CA I beseech you! (With poll)

[Vuk]

I have not played ETW, or a demo, so I obviously do not know much about the game yet, but, the impression that I have gotten looking at the reviews, interviews, screenshots/videos, etc was that the game may be being rushed a bit, and certain aspects of it not as developed as they should be. In particular, I mean naval combat and the SP campaign map. Naval combat is the flagship of ETW, and is something that fans have wanted for a very long time, so I am sure that know how important it is that it is as well developed as land battles and up to Total War standards. (I have not seen the naval combat, so I am not sure if it is up to par with land battles or not, but reviews have made me suspect that it is not) Also, MP campaign is something that everyone has wanted for a long time, and could be one of the largest and most popular features of the new game. This is something that SHOULD be included with the game, not added on later. It is also something that needs to be up to par with the SP campaign.
I am not writing this to bash you CA, but to tell you that if you need more time you should just postpone the release a month or two if possible. Everyone WILL still buy the game, AND they will probably like it a lot more. I know that your distributers have deadlines on you, but I do not think that it would be an unwise business move to delay it a bit IF you need to to make sure that those parts of the game are up to Total War standards. I have been a fan of Total War from the start, and am sure that you will deliver an excellent game again, but please, if you need the time and if it is possible, just take the time to get it out right the first time.

Vuk

[Polemists]

is that it is as well developed as land battles

The land battles have been through FIVE total war games, and countless expansion packs going back YEARS. To expect the Naval Combat to be as good as Land with only one internetation and a handful of naval simulators to feed off of is silly.

If it's playable, and a little fun i'm fine with it. No need for a delay that I see.

[Sir Beane]

I'm going to have to vote No, because if CA delay the game again then I will die a little inside.

Since I want my soul to stay intact they need to release it without delay. :laugh4:

If there are things that need changing and fixing I think we can probably leave it in the capable hands of the modders. :2thumbsup:

[Wausser]

Voted No, I just can't take anymore delay....

[Vuk]

I'm going to have to vote No, because if CA delay the game again then I will die a little inside.

Since I want my soul to stay intact they need to release it without delay. :laugh4:

If there are things that need changing and fixing I think we can probably leave it in the capable hands of the modders. :2thumbsup:
Modders cannot change hard coding. 2 months later you would enjoy the game even more, and a month from that you would have a higher opinion of CA, and not even care that the game was delayed a month or two.


The land battles have been through FIVE total war games, and countless expansion packs going back YEARS. To expect the Naval Combat to be as good as Land with only one internetation and a handful of naval simulators to feed off of is silly.

If it's playable, and a little fun i'm fine with it. No need for a delay that I see.

It cannot be as polished, definately, but it has to be solid. The first time CA did land battles they were solid, and they got better since then. A lot of things that they learned with land battles can be applied to naval battles as well, so there is no reason NOT to have a well developed naval combat system. (I know it does not have to be perfect, or as polished as land battles) I am not saying that it needs to be perfect the first time, just up to total war standards. And esp since naval combat is one of their biggest selling points, it would not be wise to go half butt.

[Sir Beane]

You are right about hard coded limits, but CA did promise that there are much fewer of those limits this time around. :2thumbsup:

I think my confidence in CA would be damaged more by them delaying the game again than the game having a few faults out of the box. Then can fix things in patches and expansions, but they can't give me a month or two of waiting time back.

It's all a matter of opinion though really, and if they really, really need to delay it to get something important working then I suppose I could live with it.

[Polemists]

Modders cannot change hard coding. 2 months later you would enjoy the game even more, and a month from that you would have a higher opinion of CA, and not even care that the game was delayed a month or two.


Actually you'd be surprised what our modders can do and actually no, since every other game just got delayed to Apri-June period I'd be playing something else by then. Mar only has Empire, so that'd be all I play.





It cannot be as polished, definately, but it has to be solid. The first time CA did land battles they were solid, and they got better since then. A lot of things that they learned with land battles can be applied to naval battles as well, so there is no reason NOT to have a well developed naval combat system. (I know it does not have to be perfect, or as polished as land battles) I am not saying that it needs to be perfect the first time, just up to total war standards. And esp since naval combat is one of their biggest selling points, it would not be wise to go half butt.

Firstly they are not the same lessons, since most people are whining about wind, movement, and tacking.

DId you play shogun? I did, and I remeber the reviews that described it as good but not perfect, and let's pull a quote here,


But the tactical game isn't perfect. There are a few formation problems. While it's pretty easy to arrange individual units, it's nearly impossible to move a whole army and maintain their facings and positions.

That's from IGN. Like I said, you guys completely forget how total war started with land battles. It was fun, not perfect.

That's all they are saying about naval, I did not see a single quote in that entire article that called it "broken", or "Unplayable" . The only comment I saw was "Chaotic" which is the exact same word they used to describe shogun land battles.

You expect to much, it's a fun game, I want it out and to play it. There is nothing else in march. CA can do patches and expansions later to address fan concerns.

[Vuk]

I do not want to wait anymore than you, but at the end of the day, I think that CA would be more appreciated if they took the time needed to get it right. Again though, I do not know if it is not at an acceptable standard now, I am just saying that if they really do need the time to get it to that standard, I wish that they would take it. I really do not like the idea of the campaign MP being added on later for instance. I would be willing to bet that there would be less limitations in it if they did it all together. Now if they get 3/4 through it and see that they need to change some hard coding, it will be too late.

You are right about hard coded limits, but CA did promise that there are much fewer of those limits this time around. :2thumbsup:

I think my confidence in CA would be damaged more by them delaying the game again than the game having a few faults out of the box. Then can fix things in patches and expansions, but they can't give me a month or two of waiting time back.

It's all a matter of opinion though really, and if they really, really need to delay it to get something important working then I suppose I could live with it.

[Vuk]

Actually you'd be surprised what our modders can do and actually no, since every other game just got delayed to Apri-June period I'd be playing something else by then. Mar only has Empire, so that'd be all I play.


Firstly they are not the same lessons, since most people are whining about wind, movement, and tacking.

DId you play shogun? I did, and I remeber the reviews that described it as good but not perfect, and let's pull a quote here,



That's from IGN. Like I said, you guys completely forget how total war started with land battles. It was fun, not perfect.

That's all they are saying about naval, I did not see a single quote in that entire article that called it "broken", or "Unplayable" . The only comment I saw was "Chaotic" which is the exact same word they used to describe shogun land battles.

You expect to much, it's a fun game, I want it out and to play it. There is nothing else in march. CA can do patches and expansions later to address fan concerns.

Polemists, you know as well as I that there is only so much that modders can do. Also, you know that you buy ETW if it was delayed, and you know that you would play it.
Also, it is like I said about shogun, the gameplay was not perfect, but it was SOLID. That is what I want from Empire, and I think that is what fans are expecting. Also, technology has improved, and CA has learned a lot since Shogun, so I think that most people would expect naval battles to be quite a bit more polished than Shogun's land battles. While wind and tacking does not apply, CA has made so many changes in morale, formations, AI, etc that a lot of will surely be applicable in naval battles, so it is not like they are starting as completely new as with Shogun.
I think you missed my entire point.

[Polemists]

Let's take these topics one at a time, shall we :yes:



Polemists, you know as well as I that there is only so much that modders can do. Also, you know that you buy ETW if it was delayed, and you know that you would play it.

That's a question of when. If it comes out in march, I buy it on day one, I have the money, they get my money. We are all happy.

If it comes out after april there are other games, and as much as I'd like to I can't buy everything , every month, I'd probably delay buying it a month or two if I felt another game was out I'd enjoy.


morale, formations, AI, etc that a lot of will surely be applicable in naval battles,


I don't think people would want to see ships sail in formation or you'd run into similiar facing issues as water is not a hard surface as land is in the bland battles. The AI has more smaller units, so it is less they have to get to move, restructure.

I havn't heard a single AI comment. I've only heard it felt "arcadey". I don't mind that, that's how Sid Miers felt, heck I even enjoyed it. I don't want overly tactical to point I have to micromanage the wind flaps. Neither do most new players. New players beat vets, fact of marketing, more 12 yr old gamers then mature ones, if you don't buy that just talk to world of warcraft.



are starting as completely new

They are starting completely new, it's a brand new engine, brand new coding, lots of new.


End of the day I don't see a single justification to delay. Those of you who want a delay can just wait till a expansion.

If the game is addictive and getting high 90% reviews I think it will do just fine. There always are nay sayers, Ca can't make everyone 100% happy. They can however make some money and make the rest of us happy :yes:

[Fisherking]

I understand that we want a good playable game on release. And I understand the desire to have it as good as it can get when it comes out.

The down side of another delay is that it gives the appearance of incompetence. I don’t think that is a good image for a company to have.

Evidently CA felt that they could have the product ready with the additional month. Development is continuing with the multiplayer portion. It doesn’t mean it is limited to that, however.

I am sure they have weighed these options before making the decision to delay the first time.

Many games have delayed several times and still been crap on release. Time is not the only factor, unfortunately.

Naval Battles are new and the complexities of controlling many ships presents a hefty learning curve. 20 ships per side is huge for a naval simulator. If it plays well single ship or with a few then it should in theory play as well with the full number. The added difficulties are not going to be overcome at a development level, they have to be learned by the individual players.

People averse to the need to develop skills at a game are never going to love large naval battles and likely describe the land battles as needing micro management as well.

Some love this type of game while others stick to first person shooters…You don’t know which kind of person is writing the reviews but most have given us a reason to look forward to a great game and not to worry about an over complex half finished product.

[Vuk]

I don't think people would want to see ships sail in formation or you'd run into similiar facing issues as water is not a hard surface as land is in the bland battles. The AI has more smaller units, so it is less they have to get to move, restructure.

I havn't heard a single AI comment. I've only heard it felt "arcadey". I don't mind that, that's how Sid Miers felt, heck I even enjoyed it. I don't want overly tactical to point I have to micromanage the wind flaps. Neither do most new players. New players beat vets, fact of marketing, more 12 yr old gamers then mature ones, if you don't buy that just talk to world of warcraft.


They are starting completely new, it's a brand new engine, brand new coding, lots of new.

I know that, but I mean things like pathfinding for the crew on ships, morale, etc. They are things that their experience in the other games will help them develop, which is what I meant. I know they are starting with a new engine, but they have years of experience and knowledge, which is exaclty what I meant.

End of the day I don't see a single justification to delay. Those of you who want a delay can just wait till a expansion.

If the game is addictive and getting high 90% reviews I think it will do just fine. There always are nay sayers, Ca can't make everyone 100% happy. They can however make some money and make the rest of us happy :yes:
GIVE ME THE CANDY! NOW!
I see no justification for putting part of the game out on March and releasing the rest a little while later when it could be released all together as a complete game. You know that you will be happy (indeed, probably happier) if a complete game is shipped a later on. I do not know how good naval battles are, but I do not like the idea of campaign MP being release seperately. I have no doubt that the game will be great, but it should be released in (and hopefully will be) a solid, fun package.
People always whine about getting it out as soon as possible, then whine about CA not taking the little time it would have taken to fix this or that thing that is now causing problems or making the gameplay less enjoyable.

[Vuk]

I understand that we want a good playable game on release. And I understand the desire to have it as good as it can get when it comes out.

The down side of another delay is that it gives the appearance of incompetence. I don’t think that is a good image for a company to have.

Evidently CA felt that they could have the product ready with the additional month. Development is continuing with the multiplayer portion. It doesn’t mean it is limited to that, however.

I am sure they have weighed these options before making the decision to delay the first time.

Many games have delayed several times and still been crap on release. Time is not the only factor, unfortunately.

Naval Battles are new and the complexities of controlling many ships presents a hefty learning curve. 20 ships per side is huge for a naval simulator. If it plays well single ship or with a few then it should in theory play as well with the full number. The added difficulties are not going to be overcome at a development level, they have to be learned by the individual players.

People averse to the need to develop skills at a game are never going to love large naval battles and likely describe the land battles as needing micro management as well.

Some love this type of game while others stick to first person shooters…You don’t know which kind of person is writing the reviews but most have given us a reason to look forward to a great game and not to worry about an over complex half finished product.


Definately, and I agree that CA will probably release an excellent game, but if naval battles are not what they should be an a TW game and campaign MP is not ready, I think that they deserve and owe it to the fans to take the time to fix that. I do not think that it would make them look incompetent. In fact, the only time I have ever heard CA be called incompetent was in reference to rushing releases like M2:TW (a game that I particularly love).
A good game takes a complex thing and makes it simple; that is what is so good about the Total War games. Land battles were so complex, but they represent them with a simple gameplay formula, while not losing a lot of accuracy and realism at the same time. If they can do that with naval battles, they will have a winner. I guess we will just have to see.

[Zoring]

Far too late to delay the game now anyhow. Surely all the manufacturing, packaging and shipping is all taking place by now.

[Polemists]

I like candy


That said


You know that you will be happy (indeed, probably happier)

No I won't, i'm going to be pretty poed for those months I have to wait with no total war and just screenshots.

So I'd rather have my game now, which will make me about as happy as I can get :2thumbsup:

I'm perfectly fine with mp being released as a seperate feature. Espically since

That is what they already promised a MONTH AGO. Back when no one complained about it in the press release.

As for Naval Combat, it is what it is.

[Vuk]

A month ago I was living in a dirty apartment in Munich with no internet. :P
I am hoping that everything is good too, all I asked CA was if it DID need more work, that they would do it, and I hope that if it does they will.

I like candy


That said



No I won't, i'm going to be pretty poed for those months I have to wait with no total war and just screenshots.

So I'd rather have my game now, which will make me about as happy as I can get :2thumbsup:

I'm perfectly fine with mp being released as a seperate feature. Espically since

That is what they already promised a MONTH AGO. Back when no one complained about it in the press release.

As for Naval Combat, it is what it is.

[Polemists]

A month ago I was living in a dirty apartment in Munich with no internet.

See, Empire total war changed your life :laugh4:




I don't think it needs a delay though I assume it will always be a 50/50 bet on these forums as to whether people think yes or no. You've got your demo fanatics on par with your patch fanatics who will wait eons for a game.

I'm pretty tired of waiting myself, but to each thier own.

[Vuk]

I'm an easy going guy. ~;)


See, Empire total war changed your life :laugh4:




I don't think it needs a delay though I assume it will always be a 50/50 bet on these forums as to whether people think yes or no. You've got your demo fanatics on par with your patch fanatics who will wait eons for a game.

I'm pretty tired of waiting myself, but to each thier own.

[Polemists]

Well now that i've heard the CA comment


We've already responded to criticism about the naval battles since the reviewer wrote the article and have improved the fun factor at sea quite a bit.

Although the game is almost finished, we're still tweaking and improving until release (and will continue to do so after release, of course)!

I REALLY see no reason for a delay :laugh4:

[Fisherking]

Well now that i've heard the CA comment

Quote:
We've already responded to criticism about the naval battles since the reviewer wrote the article and have improved the fun factor at sea quite a bit.

Although the game is almost finished, we're still tweaking and improving until release (and will continue to do so after release, of course)!




I REALLY see no reason for a delay :laugh4:


Where did you find that?

[Vuk]

lol, it does help reassure me about naval battles that they are devoting more attention to it, but I still do not like the idea of campaign MP not being included in the full release.

[Sir Beane]

That is great to know! The first real sign something might have been badly wrong with the game and already we have reassurance. :2thumbsup:

I think it's also interesting that so far we have a 7/7 split in opinion.

[Polemists]

For those curious

I found it here

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=223984&page=5

Thamis, post # 87.

You can see his info beneath his name

Jan van der Crabben
Game Designer on Empire: Total War
Creative Assembly UK

They use a little CA emblem to say which one devs post in.

Fyi, there is more then one empire forum, for those of you who did not know :laugh4:

[Vuk]

That is great to know! The first real sign something might have been badly wrong with the game and already we have reassurance. :2thumbsup:

I think it's also interesting that so far we have a 7/7 split in opinion.

lol, I did not say that I changed my mind though. ;) I still do not like the idea that they are having to make these major last minute tweaks, and of course the campaign MP.
I think the split gets down to what people want. The main reasons that I would buy E:TW is as follows:
1 CA impressed me with good gameplay before and I trust them
2 I like the time period
3 Naval combat
4 MP campaign map

When two of those are missing or not up to TW standards, I see no reason to buy the game until they are either fixed or added.

[Fisherking]

I am going now to read it…but first let me say that I hope they didn’t change it based on how much fun a reviewer had with it.

:soapbox:
CA has always been too willing to take out or change a feature because some loudmouth didn’t like some perfectly legitimate aspect of one of the games.

Never mind what everyone who enjoyed it thought…and therefore were not screaming their silly heads off!

Hearing Fun Factor scares me much more than some jerks review…:yes:

[Polemists]

MP campaign map

Except this never was a feature of the game and has never been stated it will be part of release so I see no point. It's like saying you want downloadable content for a game that's not out yet, they say it's coming but it's never been part of the game until very recently.

and you just lose as it's 7 to 6 now No to yes just to spite you lol.

I take it all with a grain of salt, this is tw veterans posting for the most part, so they are the usual group of, let's wait 25 years until it's perfect.

I'm not willing tho, so I say release now.

That's just me tho :yes:

[Vuk]

Except this never was a feature of the game and has never been stated it will be part of release so I see no point. It's like saying you want downloadable content for a game that's not out yet, they say it's coming but it's never been part of the game until very recently.

and you just lose as it's 7 to 6 now No to yes just to spite you lol.

I take it all with a grain of salt, this is tw veterans posting for the most part, so they are the usual group of, let's wait 25 years until it's perfect.

I'm not willing tho, so I say release now.

That's just me tho :yes:

It is something though, that I have been wanting since I first played a total war game many years ago, and something that got me syched as soon as I heard about it. As I said, missing any TWO of these things...


I take it all with a grain of salt, this is tw veterans posting for the most part, so they are the usual group of, let's wait 25 years until it's perfect.
As I said, I do not expect a perfect game, do not like to wait, and do not want them to wait. If they do NEED to though, to deliver a solid experience, I think that they should. You are not understanding me one bit.

[Polemists]

Yes but you bought MTW 2 even though they had mentioned at one point in time they considered a MP feature, you didn't consider it a CORE part of that game.

I just don't think it's a core part, a side feature at best. I know alot of people have wanted it for a long time, but whether Empire comes out in March or June, I doubt you'd get it, between beta testing, this crowd, and tweaking, winter at best.

[Vuk]

Yes but you bought MTW 2 even though they had mentioned at one point in time they considered a MP feature, you didn't consider it a CORE part of that game.

I just don't think it's a core part, a side feature at best. I know alot of people have wanted it for a long time, but whether Empire comes out in March or June, I doubt you'd get it, between beta testing, this crowd, and tweaking, winter at best.

I am a Medieval historian, and I love medieval combat. THAT is why I bought M2: TW. Because of the setting and time, and only because of the setting and time. I bought kingdoms ONLY because of hotseat (though I ended up loving the damage rebalance).
I am not a big enough fan of the time period to buy Empire for that reason. I am buying Empire for Naval combat, and MP campaign.

[Polemists]

Well maybe, but I just don't think CA is going to add the MP campaign into the main game. They've stated multiple times it's a add on feature and still requires beta testing.

They've announced release date twice, (three times if some of us remeber) and despite all the back lash they still have it as a add on feature.

I think you'll get 3 of those 4, just not the fourth one.

[General SupaCrunk]

No, because i can't wait!

[Discoman]

At this point it seems unrealistic to be asking for this... but if they needed it I'd give them the two extra months. If there is one thing a customer wants its quality and if they're offering it then, and only them, am I going to take it.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

If it's really needed, then sure. However, if something like naval combat is not buggy but simply finished as CA sees it, then release it. At worst, I'll just auto-resolve naval battles (or avoid purchasing the game if it's really inconvenient).

[pyradyn]

I do want a fully structured game, but do remember the best beta test to find bugs, glitches is none other than full release. With millions playing bugs will be found that they never did in beta. As for full multiplayer in the game on release since we are getting a small 1 v 1 beta. Understand as I am a programmer as are a lot of the moders on this forums. That would not be a month or two delay we are talking about 6 month delay to a year to rebuild everything for MP. It is a lot of just changing code here and there but when you get to go through hundreds if not thousands of pages of code to change the smallest thing it is not a quick processes I will vote no CA cannot afford to break date again. To release when no other games come out is a smart move, then people who have never heard of TW and are just looking for a game might buy TW. The more people that CA can get that has never heard means they will tell friends. After all we all know CA final goal is world domination!


Again just my two cents....I am going to be broke here soon

[Durango]

It is a lot of just changing code here and there but when you get to go through hundreds if not thousands of pages of code to change the smallest thing it is not a quick processes I will vote no CA cannot afford to break date again.

%¤#*@!

Well, I voted for additional time anyway, rather than have the game riddled with bugs that take a year just to sort out.

[Marius Dynamite]

I don't think a 1 or 2 month delay would do any good. Much of that time would have to be spent re-testing the entire game because of only slight changes, and if they end up making some bugs because of these changes we could be seeing some very long delays.

The problems with the Naval battles won't be sorted in a month or so either. It's a new thing and will not be perfect and will possibly be very boring, but it is a start and at least from now on it will be (or should be) a key part of total war games as much as land battles.

As for the multiplayer campaign, bringing it out as an update is perfectly reasonable. It will let them see better how the SP campaign is working out for people and let them design around that. Also, for those who are not interested in a MP campaign, they don't have to wait. It's not a core element of the game after all.

[Sir Beane]

One advantage to releasing the MP campaign later than the SP is that it allows CA to see which units and factions are overused or overpowered. Then they can make adjustements to the MP campaign accordingly to balance things up.

Think of the SP as one great big public beta for the MP campaign. :2thumbsup:

[Zenicetus]

I voted "no." Obviously they should take whatever time is needed to release a game that's reasonably free of first-order bugs, and fun to play. That's a given. But if the idea is that they'd use the time to make naval combat more realistic and fun (for those of us who do know how to sail), then that ship has already sailed... the horse is out of the barn... pick your metaphor.

The devs have decided that a majority of players won't want to deal with tacking against the wind, with an enforced "no go" zone as there is in real life. So they're allowing square riggers to sail directly upwind with a speed penalty. They're not going to change that design decision, at this point. And it doesn't sound to me like something that can be modded (since the AI has to deal with it also).

So the only thing that remains, is to see whether the speed penalty for sailing upwind means that both the player and the AI actually sail and tack in a reasonable way in relation to the wind direction... or whether we end up with battles that are nothing more than circular tail chases. We might as well be driving powerboats if that's what battles will be like. I'm trying to keep an open mind, and I want to see a naval combat demo.

[knoddy]

i like how 1 90% PLUS review gives birth to these sorts of threads. Give the guys at CA a break. ps they will not delay it now, its too late. there would be murder on the streets if they did :P

also MP was never in the original plan, they delayed it a month just to include it so ye

[Sir Beane]

i like how 1 90% PLUS review gives birth to these sorts of threads. Give the guys at CA a break. ps they will not delay it now, its too late. there would be murder on the streets if they did :P

also MP was never in the original plan, they delayed it a month just to include it so ye

Sadly 90% plus doesn't mean a great deal these days. I fully expect that Empire, like Medieval 2, will get nothing but high scoring reviews regardless of bugs, flaws and other problems.

It was the comment about naval combat being sub-par that had people worried. CA seem to be trying to address that issue however, so I'm remaining reasonably confident ETW will be a great game. :2thumbsup:

[neoiq5719]

Empire: Total War Finally Deploying on March 3

All grand strategy players in the world became a bit worried when, in December, Creative Assembly announced that it would delay the release of Empire: Total War to March, the game being expected to arrive in February. Games in the Total War series have a nasty history of shipping with bugs (although they are usually quickly fixed via patches) and a delay does not bode well for one of the few PC exclusives of 2009.

SEGA, as the publisher, and Creative Assembly, the developer, have released an official date of March 3 in North America and March 4 in the rest of the world for the game and promise that there will be no more delays. The publisher says that all copies of the game, whether they are bought in retail stores or downloaded, need to be activated through Steam. It also reveals that those players who buy the game through Steam will be able to pre-install it 48 hours before the release date, so they can then quickly activate it and get to play Empire: Total War.

The bad news for players is that the multiplayer mode for the campaign, which has been long requested by fans of the series, will not make it into the initial release. Still, Creative Assembly says that the mode is coming, but in a post launch patch. A beta is expected shortly after the release of the game and the developer believes that it will take note of the comments made by players.

The biggest innovation of Empire: Total War will be the introduction of naval warfare, which will be fully simulated. The game also moves into the XVIII and XIX centuries, allowing for more diplomatic options, a far expanded game map and a bigger importance for trade. Of course, as the name implies, the game continues to focus on warfare, with a new physics model and a better tactical AI.

Found in softpedia news( so issue closed or not?)

[USS Providence 1972]

I have not played ETW, or a demo, so I obviously do not know much about the game yet, but, the impression that I have gotten looking at the reviews, interviews, screenshots/videos, etc was that the game may be being rushed a bit, and certain aspects of it not as developed as they should be. In particular, I mean naval combat and the SP campaign map. Naval combat is the flagship of ETW, and is something that fans have wanted for a very long time, so I am sure that know how important it is that it is as well developed as land battles and up to Total War standards. (I have not seen the naval combat, so I am not sure if it is up to par with land battles or not, but reviews have made me suspect that it is not) Also, MP campaign is something that everyone has wanted for a long time, and could be one of the largest and most popular features of the new game. This is something that SHOULD be included with the game, not added on later. It is also something that needs to be up to par with the SP campaign.
I am not writing this to bash you CA, but to tell you that if you need more time you should just postpone the release a month or two if possible. Everyone WILL still buy the game, AND they will probably like it a lot more. I know that your distributers have deadlines on you, but I do not think that it would be an unwise business move to delay it a bit IF you need to to make sure that those parts of the game are up to Total War standards. I have been a fan of Total War from the start, and am sure that you will deliver an excellent game again, but please, if you need the time and if it is possible, just take the time to get it out right the first time.

Vuk

Here is a video of a naval battle. It looks good to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxiRP1A0uKU

I saw a reference to trying to make the naval aspect more fun. If that means deeper or more realistic I'm all for it but I hope the resist the temptation to add arcade stuff simply to make the game "fun". If they make it realistic with good AI it will be plenty fun.

[Belgolas]

I don't know if any of you guys remember Star Craft but it was released good but has had basically a thousand patches(well seems like it) after release. They have changed so much since the beginng. Then there are other games like Supreme Commander where they added extra content and units and fun stuff. Then there is Half-Life 2 and it is a first person shooter for those people not privilaged enough to play it and there are mods that turn it into a RTS. Infact there are several mods that do that with upgrading units and mounting guns and stuff that the original HL2 didn't have. So what I am getting at is that it can be fixed. Even after release I see no reason why CA can't release a patch that can change hard code. Why couldn't they since it is just some files that can be replaced. So no worries.

Please no more delays.

Although even when the game is released and got a perfect 100/100 there would still be people that would wait six months for a few patches anyways. I and the majority of the public do not want that. Besides we haven't even played a demo (which should get released this week if it goes to tradition). So who knows if it is good or not.

[Zenicetus]

Here is a video of a naval battle. It looks good to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxiRP1A0uKU

That video clip begins with two square-rigged fleets approaching each other head-on. Think about that for a minute. Where's the wind? If it's abeam (coming from the side) then this might be possible, but then why aren't the sails showing that? Each fleet's sails are showing that they're being blown and filled out from astern, but that can't be possible. Okay, maybe the sails don't show wind direction... I can live with that. But it gets worse...

At the 2:00 mark, a ship is shown being selected and making a fairly quick turn to starboard. It's doing that with every sail reefed (not deployed) except for very small sails at the bow and stern. Why is that ship fighting with its sails furled, when other ships in view are showing full sail? This might be due to damage, if we're coming in at the middle of a battle. That would be fine, but you still can't maneuver a sailing ship like this, when it isn't using sails as the "engine." These aren't rowboats.

At 2:49, that same ship is shown deploying full sails, in less than one second. It shouldn't work like that. It looks like the game is allowing very rapid furling of sails to minimize damage, and then deploying full sail again, all with no real effect on the ship's movement or turning rate.

At 2:56 you can see exactly the kind of circular tail chase, with no regard to wind direction, that I've been worried about. They're driving around like powerboats.

I couldn't watch more than five minutes of it. The battle looked completely haphazard, with ships sailing in any direction, not being forced to maneuver with (or against) the wind. That's the whole point of combat under sail, the reason it's tactically interesting... unless you just want to watch pretty pictures of cannon fire and ships sinking.

[Polemists]

The battle looked completely haphazard, with ships sailing in any direction, not being forced to maneuver with (or against) the wind. That's the whole point of combat under sail, the reason it's tactically interesting...

Your against the main stream here I'm afraid. CA has stated once they did play testing back when ships could not sail into the wind and most players found it boring and dull. So they improved it to make it more "fun". Now most tw veteran historians get mad at "fun" because that usually means lack of "history".

Fact is your average gamer prefers a Sid Meyers Pirate like game more then a intense tactical naval simulation. At least that seems to be the design decision of CA.

Of course no one has seen final product, so we will just have to wait and see.

I still say no. The only argument now I hear is, well if they need time, give them time.

Yet the arguments here was basically, should we give them time to fix naval and mp.

Naval seems a design decision and MP will take a looong time. So I don't see much of the argument anymore, the release date is about as gold as it can get.

[knoddy]

i think this thread just proves that u cant please everyone.


I couldn't watch more than five minutes of it. The battle looked completely haphazard, with ships sailing in any direction, not being forced to maneuver with (or against) the wind. That's the whole point of combat under sail, the reason it's tactically interesting... unless you just want to watch pretty pictures of cannon fire and ships sinking.

hate to say it but u will be in a minority here. this will be the reason why CA chose a more arcady style of battle, because they know the majority of people like big epic battles.

i have to say i didnt mind Pirates, but then i wasnt after a naval battle simulator. and also despite the crazy turning u could do in pirates the wind still did have an effect. this is how i suspect it will be in Empire, the wind will have a role, it will just be toned down to make the game more playable and exciting. which im ok with.


and finally aside from the 1 review that said naval combat was a bit worrying or w/e it was. all the other reviews have been full of praise for the naval combat so how bout we wait for demo/release b4 we start criticizing everything we see.


also the camp map looks so damn sexy cant wait :D

Cheers knoddy

[Ituralde]

Concerning the question at hand here, whether I think that CA should delay the game if needed is really easy to answer, I think. The answer is of course yes! If the game crashes every other instant then it should not be shipped. Why didn't I vote it then? Because I don't think it would answer the question asked by Vuk. So much depends on the definition of the if needed part.

From what I've read you seem more interested in getting one of the following answered.
1) Do you think ETW is ready to release in its current state?
2) Would you still buy ETW if it came out one to two months later?

Especially 1) seems to be the issue of much discussion and speculation in this post. My personal oppinion on this is, that I believe ETW to be polised enough to make the March release date. But I would stlly buy ETW if it came out two month later. Of course I would be initially disappointed about it, but as a gamer you learn to live with delays.

So I hope that answers your question without changing the numbers of the poll too much, as I don' think the numbers hold much value to the question at hand.

Cheers!

Ituralde


Besides, where is the Gah! option? :beam:

[Fisherking]

Thanks for the video USS Providence 1972.

I have to say I will have to have the game or at least a demo in hand before I can pass judgment on the naval battles.

The instant setting and furling of sails is arcade-like. But I fear that 12 year olds are not going to want to wait for their top men and deck crews to rig sail. I can’t say I actually really expected a sailing sim. That would be a bit much for the parent company to stomach unless it was the total focus of the game, I fear, and even then they would want the “fun factor” to be higher.

The wind moved around about 45° from start to finish, and I don’t know what the strength was.

It was very hard to tell what shot they were firing. Chain may have been fired but it was obvious that round was much over used. Not less than three and perhaps five or even six ships sunk.

Capture didn’t seem to be a priority. If a prize crew was put aboard the one ship, I sure couldn’t see a result.

It was a decisive battle and it sure didn’t take much time. To me it was reckless by both the player and the AI…but it was quick!


The quote from the article above shows they are not going to delay so that discussion is mute.

Besides the quicker we get it the less tweaking to make it “fun” they can do.

Though with Steam and continuing support it won’t be possible to stop it…

[Polemists]

One thing to bear in mind also is that isn't just CA's call, those days are gone. It's true CA once had complete call on everything but now they answer to Sega as well as fans.

There is already a sega release coming out in summer and one in spring, so it's probably in Sega's interest that this comes out Q1 rather then Q2.

I think the article proves that in it's current state it's fun, and the comment proves the date is pretty solid.

At this point I think you are best if you just try to have fun and not focus on the minor nuiances in great detail.

[Zenicetus]

Your against the main stream here I'm afraid. CA has stated once they did play testing back when ships could not sail into the wind and most players found it boring and dull.

That's not how I remember it. What I remember is a CA rep posting a message here saying that they tried realistic tacking, and playtesters (internally, I assume) got confused when they told a ship to "go over there," and the ship turned 45 degrees to the opposite direction because you can't sail directly upwind. Or anywhere near that direction, with a square-rigger.

This is understandable, but it's a question of education. Players learn other things about warfare in this period. We had to learn about phalanxes in Rome. We had to learn about pikes and horse archers. Why shouldn't the naval combat be as tactically interesting as the land combat? Why should it be dumbed down like this? It's not rocket science. You can learn the points of sail, and why ships can't sail directly upwind without engines, with a few minute's study of the Wiki on sailing. The basics of sailing are much less complicated than learning all the minutae of land combat. Without it, the naval combat is an arcade game.


So they improved it to make it more "fun". Now most tw veteran historians get mad at "fun" because that usually means lack of "history".

Do you know why many people still own, and even race sailboats, even though it's a totally outmoded form of transportation on the water? It's because sailing is fun! It's a challenge to move a boat with just wind power. Sailboat racing is fun too, and it involves exactly the same tactics as combat at sea.

Steering ships around as if they had engines and screw props can be fun too, but let's make that a WWI game about the golden age of dreadnought battleships, not the golden age of expansion of Empires by sailing fleets.


Naval seems a design decision and MP will take a looong time. So I don't see much of the argument anymore, the release date is about as gold as it can get.

I agree. But it won't stop some of us from wishing it could have been more.

[Zenicetus]

I can’t say I actually really expected a sailing sim. That would be a bit much for the parent company to stomach unless it was the total focus of the game, I fear, and even then they would want the “fun factor” to be higher.

This is the part I really don't understand. Fans of historical land combat will nitpick the Total War game series to death on minor points of historical accuracy. They'll obsess over whether a shield is being held on the correct side of a soldier to give the right damage reduction against archers. But apparently, most don't care if the naval combat is not up to the same standard.

It's very frustrating for those of us who actually have sailed on real water, when we can't get the same depth on the naval combat side of the simulation. I know that not everyone here is a sailor, but I hope you can understand the frustration. Imagine being a fan of the historical longbow, and seeing it modeled in the game as an AK-47 assault rifle. It's about on the same level.

And the shame of it is that sailing tactics are fun! Or at least, they should be.

[Belgolas]

Guys that video is a few months old. They probably fixed some of it up. Anyways I vote that naval combat be less realistic but more fun. Although like all other TWs you should be able to choose arcade battles or not. So I dpn't see why there isn't an options box. Unless the AI can't handle it. Although if naval battles are too hard for the average joe then they probably wont play it.

[hoom]

I would be entirely happy for CA to delay even until next year if they need the time to make the game as good as possible.
I still play mods for the Rome engine now & there are a bunch of bugs from that engine that were never fixed either by CA or by modders.
To me it is much preferable for CA to take the time & make sure everything works properly.

[Polemists]

Well Zen, whether you missed or not here were Jack Lusted comments on the issue a while back, I can link the thread in a edit later if you like


You expect gamers to be sophisticated enough to appreciate flanking tactics and the use of cavalry in land combat, but you think they're unable to grasp the concept of tacking in sail combat?


Oh I'm sure they could, it's just that we felt battles are better without forcing the player to spend ages tacking up wind just to be able to engage.


Or is that CA just couldn't develop an AI that could handle it?


No the AI can and does tack if it's required. Remember, just because we've not made tacking required doesn't mean that if you choose to tack you'll see benefits.


This might as well have been a WW1 game with propeller-driven ships, if you're going to disregard the way sailing ships actually move on the water!


Ships do move at different speeds relating to the wind direction(and in fact sail fastest with wind slightly off one beam instead of directly behind them) so it's a very realistic sailing model, the only thing we've really changed is ships sailing into the wind.




You can say it's dull or you can say it's annoying or a fun factor or whatever. The bottom line was everything you want, tacking, wind, etc is in there, just in small dosages. Which people enjoyed more then large doses. (or CA thought they would enjoy more)

Like I said it's probably like Sid Meyers which I found very fun but several historians here loathe. Just personal opinons at end fo the day.

[Fisherking]

This is the part I really don't understand. Fans of historical land combat will nitpick the Total War game series to death on minor points of historical accuracy. They'll obsess over whether a shield is being held on the correct side of a soldier to give the right damage reduction against archers. But apparently, most don't care if the naval combat is not up to the same standard.

It's very frustrating for those of us who actually have sailed on real water, when we can't get the same depth on the naval combat side of the simulation. I know that not everyone here is a sailor, but I hope you can understand the frustration. Imagine being a fan of the historical longbow, and seeing it modeled in the game as an AK-47 assault rifle. It's about on the same level.

And the shame of it is that sailing tactics are fun! Or at least, they should be.


While a lot of fans broil over historical inaccuracies, when the smoke clears, they have always gone with some “fan boy” fix to a precived problem that wasn’t there in the first place.

It is a shame that the history and realisam is usualy sacrificed because someone with an attention span disorder can’t fallow what is going on. It isn’t just in the naval game however and it is not just CA that does it.

I can’t think of a sailing naval simulater that is accurate, if someone knows one…drop a name.

I am looking forward to this game…even with out all the nay saying.

If you want to wait a year or two for a game…than that is the next one. Maybe E2TW will give you what you want.

I can hardly wait for them to add ship to shore warfare and landing parties, but I don’t want to wait for them to rewrite the engien and put it in.

Multiplayer in a few months I can live with, especially since that is what they told us in December.

I would much rather be playing the game and complaining about it than spending endless hours discussing what if, and will this be in ,or how much delay to have the game this way…

[Polemists]

I don't think it's just navy getting picked on, if you scoured these forums you'd find there are historians of land combat who are just as angry about certain things in ETW (land formations, charges, musket volley, etc).

However, at the end of the day, like I said, you can call it not a "fun factor", you can call it angles, you can call it hyper active kids, you can call it short attentions spans. Whatever phrase you like.

When they get the testers together though, they seem to want the factors included in a minor fashon.

Not say wind is not in, it's just not AS in as some want.

The fact it's in at all, is CA trying to cater a little to the veterans, because let's face it, they could do red alert 3 graphics naval combat, and the game would still sell at end of the day. The rts fans out number the historians, fact of life. The two groups rarely get along.

[Sir Beane]

I like as much historical accuracy as CA can get in game, but it isn't why I play the game. I play the game for the escapism, scale, scope and spectacle. If it happens to be histoprically accurate as well then thats a nice bonus. :2thumbsup:

Most people aren't holding naval combat to the same standard as land combat because CA have had four games and several expansions to get the land combat feeling right. This is the first time we have seen naval, so many people aren't expecting too much from it.

I have to admit to being slighty disappointed with things like sailing against the wind and being able to turn on the spot though.

[Polemists]

I guess it all depends what you want, I was just happy they fixed diplomacy, and AI.

After that it's all gravy.

[Sir Beane]

I guess it all depends what you want, I was just happy they fixed diplomacy, and AI.

After that it's all gravy.

They only say they did. We don't actually have any proof yet.

Im remaining quitely confident though. :2thumbsup:

Please let them have fixed it.

[Polemists]

They only say they did. We don't actually have any proof yet.

Im remaining quitely confident though.

Please let them have fixed it.

Well going off the review, and I only have the one. The guy did manage to keep spain and france from attacking him through bribes and diplomacy, and it sounds like he choose to fight the ottomans.

So sounds like diplomacy at least, makes sense.

[Sir Beane]

Well going off the review, and I only have the one. The guy did manage to keep spain and france from attacking him through bribes and diplomacy, and it sounds like he choose to fight the ottomans.

So sounds like diplomacy at least, makes sense.

I really wish I could read that review :no:. Why couldn't it have been published online? Stupid paper publications asking for money (which I have none of). :furious3:

I really hope bribery works better in this game, it was horribly broken iin Medieval 2.

[Polemists]

For those of you trying to view the whole thing, or at least more of it. Total War Center forums has about a 100 something post thread going, and they have posted up quite a few quotes.

I don't have the mag, but i'm sure it's a good article. Sadly I don't live in states or the uk :(

[Zenicetus]

You can say it's dull or you can say it's annoying or a fun factor or whatever. The bottom line was everything you want, tacking, wind, etc is in there, just in small dosages. Which people enjoyed more then large doses. (or CA thought they would enjoy more)

No, it's not there in small dosages. Ships under sail in the real world are 100% forbidden to go in certain directions relative to the wind. That restriction completely determines the tactics of initial maneuvering before battle (see: weather gage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_gage)), first engagement, and close combat. You can't allow "just a little bit" of sailing directly upwind without totally changing all of those tactics, with the results we see in that video clip.

I know this isn't likely to be changed, at this point. The game may still be fun, for all I know. Maybe naval battles will end up being just eye candy I watch a few times, and then auto-calc the naval battles and focus on land battles. However, I do think it's important to understand the real-world basis of what's being modeled here, just like anything else we talk about with the Total War series. There's no point in assuming that we're getting a small taste of the real thing, when it's actually a total distortion for the sake of game play.

[Zenicetus]

Most people aren't holding naval combat to the same standard as land combat because CA have had four games and several expansions to get the land combat feeling right. This is the first time we have seen naval, so many people aren't expecting too much from it.

Well, it's their first shot at this, but also maybe the last, at least for a long time. The "golden age" of sail combat on the high seas didn't last very long. Once steam entered the picture, all the tactics changed. You have to go back to the ancient world to find big, important sea battles, and that was with a different mix of sail and oar power, ramming, very different tactics. I would think that would build the expectations a little higher. We're not going to see an Empire 2 game any time soon.

[Sir Beane]

Well, it's their first shot at this, but also maybe the last, at least for a long time. The "golden age" of sail combat on the high seas didn't last very long. Once steam entered the picture, all the tactics changed. You have to go back to the ancient world to find big, important sea battles, and that was with a different mix of sail and oar power, ramming, very different tactics. I would think that would build the expectations a little higher. We're not going to see an Empire 2 game any time soon.

That's true. I don't expect naval combat to just disappear however. CA have put too much work in it not to use the naval engine for whatever the next game is. They will just have to pick a time period were naval combat was important.

I hope they get naval combat right the first time, but I'm honestly not expecting them to. It's a difficult genre, and for that reason not often covered realistically by games.

[Belgolas]

Look you can have the most realistic game out there and it most likely wont be fun. Yeah try play a FPS when it gets so realistic you can't spawn till the life of you is sucked out. Or how about not spawn at all. Try playing a MMO game when you die thats it. Time for a new account. Yes I prefer realism over arcade but you can go too far. I don't want land or naval battles to take 12 hours. It just isn't fun. And games are all about being fun. Plus you think it is already hard to control 20 units try controling 20 ships when you have to individually tack and change the sales and all that time consuming stuff while still trying to get your timing right to fire at the enemy. It would be extremely difficult if it was 100% realistic. Yeah maybe it is alittle far being able to sale into the wind but lets face it. Do you want to have to spend that extra 10 minutes to jusy chase down that one ship inorder to get on with the game. While you still have a dozen other battles to play that turn. If you want a naval sim then it should be only able to control one ship and be at the eye level of the commander. Some of you probably want the same view as the general view for naval and that would make it far too difficult and would not be varry fun. There is a reason why each ship has their own commander.

[Belgolas]

That's true. I don't expect naval combat to just disappear however. CA have put too much work in it not to use the naval engine for whatever the next game is. They will just have to pick a time period were naval combat was important.

I hope they get naval combat right the first time, but I'm honestly not expecting them to. It's a difficult genre, and for that reason not often covered realistically by games.

I so hope the next total war is set in the roman time period where it is all about ramming and boarding the other ships.

[Barkhorn1x]

A couple of thoughts:

- By now we all should know CA's stance on realism vs. gameplay = gameplay wins. It is pointless to:
a. disagree
b. point out that realism can be fun too

- Naval battles will be more on the fun side, as opposed to super realistic***, because, well, see above.

Finally, internet poll aside, this baby ships on March 3rd/4th and that is the end of the story. :yes:

***Can you imagine the howls of complaints if the Battle of Trafalgar were presented accurately. The Franco-Spanish fleet in disarray with sub standard crews and the absence of a strong breeze? It literally took hours to get the Royal Navy fully engaged. Who really wants that?

[Sir Beane]

A couple of thoughts:

- By now we all should know CA's stance on realism vs. gameplay = gameplay wins. It is pointless to:
a. disagree
b. point out that realism can be fun too

- Naval battles will be more on the fun side, as opposed to super realistic***, because, well, see above.

Finally, internet poll aside, this baby ships on March 3rd/4th and that is the end of the story. :yes:

***Can you imagine the howls of complaints if the Battle of Trafalgar were presented accurately. The Franco-Spanish fleet in disarray with sub standard crews and the absence of a strong breeze? It literally took hours to get the Royal Navy fully engaged. Who really wants that?

A realistic, hours long battle of Trafalgar is something many fans here would be drooling about. :laugh4:

Most casual gamers however want something relatively easy to pick up, fun, quick (compared to real battles) and they aren't prepared to mess around with things like wind direction. CA can't risk alienating them by making naval combat too complicated, so they really have no choice but to compromise in the way they have.

While ships may be able to sail against the wind, they will be slow and tacking will be faster. That way the purists can tack to their hearts content and the casual gamers don't have to wonder why their ship isn't moving.

Truly realistic naval battles would be days-long affairs, consisting of hours of manouvering and chasing until the two fleets actually met. Imagine fighting a few of those a turn, you'd be auto-resolving in no time. :laugh4:

I expect that a Realism Mod for naval combat will probably have to be made to satisfy those who can't tolerate arcade combat.

[Theodotos I]

I can't believe this is split 50-50. Of course they should take their time. Of course, it's easy for me to say that--I don't plan on buying the game till it hit's Gold Edition, anyway.:2thumbsup:

[ByzanKing]

I voted for taking more time if they need it. I can wait a couple more months for a more fully completed game. I just don't want to see something as big as the "shield bug" that completely ruined the game for me until the patch to fix it came out. I would rather not buy the game, then shelve it for a couple months until a patch comes out. Just my opinion, to each their own. :2cents:

[Zenicetus]

Look you can have the most realistic game out there and it most likely wont be fun. Yeah try play a FPS when it gets so realistic you can't spawn till the life of you is sucked out. Or how about not spawn at all. Try playing a MMO game when you die thats it. Time for a new account. Yes I prefer realism over arcade but you can go too far.

I agree that realism can go too far, it's just a question of balance. And also what's interesting. I don't want to see too much detail in games, but I do want the essentials of a combat style, because that's why I play this type of game instead of something else.

When I played my first tank game (I think it was "M1" from Microprose?), I had to learn about what a "hull down" position was, why it was a good idea to fight from just behind the top of a hill. A tank sim that doesn't include a hull-down bonus to defense, wouldn't be a tank sim. It might be fun on an arcade and eye candy level, but something essential and interesting is missing from the game.


I don't want land or naval battles to take 12 hours. It just isn't fun. And games are all about being fun.

For me, games are best when they're both fun and interesting. :) I like the occasional arcade shoot-em-up too when I want to turn my brain off and kill things for a while, but I also like games that engage my brain too. Until now, the Total War series has done that.

I agree that 12 hour battles aren't fun, but that's just a question of good game design. It's possible to design a UI that's easy to use, with some practice, to control a complex situation. Look at how complex a land army battle is in M2TW. Sea battles don't have to be more complicated than that, and they could still have the same balance of realism and fun. CA isn't giving the player community enough credit here, for being able to handle the mechanics of sail combat.

[Sir Beane]

This pole is unbelievably close, I don't think I've ever seen a topic split opinions so neatly. And that sucks for CA, because it means they don't have a majority that they can pander to. :laugh4:

Despite half of the forums wishes however he game will be out on March 3rd, complete with whatever bugs haven't been ironed out.

All we can do is hope CA get rid of most or all of the problems before it ships.

[Haxorsist]

I voted no. I can't wait any longer for this game!

Seems I brought the poll back to 50/50. ^^

[Fookison]

I voted no. I can't wait any longer for this game!

Me Too! Lets just deal with some of the small items through a patch.

[hoom]

What if there is a bug that really makes lots of people pissed off & not want to play until its patched?

Historically the first patch is several months down the line & may not even resolve whatever the issue is.

I'd rather wait the couple of months at first, and start off playing the better game.

[Polemists]

What if there is a bug that really makes lots of people pissed off & not want to play until its patched?


That's why this poll is 50/50, you have to define the bug.

Many people played MTW2 said it was great, fun and were happy without a patch. Others will tell you it was the buggiest most annoying thing around.

Same thing for Empire but if you read this forum people arn't talking about bugs, people are talking about design decisions. Which CA will not change.

No one can mention any bugs, because no one has seen final products.

People are whining cause A. there is no mp map (which there won't be for at least 6 months if you ask modders) and B. because navy game is not more in depth.

Give CA another year, the navy game would not get any deeper, it's a design choice.


I want the game now, fans want the game now, Sega wants the game now. Problem solved :smash:

[Barkhorn1x]

I want the game now, fans want the game now, Sega wants the game now. Problem solved :smash:

Yep, and again, there is NO DOUBT that this game will be available on schedule. :yes:

[USS Providence 1972]

That video clip begins with two square-rigged fleets approaching each other head-on. Think about that for a minute. Where's the wind? If it's abeam (coming from the side) then this might be possible, but then why aren't the sails showing that? Each fleet's sails are showing that they're being blown and filled out from astern, but that can't be possible. Okay, maybe the sails don't show wind direction... I can live with that. But it gets worse...

At the 2:00 mark, a ship is shown being selected and making a fairly quick turn to starboard. It's doing that with every sail reefed (not deployed) except for very small sails at the bow and stern. Why is that ship fighting with its sails furled, when other ships in view are showing full sail? This might be due to damage, if we're coming in at the middle of a battle. That would be fine, but you still can't maneuver a sailing ship like this, when it isn't using sails as the "engine." These aren't rowboats.

At 2:49, that same ship is shown deploying full sails, in less than one second. It shouldn't work like that. It looks like the game is allowing very rapid furling of sails to minimize damage, and then deploying full sail again, all with no real effect on the ship's movement or turning rate.

At 2:56 you can see exactly the kind of circular tail chase, with no regard to wind direction, that I've been worried about. They're driving around like powerboats.

I couldn't watch more than five minutes of it. The battle looked completely haphazard, with ships sailing in any direction, not being forced to maneuver with (or against) the wind. That's the whole point of combat under sail, the reason it's tactically interesting... unless you just want to watch pretty pictures of cannon fire and ships sinking.

I understand what you are saying. The devs responded to the review which complained about naval battles being too complicated by saying they were doing things to make them more fun. I'm not sure whether this video is before or after that change. Perhaps there will be a mod available to make the sailing more realistic?

Either way I'm looking forward to fighting the naval battles and adjusting to whatever realism level there is. It sure beats the RTW way of simming all naval battles.

[Buckwallis]

What's the past tense of beseeched? Besought? I wonder if CA has ever been besought.

No delay...let's have at it already. It can always be patched....:whip:

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, it's likely way too late already anyway. It's almost gone on sale - DVDs have been written, boxes made, logistics arranged.

If you had asked half a year ago or more, I'd say - take the time to make it good. Hopefully they've done that, seeing as they have delayed once.

CR

[Polemists]

Yes at this point it's what, 17 days until release 18 if your sleeping as I type this, but still 17 when you wake up :laugh4:

I mean at this point they have orders shipped and items pre ordered, so it would actually cost them more to delay it again then just releasing it.

As others have said, they already took one delay, they know what they are doing. If they said they needed one month, then that's what they needed.

The game looks good and I think it will be fun, no need to push it to june or something ridilucous just to add in random features that were never intended for release anyway.

[ThePianist]

CA should have had people evaluate some of it first. From the author of the post, yes they should take one more month or two months. Fans will always be there (no one is dying anytime soon, especially not the gaming population). I think if CA tries to rush it, it's out of fear that banks will not always be there, and they are correct on that one. Depending on whether the government of the United States admits the wrongdoing of its spies and many other things, I wouldn't be surprised if the future history textbooks mention, among other things, the Greater Depression, in early 21st century.

Anyway, really agree with signature. It would help sell it much more as well, not to mention lengthen its playability with added or improved features by feedback (though Total War games are very replayable by default).

[Polemists]

CA has a variety of reason to release it. The first and foremost is the game is DONE.


Secondly, they do have financial obligations. Sega has cut a company recently, and stated that they are tired of companies making delays and not getting out products. They want effiecent companies are not afraid to cut ones that don't do it and put no ones in there place.

Sega owns CA, so at end of the day it's Sega's call.

Either way the game looks done, but I don't worry about it.

[sparkmaster4513]

*sigh*

I've been watching this thread for some time, and I'm stunned that people would think CA would push back the release date.

Think about it critically. News of a demo first. New screens and vids next. Then a full blown REVIEW. They're building hype. Not just among us, but among the casual gamers that would not go out and preorder the special edition and stay up until 5:00AM playing on release day. This hype is a fickle thing. We saw it with the demo. For about 2 weeks there it was OMG IS IT OUT LIEK I CANT WAIT!1111!!1!!!1elevendyonezorx!1!!1. And now, its kinda "meh, its out when its out".

This hype needs to grow if CA is going to have a successful release. And it will grow with further screens, more reviews, and the Fat Man of hype, the demo. SEGA has been in the gaming industry for two decades. It knows what it is doing.

Furthermore, the review proves that the game is Finished 100%. It might not be perfect, and perhaps CA is even now working on a patch, but it is finished to them. The release is three weeks away, which means that even now masters are being distributed to factories and very soon actual production will commence, if it has not already. After this, every day they would somehow choose to delay the game would cost them lots of money. And in this economy, throwing away money because some small part of the extreme TW community thinks a game needs to be absolutely perfect to launch.

Delaying at this stage would be stupid and wasteful.

[Schiltrom]

They are starting completely new, it's a brand new engine, brand new coding, lots of new.

The moral system is based on that of Rome

[Schiltrom]

A realistic, hours long battle of Trafalgar is something many fans here would be drooling about. :laugh4:.

According to PC Gamer, the game only goes up to 1799.~:(. I won't see my great great great great grandfather have his head blown off. George Duff (admiral of the HMS Mars) actually was my great great great great grandfather.

[ThePianist]

OK, OK, I understand the "delaying the release would cost money" thing. I wasn't pushing for more development time, only if they needed it.