which are beyond the CA's capacity to make work properly, and tactically simplified battles with so many unit types that they can't balance it.

You're right in a way, but never say never. Unfortunately games tend to be like any other medium, whether audio or visual. E.g. someone may prefer older music to newer music, as the newer stuff may be dumbed down or repetitive, that is primarily commercial. Another individual may prefer old movies, because back in those days, movies had a plot and didn't have to rely on special effects to sell. The same goes with games. Games are becoming totally visually oriented. Yes graphic were always a big deal, but nowadays graphics are what makes or breaks a game, the rest is just "extras". For the AI the usual "click-as-fast-you-can" model will do.

CA has stated that the battles were simplified for the benfit of the new players. They then claim that the battles are being made to appeal to veteran players which is contradictory if they are referring to STW veterans. That's part of the smoke and mirrors marketing that they engage in because they never say which veterans. It's the reason I mistakenly purchased RTW, but I found out early in the RTW v1.2 beta what was really going on and that's what prompted me to start working on Samurai Wars only a few weeks into the RTW v1.2 beta teasting.

Marketing hype, and best ignored. I never pay much attention what is said about a game before it's release. In the case of M2TW, a lot was said over at the .com forums, regarding the 225 turns issue, and a lot of criticism levelled at the unit previews. People were jumping on the CA's every word when they should have been taking no notice, and waiting for the real thing. There was nothing anyone could have said or done at that stage that would have influenced the game in a significant way, and that's the key point here. This is a product that is sold to a consumer base for profit. RTW was a move towards expanding the old consumer base away from the die hard veterans, and on to a whole new market. A lot of the old vets are annoyed because they felt somehow cheated by the CA, which is ludicrous as they're hardly beholden. CA will naturally look at what the old vets want and will obviously think: "well that's how not to do it", as a game that is designed around the vets needs is often repellent to the new player, especially the CA's new younger target consumer. I think that if I come to such a stage that Total War games are not my thing any more, I will either:

1) Not buy any more Total War games and give up playing. I will move onto another pursuit.

2) Not buy any more Total War games and continue playing those that I have and enjoy playing.

I most certainly won't waste my time here whinging on and on and on about it as some have done at the .com, and how even I have done in the past. What you have done, Puzz3D, is become part of a brilliant project to effectively get STW running on the MTW version of the engine with what looks like superb results, ensuring that all of us grumbling and stick shaking vets will always have something to play around with in a few years time when everyone else is playing Pixies and Goblins II - Total War, and I take my hat off to you and the others for that.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Caravel

...in a few years time when everyone else is playing Pixies and Goblins II - Total War...

[caravel]

Yes indeed, when the next generation of players are throwing their Ready Break up the walls in disgust, as one of their elite valour 6 Pixie Heavy Infantry units get's charged down by Some valour 1 Mounted Goblin Archers, we will still be here grumbling on about fantasy units, though perhaps with good reason, while the new generation of fans will be making 20 page threads about whether Elvish Warriors held their spear in the left hand or the right...

And then of course comes the inevitable thread in the new TW game forum for the next great game:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

THE TROLLSESSSS MUST BE IN THIS GAME!!!!1!!1111
the trols wer very impotent in histry...they had big ackses ummm......PUT THE TROLS IN TEH GAME YOU &*%&%@%$!!1!!!!11

Disclaimer: The above post is not in any way serious.

[Gregoshi]

Very interesting discussion and analysis in this thread.

One thing to hold out hope for: eventually graphics will get as real as possible and the eye candy attraction will lose its glitter - the "Been-There-Done-That" syndrome. At that point, game developers will be forced to make the games in which the game play has to stand on its own. Game play will be the hook of a "good" game again.

Regarding the RTW/M2TW map vs the Risk style STW/MTW campaign map: I thought the new "go anywhere" map of RTW was great when I first heard about it. Now, based solely on the one RTW campaign I've played, I found the new campaign map is very deceptive in its function. Sure, you can go anywhere on the map, BUT how often does it pay to leave the roads? Where are the roads? Typically through the easiest terrain possible. I think back on the campaign I played and it struck me how boring the battlefields were. Generally they were flat with maybe a slight grade somewhere. A few had trees, but most were Totomi type (flat & featureless with a minor elevation). With the Risk style map, you were at least forced to fight on some battlefields with wildly varying terrain: Yamato (hills/forests), Shinano (big hills), Mushashi (2 bridges), Bungo (hills/valley/trees), Awa (bridge/cliff), etc. I really missed that in RTW. To be fair, in RTW I didn't do any fighting in the Balkans, Middle East or Africa, so maybe things are different there. However, in my limited game play, the roads railroaded you into very featureless battlefields which, after many battles, led to a very unsatisfying battle experience.

About the STW campaign, it had some very nice features (throne room, seasons,etc), but was far too simple and had some problems as well. Suicide daimyos led to too many early exits for most of the factions leaving you to conquer Japan filled only with rebels. This was boring because clans built up but rebels just existed. Diplomacy was basically fight/don't fight. Many of the campaign features added to MTW and later RTW were things we players were clamouring for after playing the simplistic STW campaign. Of course, with STW in particular, the tactical battles were the main event and the campaign was a sideshow. I remember the Org forums back in the STW days. About 2 months after STW came out, discussions about the SP campaign were pretty much dead as there was nothing new to discover with the simple campaign. All active discussion (and there was a LOT) was about the battles. With MTW and its enhanced campaign, that all changed. Thanks the far greater depth of the strategic campaign, discussions about MTW strategies were quite lively right up to RTW's release. In fact, I can recall some major economic discoveries about the MTW SP campaign almost 2 years after the game came out. That says a lot about how deep the campaign was.

Well, that's my 2 koku contribution to this thread.

Hmmm, all this reflection peaks my interest in the Samurai Wars mod...

[TosaInu]

Interesting discussion, should read it all again.

I can't say much about M2TW, because I don't have it. I do know though, what I really do not like about the campaign and that's the vanilla 1 turn per 2 years. I already 'moaned' about only 4 turns in STW (the people who were here during Winter 2000, will recall that). I want months, maybe even weeks (depends on the strat map).

The nice thing is that you can change that in M2TW (not sure how well, for it's more than just extra turns per year I seek), Myrddraal made a nice tool for that in RTW. In MTW you got stuck with 1tpy and there's nothing you can do about it. I didn't like it before release (it's a fundamental I don't like), tried a few campaigns (mostly because I had to test a mod for someone), but never got past 30%. I hate it.

The best tactic battles, both SP and MP, were STW ones for me. Not perfect though. Some cons in STW battles: Benny Hill code (units artificially rout when you did more than a few manoeuvres), the gamey every men routs to the exit in your corner and gets slaughtered by one crippled horse there, the simplistic ballistic model (still present in other titles afaik), routing men outrunning tired horses, firecracker guns (even at point blank), ' TW RPS' swamping upgrade system.

MTW VI offers the most extensive unitstats. Units rout more naturally (up to the level where your head starts to spin). But vanilla MP battles are not it. And again the personal party spoilers are hardcoded such as the 4 unit tax or can only be bypassed by cunning mods.

Each title also has pros for me: M2TW has the graphical difference for each unit, it doesn't have to be the yawdropping graphical effect for me in those games, but I like the reduction in clonewarriors. RTW offers the unitspecific upgrades, and the 3D campaignmap acts as nice 3rd layer between the strategy and the tactic battles. You are no longer forced to that nasty bridge battle, you can sandwich the enemy and move to higher ground first. The AI should make better use of it though. MTW VI had the best unitstats (the parameter files, not the values) and a fair battleengine, the platform to make MP battle mods. I can't say much positive about the campaign, the 1 tpy limitation ruins it all for me.
STW WE allows to mod unitstats and the campaign (something STW did not or hardly permit). Had meaningful four turns per year, weather effects, story, tension, music.
STW offered the better vanilla MP battles for me.

I'ld choose a modded MTW VI for the MP battles, such as the Community mod, DUX or SamWars. And STW WE for the campaign (probably using a tweaked unitstat).

Maybe S3TW will bring all good parts together, either directly or by a nifty switch and slider system so each individual can tune the game to his/her taste.

[Puzz3D]

I'd choose a modded MTW VI for the MP battles, such as the Community mod, DUX or SamWars. And STW WE for the campaign (probably using a tweaked unitstat).

I did post modified stat files for STW/MI (marketed as the Warlords Edition in the USA) which returns the stats to the settings they had in original STW, and the STW/MI v1.0 settings for the new units. I made some notes on how to adjust the naginata cav, battlefield ninja and kensai so that they fit in with the original STW units a little better. Those stats are posted in this thread: old unit stats. STW/MI has the drill dojo for retraining units, and the AI clans cannot spend money they don't have which I think are the two main advantages in addition to being able to start a campaign at three different times. Reinforcements also come onto the map at different places along the map edge rather than always the same spot as they did in STW.

Hmmm, all this reflection peaks my interest in the Samurai Wars mod...

You could try Samurai Wars beta7, but the impassable terrain appears in the wrong places on the maps. This is already fixed in beta8, but that hasn't been released yet. I could make the fix available with instructions on how to incorporate it into the beta7. It would be a fairly large download. Another issue with the beta7 is that the castles are too weak. I'm working on that now to get them made stronger for the beta8.

Samurai Wars doesn't have some of the features of STW. There are no seasons, religion, throne room, videos or traders arriving with guns. The campaign starts about 50 years earlier than in STW, and you can build guns once you get the required buildings. The battlefield weather effects are not as good as in STW, but on the plus side you don't have suicide daimyos and cavalry tries to flank. Another interesting thing about the battles is that the map is rotated depending upon from which direction the attacking army comes on the strategic map. All the battle maps are the original maps using the original ground textures with new Japanese models placed on them. There are several maps associated with each province, so you don't always get the same map in a battle in a particular province. You have navies and many other features of the MTW/VI campaign, and there are a lot more clans in the game. All the battle maps are the original maps using the original ground textures and new Japanese models placed on them.

[Noir]

*edited out and posted in the SWs forum*

[Veho Nex]

I feel happy that i was first to catch this error and start this huge debate. i just finished reading this twice to see how i can fix this with a mod(RTW) it would be my first but i am pretty good at modding files(non game related one) and adding codes to them that will make ai slightly harder but also(havnt seen this yet) im seperating rome territories and making a "Risk" style map for it but will take a while to do since its project semester so alot of big stuff got to do lemme know if u can help

[Puzz3D]

I feel happy that i was first to catch this error and start this huge debate. i just finished reading this twice to see how i can fix this with a mod (RTW).

I don't know what error you mean, but in any case, it's best to discuss modding in the appropriate modding forum. Personally, I have no interest in modding RTW because the battle engine is so inferior to the one used in STW/MTW that it isn't worth trying to improve it. The only improvements I see in the new engine are that cavalry can shoot on the move and the new stamina parameter which increases fatigue recovery, but these aren't enough to offset the numerous simplifications. The XGM mod for RTW does as well as anybody is ever going to do for improving the battles in RTW.

[Gregoshi]

The XGM mod for RTW does as well as anybody is ever going to do for improving the battles in RTW.

Arthur C. Clarke's First Law:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Just givin' you a hard time Puzz3D.

[caravel]

Regarding the RTW/M2TW map vs the Risk style STW/MTW campaign map: I thought the new "go anywhere" map of RTW was great when I first heard about it. Now, based solely on the one RTW campaign I've played, I found the new campaign map is very deceptive in its function. Sure, you can go anywhere on the map, BUT how often does it pay to leave the roads? Where are the roads? Typically through the easiest terrain possible. I think back on the campaign I played and it struck me how boring the battlefields were. Generally they were flat with maybe a slight grade somewhere. A few had trees, but most were Totomi type (flat & featureless with a minor elevation). With the Risk style map, you were at least forced to fight on some battlefields with wildly varying terrain: Yamato (hills/forests), Shinano (big hills), Mushashi (2 bridges), Bungo (hills/valley/trees), Awa (bridge/cliff), etc. I really missed that in RTW. To be fair, in RTW I didn't do any fighting in the Balkans, Middle East or Africa, so maybe things are different there. However, in my limited game play, the roads railroaded you into very featureless battlefields which, after many battles, led to a very unsatisfying battle experience.

I have been playing a vanilla RTW campaign as the Greek Cities, in an attempt to see the games plus points (I can count the RTW campaigns I've played on one hand). One of the first annoyances that struck me was how units and ships retreat, exhausting all of their movement points when defeated. In an example of this, after a battle a beaten Macedonian stack retreated southwards, into my lands and made it's way eastwards, southwards and westwards again into the southern Peloponnese, running well inside the enagement area of one of my other stacks, that then engaged it and destroyed it entirely. The following year another small Macedonian stack did the same thing, "rebounding" in the same way, running into my other stack again and being defeated again. Another large Macedonian stack further to the north, sits there doing absolutely nothing useful. Surely the the AI should have retreated that unit into the mountains, northwards anyway, into their own lands. Surely an army would almost always retreat across it's own border, back into it's own province? With all of the movements points it took to head into my land on that suicide mission it could have gone north back to the nearest Macedonian settlement.

The battles have been a breeze so far. There was one particular battle where I had deployed about 500 men vs the enemy's 1000 (the Macedonians, so the unit rosters are pretty equal). The enemy had the terrain advantage despite me being able to deploy my forces within the box. I was unable to secure higher ground than the enemy. To cut a long story short. The outcome was that I had killed 90% of them and lost.... 17 of my own men... My units were mostly Hoplites, Militia Hoplites, one unit of archers and the general's unit. By engaging them in a frontal assault with most of the Hoplites in Phalanx formation and bringing two spare units in as wingers I was able to hit their flanks hard which caused massive casualties resulting in a morale disintegration. My general's units I used only for hunting down the routers. The enemy eventually threw his own general onto to the pikes.

Their biggest failure though, was their inability to coordinate their forces correctly. There are no attempted flank attacks, no maneouvering, just the usual bumrush, unit by unit. Instead of bringing the his full army to bear, the AI has them hanging back, advancing and retreating, or hurling themselves piecemeal at my lines.

The AI will often send in one or two of the same kind of unit in a full frontal assault no matter what mix of units it has. If, as with myself, the player had deployed a solid wall of hoplites, the enemy will break upon it. In the case of MTW their flanks would then have been threatened. A sneaky cavalry unit would be making his way around to the rear. Not so in this case. The enemy fell for it all hook line and sinker.

[Noir]

I applaud your... courage for playing vanilla.

There are certain battle oriented mods that fix the skins and the AI formations to good effect whithin the limitations of the engine.

One thing i was always doing is to bring down the movement speed by 30% to 40% for all terrains (unit movement modifiers file). By testing it i realise that it affects fatigue ie the units do evenually get tired whithin the battle time limit and also you can control more the maneuvering phase (not the melee though as other means are needed to prolong this - increase the defence stats and the base moral of units).

By fixing these two there is actually time for repeated flanking (that seldom is available in vanilla - battles always are the bum rush you describe with a flank attack at best) and so it becomes more important as a tactic.

Missiles are horribly simplified (all ranks are firing - no penalties for sight obstruction); mods like RTR make a good job in increasing greatly the number of javelin units (almost all barbarian infantry being heavy or light can hurl javelins very far) and reduce the effectiveness of archers and slingers (that are only there to provide depression in moral and not be killers like in vanilla).

The worst is heavy cavalry that can charge even with a... 5 meter space and being very far appart from each other - people fly in the air still. the turning radiuses and speeds also border on the ridiculous. They can take on anyone except phalanxes in melee.

Again several mods do a good job in taking out melee power and adding to the charge and to supporting abilities like skirmishing with javelins bringing out the true strength of cavalry ie mobility (not brute force).

[Puzz3D]

Just givin' you a hard time Puzz3D.

I think LongJohn made the STW battle engine better than Mike Simpson ever dreamed it would be, and he improved it further in MTW. The guy was awesome, but he doesn't seem to be around anymore. He got rid of the suicide generals in MTW/VI, and if you play the Samurai Wars campaign, you'll see that it's very hard to the kill enemy generals because they are much more cautious and because cavalry can disengage in MTW/VI. I played an STW/MI Takeda campaign last night using my original STW stats. The campaign starts in 1530, and by 1538 I've killed both the Imagawa and Hojo daimyos eliminating both clans. The Imagawa daimyo died in my first battle with them, and the Hojo daimyo in my second battle with them.

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

We're not dealing with the physics of the universe, and it doesn't take a scientist to understand how the Total War battle engines work. Creative Assembly has kept the new battle engine shrouded in mystery, but over a dozen deficiencies are descernable and I'm not going to go into them again because I've already done that more than once. DimeBagHo made the best choices in his XGM mod for RTW for improving the battlefield gameplay. Neither the Chivalry, SPQR, RTR or EB mods have done as well, and Creative Assembly is certainly never going to patch RTW again.

[econ21]

DimeBagHo made the best choices in his XGM mod for RTW for improving the battlefield gameplay. Neither the Chivalry, SPQR, RTR or EB mods have done as well, and Creative Assembly is certainly never going to patch RTW again.

(I am going way off topic here, but I hope this can be indulged, as getting better battles is arguably the most important issue with TW....)

What do you identify as the "best choices" XGM made for modding RTW? (Particularly those that are better than rival mods)?

I'm curious because I have not played XGM but other mods are still to some extent works in progress and might be improved by learning from it.