MTW England

[RabidMonkey]

I was reading a post awhile ago that said MTW should have been focused on england only and i have been thinking about this for awhile and decided it makes sense for a number of reasons.

First off i think MTW is to big and because of this it doesnt really work as a real representation of medieval europe. There are to many different factions and unit types to accuratley reflect there differences and advanteges against each other. By just having England and maybe a small chunk of europe on the map it would be a lot easier to get the units and tactics to work better.

There would still be a lot of factions like the welsh, scots, english and then maybe a couple of european ones.

Maybe I like the sound of this just cos i love the battles fought between france and england which i can never seem to get playing MTW.

Id like to hear other ppls ideas on this!

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by RabidMonkey:
I was reading a post awhile ago that said MTW should have been focused on england only and i have been thinking about this for awhile and decided it makes sense for a number of reasons.

First off i think MTW is to big and because of this it doesnt really work as a real representation of medieval europe. There are to many different factions and unit types to accuratley reflect there differences and advanteges against each other. By just having England and maybe a small chunk of europe on the map it would be a lot easier to get the units and tactics to work better.

There would still be a lot of factions like the welsh, scots, english and then maybe a couple of european ones.

Maybe I like the sound of this just cos i love the battles fought between france and england which i can never seem to get playing MTW.

Id like to hear other ppls ideas on this![/QUOTE]

I posted this idea before. Unfortunately its not going to happen, which is too bad. The sooner you forget about this idea the least frustrated you'll get with conquering europe.

[solypsist]

the variety of troop types wouldn't be as great. yeah, it might've been less problematic and more smooth, but then there would be equally large numbers of people asking why the game didn't include the rest of Europe.


------------------
"Soly is not merciful to his victims."
-Shiro

-------------------------

** RESISTANCE TO SPAM IS FUTILE **

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by solypsist:
the variety of troop types wouldn't be as great. yeah, it might've been less problematic and more smooth, but then there would be equally large numbers of people asking why the game didn't include the rest of Europe.


[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately theres a lesson to be learned in all this. Next time you make a game make sure you dont listen to 100 teen age kids say what cool stuff should be added in the second game, because this is what CA did with Medieval Total War. Yea the sieges are cool, but trading, boats, inquisitors, and basically everything else like vices generals titles etc. all of it is nothing but a micro-managinf headache. Any conecpt you put in a game should be worthwhile and mean SOMETHING. Almost every detail MTW has is hocus pocus. I've won on expert level without bothering who I'm gonna marry, without assaulting one damn castle, without trading goods, or without shagging the kings royal dog. In other words details mean nothing if they arnt purposfully put in the game. If CA gave greater significance to micro managing players might be inclined to use them more. Hell look at siges some player said "hey CA it would be real cool to have sieges in the next Total War" bingo sieges in MTW and what a waste they are. Yes I'm ranting like a enraged maniac escaped from the tower of london but CA got a little ambitious and listened to what their next door neighbors cousins daughters dog wanted changed for MTW and now we got useless stuff everywhere - crusades? I never captured one province as catholic faction and still won in glory goals mind you. The details in MTW are great, but they dont mean anything, their just a bunch of clutter like your next door neighbors overdone christmas lights. CA should have listened to their expert designers instead of Bill and Ted and come up with meaningful devices to further MTW. Clutter is great as long as you can find a use for it, and frankly I want to kick Grandma Sally's Santa and Reinderr next door and throw them in the street because just like MTW the details dont mean anything. Just conquer the crap out of Europe and dont bother with the rest. Personally I loved the simple but encompassing strategy of STW because there were no clutter and headaches. If CA had listened to their developers and less from Bill and Ted they would have realized a game of Europe would be much too ambitious without YEARS of playtesting so they would have designed a game along the lines of Shogun and made it England (like Japan an warring island nation). Instead of cluttering shit in the game like what time of day the King should clip his toenails they could have improved on the AI or graphics. I have no problem with siege or naval battles but for gods sake make every mean something in order to win the game, because if you really want to win the game kill like a caveman, dont get me started with diplomacy. Personally I'm using MTW as my personal MP game. (Huffing, puffing, catching breath from neverending rant).

[andrewt]

As long as features are useful, they are fine. In Starcraft, for example, there are many abilities and units that are not being used much. You could win against many people without taking advantage of these things and features. However, somebody who knows how to use them would be at an advantage.

Same with trading, princesses, boats and titles. Sure, you can win without them, but it is easier to win with them. The only reason you can win without them is because the AI doesn't take advantage of them much.

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by andrewt:
As long as features are useful, they are fine. In Starcraft, for example, there are many abilities and units that are not being used much. You could win against many people without taking advantage of these things and features. However, somebody who knows how to use them would be at an advantage.

Same with trading, princesses, boats and titles. Sure, you can win without them, but it is easier to win with them. The only reason you can win without them is because the AI doesn't take advantage of them much.[/QUOTE]

What you dont understand is that total war went from a streamlined strategy game to a micro managed extravaganza. The whole point to playing games, is after all to win. In MTW, theres just about one way to win - take europe. If something doesnt help you to win, dont do it. See what you dont understand is sure all those fancy expensive units help you too win, but what you dont realize is all those fancy expensive units force you to have a headache to win. If you want to win without a headache, build troops and more troops. I wouldnt have a problem with sieges, princesses, trading, alliances, varieties of units, titles, or province taxing if any og it contributed SIGNIFICANTLY to the game. Its just like saying you wanted to assault a castle because it looks cool, while in reality the best way to take a castle is to wait it out. See all of this cluttered stuff in MTW doesnt add to a variety of strategies, it just lets you know once again the EASIEST way to win is by the simplest route, ignore the clutter.

[Lord Nap]

Well I probably shouldn't be promoting a competitor's product, but Lords of the Realm III comes out in a few months (supposedly), and it takes place exclusively in England (or at least the first two did).

[Alrowan]

well if you want to take out every supposedly useless aspect of the game, then why not just play scissors paper rock with your next door neighbour, everything has been added for a purpose, and the more you use them , the more you might actually enjoy the game.. if its only battles you want, then beg for the patch, but as it stands, ive just had fun with the little useless things.. hell i was so bored of single princess, that i married them to all thier brothers, for 3 generations... and to my surprise all the hiers were actually good generals

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by Alrowan:
well if you want to take out every supposedly useless aspect of the game, then why not just play scissors paper rock with your next door neighbour, everything has been added for a purpose, and the more you use them , the more you might actually enjoy the game.. if its only battles you want, then beg for the patch, but as it stands, ive just had fun with the little useless things.. hell i was so bored of single princess, that i married them to all thier brothers, for 3 generations... and to my surprise all the hiers were actually good generals[/QUOTE]

Hey, you can play any way you want, as long as YOU enjoy the game, then everything is ok. For me, all that addes tuff is just that, added stuff. The best analogy of MTW micro management extravanganza is this: If you have the choice to assault a siege castle and lose 100 men and take it in one turn, or take it without losing anybody. This is basically what all these things do in the game, their all shits and giggles fun, but they dont contribute to a long term strategy. Sure you can implement them, if you want to utilize the game, but thats just it, it just makes i harder for you to win. It makes it harder if your plan is to use assasins, then you have to build a brothel, oh wait you can make a monastery. In reality to win the easiest build tons of guys and take europe. I love details, especially historical detail....now if only these details added something to gameplay...

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by Lord Nap:
Well I probably shouldn't be promoting a competitor's product, but Lords of the Realm III comes out in a few months (supposedly), and it takes place exclusively in England (or at least the first two did). [/QUOTE]

LOL, Nap. Somehow everytime I'm in a post saying how I think MTW could have been much better your right behind me telling me to play Lords of the Realm http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif I checked it out but it seems a little too fantasy for me, personally I'm a historical fanatic. Something tells me Lords of the Realm Publisher is paying you for your endorsement... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Alrowan]

well there is in fact a really good reason to seige, firstly the security of the provience, and seccondly, if you dont seige, then the castle revers one stage, and if your looking to keep the provience, then i always attack

[Postino]

yes, ending the seige is profitable; you can instantly build upon ther territory and the comp. does it muchy better than i have ever been able too!

every rank of yours i read dick, i have a better opinion of your views for your points are quite valid.

i detest the micro-manegment of starcraft and all games like it, but that seems to be what the public wants and if the public wants it then the developers will produce it.

while it took me 20 hours or less to beat STW on expert, it takes me twice as much to beat MTW. is this not what the devolopers and publishers want? more play time with the same replay value still equals more replay value, reguardless of how you get it!

sequels are made to appease the fans of the previous game. who can say they have been truly dissapointed with the release of MTW? there always bugs, and while some of the bugs could have been play-tested out, the developers still want a solid release date.

in SP conquer en' masse' is easily the best way to go, but there are many ways to play it.

in MP the choosing of a faction can have great consequences, depending on the oppositions faction.

TW is not about doiung it, but how you do it. if you want a game which focuses on just doing it then go buy warcraft or some other peice of crap like it. fling as many as you can where ever you can. chop your wood and mine your gold and build oil mines if that is all the micro-management you want! watch yuor little ninny's fight and have no control over how they do it. TW lets you take 200 troops and beat 900 troops, if you have the right ones and know how to use them. that is the beauty of TW and i would wish it no other way.

[Nelson]

Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
Unfortunately theres a lesson to be learned in all this. Next time you make a game make sure you dont listen to 100 teen age kids say what cool stuff should be added in the second game, because this is what CA did with Medieval Total War. Yea the sieges are cool, but trading, boats, inquisitors, and basically everything else like vices generals titles etc. all of it is nothing but a micro-managinf headache. [/QUOTE]

There were quite a few of us older dogs looking for a better, richer campaign too, not just the pups. When CA enhanced the strategy game they were listening to almost everyone.

UK history could sustain a game like this on its own I agree. That would have made it very similar to Shogun. I'm glad Medieval is the game it is. Much more genuine variety.



------------------
COGITOERGOVINCO

[solypsist]

earlier in the game, i didn't like all the agents, and complained about having to deal with all their logistics. now, after a few months of playing and learning, i really like the agents, and find the diplomacy and such just as entertaining as the battles.

[ToranagaSama]

The problem is not that all the micro-managment stuff is useless, its that the AI is not challenging enough to force you to utilize the benefits of micro-management.

On that note, if you were playing a human player, then you might find greater use for micro-management.

The AI just isn't good enough for experienced players and probably won't ever be good enough.

Imagine with the next incarnation of TW, those of us who started with STW will be even more experienced players, but will the AI be expotentially better??? So far, I'm not hopeful.

We need Campaign Multiplay and that's that!

[Lord Nap]

Richard,

No, I don't work for Impressions (the LOTR company), I'm just a law student. But if you ever played the previous two versions of the game, you would see that it's not fantasy at all. It's very similar in play-style to MTW, but with a tad less micromanagement. Since it's in England, there are fewer counties to focus on, and you can still manage them to yhour heart's content, though the AI can take over if you like.

MTW is a fine game for me, but I've always been a big fan of the LOTR series. Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
LOL, Nap. Somehow everytime I'm in a post saying how I think MTW could have been much better your right behind me telling me to play Lords of the Realm http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif I checked it out but it seems a little too fantasy for me, personally I'm a historical fanatic. Something tells me Lords of the Realm Publisher is paying you for your endorsement... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif[/QUOTE]

[Pragmatic]

Isn't it possible to limit the game size?

For instance, the only way you're able to get from one province to another is through the links between provinces. And this goes for sea provinces, too. So, just eliminate all links that connect England/France with the other factions.

Then eliminate all non-wanted factions.

Then add in minor factions to bedevil the two major factions. (Scots raiding from Scotland. Burgundians raiding from Burgundy. And so forth.)

That'd limit the scale. Of course, there'd be no "Conquer the entire map," but you could possibly set up some Glorious Achievements.

[Richard the Slayer]

Let us all remember the success of games - multiplayer online. SP may not like this. Replayability makes a game, well, replayable. If you play the computer for the next few months, you'll get bored quickly. When I bought Age of Kings, I played the computer for 3 weeks and got bored of the game. Then something amazing happened. I discovered the zone, an online game site by microsoft. The zone was so vast and well done, that there were 3000 ppl playing at the very least in AOK alone. Guess what? I played AOK for the next 3 years constantly and finally quite when players became too GOOD and I wanted something more realistic. The irony here isnt the fact that I quite because it was getting boring, I quite because everybody was too damn good and I had to quite the habit, it was too much fun taking all my time up. On retrospect I believe what MTW should have done. The strategy is fine, so they should have made a non-battle strategy version on their multiplayer site. Then a RTS battle section. So players have options to play both. Either that, or scrap campaigns all together and focus MTW completely on RTS battles. Its a little silly to play online and battles end in a few minutes. I have heard shogun 1.03 gives long exciting epic battles. CA could have turned MTW into a wargamers paradise with long satisfying battles and they could have tweaked the battle mode to include more troops on the battlefield. Overall the light has just come before me and the ghost of MTW past and future told me that MTW success lies with MP. With the vast array of experts and brilliant people in this forum alone MP will make the game shine with challenge after challenge. You SP people out there - yea you sure love the AI, wait til 3 months down the line - how long you've been playing 2 months? See beauty of a game lies in how humans play it, not how computer plays it. After all, Edward the First was not fighting William the Robot in Scotland. Trust me, months from now people will be exaulting my words as brilliant and true. If CA wants to succeed, both financially, and overall succeed with a great game, listen to my words (I dont live in England so if you want to hire me as chief of gaming operations we can work something out) screw off gamespy, and create a Total War website. Yes thats right, a website where players from STW, MTW can all meet and be merry. Games can be divided in Stratgey and RTS tactical (just remember for now the campaigns should exlude battles and should be auto-resolve for simplicity sake). We all know how much you folks at CA want to marry gamespot and gamespy personnel, but leave your fantasies behind and create the ultimate TW website. Think about it, I believe some of you listening to this may be getting very excited about the idea. Easy access to games, both STW and MTW, strategy and tactical, etc. Furthermore the RTS battle game can be upgraded greatly so its a game in of itself, not just a 15 minute riot. (Perhaps kill factors should be lessened, so that the game lasts anywhere from half hour to hour, who knows). Mark my words, if CA comes out with an online TW mega site, this game will succeed beyond anyones wildest dreams. If not, then we'll all be posting 5 months from now what their favorite idea is for TW3, and they'll play TW3 for 3 months, and then 5 months after that, people will start posting what their favorite idea is for TW4, and the ugly circle will continue with CA taking all our money. Longevity lies in one or two great games, not 20 different versions of STW with the same crappy multiplayer support and notoriously inept AI. Forget TW3, lets concentrate on making MTW great FIRST.

[RabidMonkey]

An interesting view on the game Richard but i wonder what the ratio of SP payers to MP payers actually is. I hate the way all pc games seem to be going the way of MP only and for a game like MTW the SP campaign is really important. Maybe in some far distant future if someone works out how to make the campaign game MP and allow the battles to be fought not just autoresolved then there will be no need for the SP campaign and its dopey AI. But i cant see that happening for awhile.

Actually SP gaming is still alive and well because Doom3 is focusing on the SP aspect of the game not doing a quake 3. that last bit is kind of unrelated to MTW i know! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Pragmatic]

Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
[/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to be rude or anything, Slayer, so don't take this wrong. But in trying to read your post, my eyes glazed over.

Remember, most of the people posting in this forum are 'murkins. We've got a short attention span. Commercials are getting shorter and shorter, because we flip the channel too easily. Our knowledge of politics comes from sound bytes (sp?).

If info isn't put into easy-to-digest packets, we skip over it. So try to seperate thoughts with paragraphs.

Again, it wasn't meant to be a flame. It's just too much information to digest at 10pm at night....

[Rosacrux]

Richard

You seem the "purist" type of player and that ain't necessarily bad, but you lack perspective and thus might find insightful the following few words by a dedicated SP player.

#1: What did Shogun really lacked? I have played Shogun and I loved it but after conquering for the 5-6th time Japan, you really couldn't convince me to start another campaign even if you pointed a gun at me. Mind you, I am an old bugger and not some short-attention-spanned-teenager. I tend to play few games but play them for months or years.

With STW I was really a fan from the first time I played it, but it bored me very fast (less than a month after I purchased it). You know why? Because, if you took away the fancy battle system, STW was nothing more than an advanced version of Risk. And the battles themselves got extremely boring and repetitive after a while. Yes, I guess your answer is "go online", but problem is I do not play games online. Most people who have purchased STW never went online. That's even more true when it comes to MTW: 90% of the people who own this game shall never play online.

For all those, STW was a great game but lacking in certain aspects as to extend their attention span for more than a few weeks/months. What is this thing? Simple: Strategy. The battles (and their tactical aspect) were great, but the strategical/empire building aspect was abstract at best.

Those are the peoples CA listened to: The people who thought that STW had great potential (because of the great battle engine) but that potential was wasted due to a very poor strategic map. And even in the tactical field, the very limited number of unit types was a serious obstacle in the way of this games success.

Of course the name of the game is Total War, so it’s primary objective is to wage war. But war is one thing and a series of battles is another, completely different. To successfully wage war, one has to build his army accordingly, which leads us (dominoes style) to the economics of the game. So, unless you want a “Total Battle” game, you’ll have to bear with some level of empire building, economics and administration = micromanagement.

#2: Micromanagement. The level of micromanagement in this game is really nothing that frightens anyone who has played a game of the civilization, master of orion, heroes of might and magic, Europa Universalis etc. game series. It might be too much for those who mainly practice RTS and FPS, but really it’s nothing compared to the aforementioned games. TBS does that, you know. Most TBS games are what you would call “micromanagement nightmares” but many people seem to like it that way (me included).

You might find it boring, but I find it challenging, intimidating and vital to carry on playing. If this was another simplistic approach like the STW one, I frankly wouldn’t bother buying the game and so would many other potential buyers.

I would love even more micromanagement to it, and more diversity and more complexity – but with added tools to help carry out those tasks. Certainly, even by this level of micromanagement CA should’ve implemented some lists one could sort out, and some data sheets to allow more concise control, but that isn’t bothering me to the point not to play this game.


#3. Yes, by adding more and more options, units etc. CA made this game kinda complicated, and also many elements are overlapping (like similar units with different names etc.). But you have the choice to play as a purist. If you really loved the Warrior monk rushes in STW, you certainly shall feel kinda confused by the hundreds of unit types in this game. But …that’s only you, frankly. Most people like diversity and complexity. And even though most people (especially the younger ones) just want “all the cool stuff”, others believe in having more options available.

Sorry for the longish post. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by Rosacrux (edited 11-04-2002).]

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by Rosacrux:
Richard

You seem the "purist" type of player and that ain't necessarily bad, but you lack perspective and thus might find insightful the following few words by a dedicated SP player.

#1: What did Shogun really lacked? I have played Shogun and I loved it but after conquering for the 5-6th time Japan, you really couldn't convince me to start another campaign even if you pointed a gun at me. Mind you, I am an old bugger and not some short-attention-spanned-teenager. I tend to play few games but play them for months or years.

With STW I was really a fan from the first time I played it, but it bored me very fast (less than a month after I purchased it). You know why? Because, if you took away the fancy battle system, STW was nothing more than an advanced version of Risk. And the battles themselves got extremely boring and repetitive after a while. Yes, I guess your answer is "go online", but problem is I do not play games online. Most people who have purchased STW never went online. That's even more true when it comes to MTW: 90% of the people who own this game shall never play online.

For all those, STW was a great game but lacking in certain aspects as to extend their attention span for more than a few weeks/months. What is this thing? Simple: Strategy. The battles (and their tactical aspect) were great, but the strategical/empire building aspect was abstract at best.

Those are the peoples CA listened to: The people who thought that STW had great potential (because of the great battle engine) but that potential was wasted due to a very poor strategic map. And even in the tactical field, the very limited number of unit types was a serious obstacle in the way of this games success.

Of course the name of the game is Total War, so it’s primary objective is to wage war. But war is one thing and a series of battles is another, completely different. To successfully wage war, one has to build his army accordingly, which leads us (dominoes style) to the economics of the game. So, unless you want a “Total Battle” game, you’ll have to bear with some level of empire building, economics and administration = micromanagement.

#2: Micromanagement. The level of micromanagement in this game is really nothing that frightens anyone who has played a game of the civilization, master of orion, heroes of might and magic, Europa Universalis etc. game series. It might be too much for those who mainly practice RTS and FPS, but really it’s nothing compared to the aforementioned games. TBS does that, you know. Most TBS games are what you would call “micromanagement nightmares” but many people seem to like it that way (me included).

You might find it boring, but I find it challenging, intimidating and vital to carry on playing. If this was another simplistic approach like the STW one, I frankly wouldn’t bother buying the game and so would many other potential buyers.

I would love even more micromanagement to it, and more diversity and more complexity – but with added tools to help carry out those tasks. Certainly, even by this level of micromanagement CA should’ve implemented some lists one could sort out, and some data sheets to allow more concise control, but that isn’t bothering me to the point not to play this game.


#3. Yes, by adding more and more options, units etc. CA made this game kinda complicated, and also many elements are overlapping (like similar units with different names etc.). But you have the choice to play as a purist. If you really loved the Warrior monk rushes in STW, you certainly shall feel kinda confused by the hundreds of unit types in this game. But …that’s only you, frankly. Most people like diversity and complexity. And even though most people (especially the younger ones) just want “all the cool stuff”, others believe in having more options available.

Sorry for the longish post. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by Rosacrux (edited 11-04-2002).][/QUOTE]

Dont get me wrong, I love complex and immersive games. My whole point is that micro management in MTW doesnt help you win. For example, why bother with marrying princesses or assaulting a castle? All of this stuff doesnt add to the game but DETRACTS from it. For example, why do you bother looking for a spouse for your king wehn he'll just marry an aristocrats daughter. Why assault a castle if you lose 100 men or more when you could lay siege to it and take it in a few turns anyway? You see I dont mind details, its just what I do mind are details that are useless and details that are put into the game soley for he purpose of the game having details. I've played MTW on expert and find myself counting turns away until the games over so I can win and get it over with. Likewsie, with Civilization3, I beat the game on geisha with space race, and I was bored out of my mind. So you see its not always details that matter. Anyone can make a game with a million details. Does this means the game is good if no thought has been put into those details. Next time you play MTW, ask yourself why your spending 400 years of history marrying of those princesses when they accomplish almost zero on the purpose scale.

[Ktonos]

Well this micromanagment adds makes the game be plural. Role playing elements in generals add to the medieval atmosphere and sometimes it makes more difficult to win, sometimes it makes it easy. Richard maybe you are right about the princeses, but I believe that a ruler who is married to a daughter of a foreign power will have better heirs. IMO the best element of MTW over STW is the fact that it is based on the civilizations of a whole continent rather than a lone country, like Japan. Dealing with the Turks in the battlefield is very very differend than fighting the Italians. And that is not only a "mood-difference". If we had only England (why England, really?) and minimum micromanagment then we would have to play a STW with better graphics, medieval music. Instead the creators made a game which when I play it I think that STW was its demo (its beta in fact)...