Critique

[omine-san]

Bottom line : Shogun TW is a work of art. Medieval TW is an industrial product of a big team and hard work, yet inferior to Shogun TW in aspects that are more important than those it is good at.

First let me say, if MTW is getting the recognition – and profits – STW deserved, well and good. I’ll be awaiting the next TW, and in all likelihood buy it.

But some (hopefully constructive) remarks are in order.
I played 2 campaigns, as the Spanish and as the Polish, on early period – hard (see previous thread ‘Playing Spain and general points’ page 6 of the old forum), and one as the Byzantines, late period expert.

1. Empire Earth Syndrome : too much unit variety of too little gameplay significance. It blurs the tactical options. The whole point of the rock-paper-scissors system (and the other battle factors – terrain, fatigue, maneuvers etc.) is that , if you play it right, you get a crushing advantage at most engagements, and if you keep it up through the battle, you can win against superior numbers and even superior quality.

So who needs heavy spears that can hold against sword units, or semi-heavy cavalry armed with bows, or melee-capable archers etc. ? With less distinct units, there is less room for mastery of the battlefield, and that is just too bad. Whatever room is left for battlefield mastery is in spite of the variety, not aided by it.

2. Too little gameplay significance for strategic units too. In all 3 campaigns I won in 80-100 years without bishops, spies or ships (actually at first I made bishops and spies, until I realized they are not worth it), and I’ll bet I would win against any human campaigner who would upgrade for those units and train them. If a unit is not a factor in skilled play, it is a mere decoration.

3. Atmosphere and character : if anyone doubts how important these are, see how Blizzard prospers without really innovating gameplay. MTW has no video clips, no in-game cut-scenes, no throne room, no victory clips, nothing near the depth of The Way Of The Warrior and Senjoku-Jidai, and whatever happened to archer battlecries ? …

These are the main concerns that made MTW less fun a game for me. Here are other, less important points :

1. Why make 400 maps if its Plains this way and Flatland that way ? has anyone made strategic use of the different-maps-from-different-direction feature ? for that matter, has anyone had battles as exciting and memorable as those in Shinano or Mino ? when there are highlands at all, they are usually at the edge of the map again.

2. No real incentive to upgrade beyond workshop-level. It’s too slow, too expensive, and produces unimpressive units, Bulgarian Brigands being the perfect example. Mines are also too slow to return investment (9 years), I didn’t build them.

3. Weather effects were better in STW. And seasons in MTW are random, which reduces strategic thinking and, to my mind, the beauty of the game.

4. Skirmishers were a good idea in MI/WE. They break the static top-of-the-hill defense battle and make it more dynamic by forcing the defender to charge at them, creating more options for flanking maneuvers. In MTW, where they are available at all, they are much weaker. Also, no effective stealth units.

5. Loyalty system is a major pain. The most effective way to play it is to train only fighting units, let them rebel (not religious or loyalty revolts) and put them down, because of the confiscated lands on one hand and high costs of peasant garrison, on the other. But it requires attention to each province every turn and playing boring battles.

Kudos :

1. Sieges – a good feature. And good potential with mobile artillery – why not ?
2. Crusades and excomms – nice, though I was never bothered by them and used a crusade once, not effectively.
3. Marine play has good potential (by trade and coast invasions) if shorter building and training time.
4. V&V , governors, titles – a nice touch. Faster general advancement at high levels – good.
5. Good historical research
6. More sensible routing directions, though still too many rout-rally in one battle.
7. Clime effects on non-native units.

Suggestions :

1. Terrain features :
A. Marshes – enable considerations such as wade across at a slower pace and tactical inferiority, while faster than going around, allow units at home in a marsh.
B. 2-3 smaller streams in one map, mobile bridges.
C. Units , especially stealth units, with advantage in woods against all others.
D. Small, abandoned forts or stone fences or trenches etc. that allow cover for archers of the side who gets there first, aiming to make the battle multi-staged : take an important position, hold it, advance or retreat etc.

2. Reduce scope of commander view to natural, man-height view, with small scout units or individuals. Perhaps periodical glimpses of the whole battlefield, reflecting units reporting their location and status etc. This will allow true surprise factors and management under uncertainty.

3. Road building, allowing faster army movement through provinces and much better trade.

All these are easier said than done, of course, and not necessarily good ideas. Anyway, I suppose the best advice is, as usual, - first get excited about something, then get to work.


Playing Spain and general points (http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003343.html)

[Alrowan]

ahh.. another whinger... sorry but all these people complaining do nothing themselves to make the game better... honestly, if you are going to complain, please be prepared to do something about it.. it is CA's game, not yours, let them do it how they do it...

[LovelyHaji]

Alrowan, what are you talking about? don't criticise the game unless you can program a better game yourself? Should i not criticize my government because i have no proven track record in running a country myself? You are a complete idiot. Why do you think the developers use these forums? Do you think they are uninterested in finding out what is wrong with their game?

[chunkynut]

I think this all boils down to how you are willing to play the game.

Eg i like having a nice balanced army. I feel naked without missile units, vulnerable without spears, slow without cav etc etc.

But if you have fun using these advantages you talk of then do use them, if not, give yourself tasks like other people do (ie will not attack only be attacked, or endevour never to be excommed, will use a well balanced army etc). It all depends on how you are willing to play the game, how it was meant to be played or willing to exploit these advantages. You dont have to do either, and i think Alrowan is right to an extent if you dont like it change it.

[MagyarKhans Cham]

both are right but calling someone with a constructive post a whinger is a bit shortsighted. whiners arent appreciated in here but if i was a dev i would listen to those more than to teh halleluja prayers.

[solypsist]

A good post by Omine-san, and a good example on what is meant by constructive criticism. He makes the effort to explain his disatisfactions in a concise manner, and even states that his suggestions are just his imperfect,working ideas (see the last part of his post).

Yes, plenty of people of will have a difference of opinion about various issues concerning MTW and STW, but as long as they don't turn into just plain b*tching or flaming or name-calling, everyone is encouraged to say their opinion.

[ToranagaSama]

GREAT POST in terms of tone and presentation and serves as example of how to whine PROPERLY

Now to the content, I think it could honestly be entitled, "A RUSHERS LAMET". http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif


Quote[/b] ]I’ll bet I would win against any human campaigner who would upgrade for those units and train them...

omine-san,

Toranaga-sama accepts, with great honor, the challenge to crush you with my hosts.

Is this the best we can do to approximate a honorable bow ----> http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif ??

I guess I'll have to settle for cool calm ----> http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

Or maybe, sorta like the look just before one carves into a Well-Roasted TURKEY http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Where-O-Where, is Campaign Multiplay?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

[ICantSpellDawg]

sometimes, you wernt going for a crazy strategic victory, maybe with assaults you were, but i keep the less incredible and more well rounded units in the forts or in the reserves, you never know what opposition you will be up against, and alot of warriors back then just kind of "attacked" it isnt like is today. there wasnt alot of individual shining back then

[Cooperman]

Just because you've found a strategy that requires a fraction of the units in the game and beaten the computer doesn't mean that it would be successful against a human player.
Strategic forces have their uses, you really wouldn't want to play a human opponent who has a 5 star grand inqisitor as a catholic faction because without some high level assasins to kill him you could lose all your top generals, govenors and heirs very quickly.
You might find too that the battles against a human aren't such a walkover and that you have to commit far more forces to the frontline and then you'd be grateful for spies with no upkeep cost keeping the peace in your interior provinces as it means more money to fund your main army to smash the enemy.
Try using some of the other units that you've spurned as it might add a little more interest to the game trying to find a way to use them effectively.

[MizuKokami]

i also agree with omine-san.
i see on the battle field roads. why have them if they don't effect the speed of troops?
ambushes...incredibly hard without trees. ambushes can also come from sending your cav around the long way, comeing from behind the enemy. but with the view of the battlefield we have, you can see them coming, even when they are on the other side of a mountain.
artillary should be mobile, tho very slow and bulky while moving. we build artillary in seige workshops and get them to the battle by building them in a stationary spot? what?????? at least battlefield artillary should be mobile, like catapults and ballista.
we spend so much time building upgrades, but it comes down to which general has the better command or least vices in his profile. in other words a 8 star general can use his simple spears against a 5 star general's chiv sargents and win, inspite of the fact that chiv sargeants are top of the line spearmen with better armor and better spears, who, because of their own training, are an all around better unit then simple spears. in the civilization series, when new techs alowed better units, you could upgade the units instead of haveing a bunch of obselete units lying around sucking up resources. so that's something i'ld like to see.
river battles...what general in his right mind would charge across a bridge. none i would hope. he would set up a defence on his side of the river and dispatch some troops to go down river and find another crossing, one that wasn't suicide to cross.

well, what good does it do to speak of these things?
i don't work for ca. i don't know code, and have absolutely no voice with the company that makes this game. but wait....

if i don't speak, how will they hear?...(this is me hopeing the sarcasm isn't lost on the deaf http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif )
it is the only means we have to affect something we only buy, and not make. without speaking, we will never be heard. and those that spoke out against omine-san owe an apology.

[GilJaysmith]

Quote[/b] (MizuKokami @ Dec. 02 2002,15:05)]artillary should be mobile, tho very slow and bulky while moving. we build artillary in seige workshops and get them to the battle by building them in a stationary spot? what?????? at least battlefield artillary should be mobile, like catapults and ballista.
Actually I can comment on that bit. At the time a lot of wooden artillery was built on-site and in position for sieges. They didn't sort out how to move artillery during battles until a lot later. And, ahem, it was too much work for us trying to get the AI to understand how to move the artillery, given the time we had for that bit. So we cut out the risk by letting you deploy artillery where you wanted, but limiting movement to rotation only.

It is, to be honest, a bit of a bodge, but it's a very classy bodge and we can justify quite a lot of it in historical terms, which is either proof of our genius or merely very fortunate.

The only reason you get the artillery in field battles is that people would have grumbled if we'd stopped these units from showing up. And, as others of us have said previously, cannon are fun :)

Gil ~ CA

[MagyarKhans Cham]

http://home-4.worldonline.nl/%7Et543201/web-mongol/mongol-images/mongol-horseback-cannon.jpg

a mongol cannon on horseback


in general teh tactic in teh game is reduced heavily. call it whining, i call it an advice. my advice is, open your eyes, and see how a highly potential and partly welldone game is reduced/subject to a cash cow.

[ShaiHulud]

Omine.....

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but your complaint seems to be that the game seems bare when you play it without the new features that are available. No doubt

Byzantium survived for so long not because their spies were, alone, so capable , but because their activities were backed up by force. Bribing enemy generals, embarrassing them thru Inquisition, assassinating too-good governors... that seems strategic to me.

As far as generals and stars... a capable 8-star AI general with good morale boosting Virtues fight with devastating effect. I've had many enjoyable battles with such. That the rest are not so effective is, at the very least, historical. Most generals achieved their rank thru status, not skill. I think the post-patch generals of skill are much fewer and farther between and it has definitely enhanced play.

If you have a problem with their longevity, consider it a school of thought, passed on from one to the next. With their passing, they are very difficult to replace, are they not?

I, too, have complaints, but the game is a masterpiece even if nothing else were done for it.

[Ogre de Warrior]

Onime, great post, I like how you critize without flaming. Heres my opinion of your statements.


Quote[/b] ]So who needs heavy spears that can hold against sword units, or semi-heavy cavalry armed with bows, or melee-capable archers etc. ? With less distinct units, there is less room for mastery of the battlefield, and that is just too bad. Whatever room is left for battlefield mastery is in spite of the variety, not aided by it.

One could see this as a flaw, or as part of the mastery itself. Knowing which units to use when, which to build where, thats part of strategy. As multi-purpose units, well, I enjoy having heavy cavalry thats capable of using bows as well. It gives them an edge up on other heavy cavalry units. Think about it I mean, if someone gave you a knife with 3 blades on it as well as some pliers and an awl, would you say, "Who NEEDS a knife that can do all that? Its better to carry 4 or 5 tools around when I could have 1 that does it all."


Quote[/b] ]Too little gameplay significance for strategic units too. In all 3 campaigns I won in 80-100 years without bishops, spies or ships (actually at first I made bishops and spies, until I realized they are not worth it), and I’ll bet I would win against any human campaigner who would upgrade for those units and train them. If a unit is not a factor in skilled play, it is a mere decoration.

If you feel that these units are not useful, then you really haven't seen their advantages yet. A spy can forment rebellion (although not as much now as pre-patch, but thats a good thing anyway), open gates during sieges, expose vices such as adultery or atheism, or just plain scout out the enemy. Holy men are essential to improving loyalty and stopping rebellion in provinces that are different religions from yours, especially in the Muslim world. They can also eventually start a rebellion. No, they aren't "Move into a province, next turn that province is mine" units, but they're sure as hell not useless.


Quote[/b] ]3. Atmosphere and character : if anyone doubts how important these are, see how Blizzard prospers without really innovating gameplay. MTW has no video clips, no in-game cut-scenes, no throne room, no victory clips, nothing near the depth of The Way Of The Warrior and Senjoku-Jidai, and whatever happened to archer battlecries ? …


Except for that part about Blizzard not having innovative gameplay, I agree. Clips of special events, such as completeing your goal of a crusade, or being excommunicated, would be great. Even little victory/defeat clips like the ones in Lords of the Realm 2 would be great. We can talk about Blizzard another day.


Quote[/b] ]. No real incentive to upgrade beyond workshop-level. It’s too slow, too expensive, and produces unimpressive units, Bulgarian Brigands being the perfect example. Mines are also too slow to return investment (9 years), I didn’t build them.

Mines take only 9 years to pay back the investment, after that they're pure money. 9 years isn't so long, unless you're planning to blitz the world or you're only 3 provinces away from domination.


Quote[/b] ]Reduce scope of commander view to natural, man-height view, with small scout units or individuals. Perhaps periodical glimpses of the whole battlefield, reflecting units reporting their location and status etc. This will allow true surprise factors and management under uncertainty

NO. CA, do NOT do this. I cant believe a guy worried about speed would suggest this. That would be the start of the most incredibly long, boring, drawn out battles. Maybe enable it as an option. For me, its much more fun to be able to SEE my opponent, and ALL of my army. I mean, yea, it might be more realistic, but it just wouldn't be fun. Maybe an option to take command of a squad or a unit, and fight from first person view, but even then, it would be pretty lame. I think the perspective is fine, except for the seeing over mountains part.

This is what I think.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ]in general teh tactic in teh game is reduced heavily. call it whining, i call it an advice. my advice is, open your eyes, and see how a highly potential and partly welldone game is reduced/subject to a cash cow.


Your distasteful and offensive, is there a forum where I can continually whine about that fact at EVERY opportunity??

Sheesh, get off it already http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

...and awayyyyy wee goooo.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

[RabidMonkey]

Quote[/b] (omine-san @ Dec. 02 2002,09:34)]Bottom line : Shogun TW is a work of art. Medieval TW is an industrial product of a big team and hard work, yet inferior to Shogun TW in aspects that are more important than those it is good at.


3. Atmosphere and character : if anyone doubts how important these are, see how Blizzard prospers without really innovating gameplay. MTW has no video clips, no in-game cut-scenes, no throne room, no victory clips, nothing near the depth of The Way Of The Warrior and Senjoku-Jidai, and whatever happened to archer battlecries ? …



Playing Spain and general points (http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003343.html)
Great post finally something that i totally agree with, STW was a work of art and was a joy to play while every time i sit down to play MTW i feel that something is missing.

The character of the game is the biggest problem for me and even though Warcraft 3 shouldnt be compared with MTW, in the character and atmosphere area W3 is worlds ahead. With the incredible history of the entire middle ages why doesnt this game pull me in and become more than just churning out units and shifting them around a map. STW managed it so i c MTW as a step backwards. Wait an see what happens with TW3

[MagyarKhans Cham]

u have some problems toranagama? who payed u to bug me? u whine about whiners?

[Lehesu]

I think that the game is fine and offers an array of tactical decisions. I find that, IMHO, many people seem too interested in what a game can't do then what it CAN do. I like MTW more than STW. I like the better variety of units, enabling more strategical variety, and like the greater impact of things such as sieges and religion. I can look over what, IMO, are minor errors of the game. For example, I do not see a problem with immobile arty, as STW had no arty. I have also modified some things that I think need changing and am currently fairly satisfied, (except MP, but thats a different story http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif ) with the game.

[Shahed]

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Dec. 02 2002,21:49)] And, as others of us have said previously, cannon are fun http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Gil ~ CA

Totally Agree

Canons are awesome, loads of fun I wish they were more powerful. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

They are also a new addition from STW, funny not more ppl use em in MP. In SP, I aim for 6 serps in every single Late period army I deploy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[omine-san]

Hi Guys,

Some replies :

1. Personally, I prefer the terms 'feedback' or 'thought-sharing' on 'whining'.

2. I like balanced armies too, I just would like them to be made of imbalanced units... If we can have units that are capable at melee, shoot well, fast, armored and do well against swords, arrows, spears and cavalry, then we are that much closer to run-of-the-mill RTS games, where you just train your strongest unit and sling them in hordes at the enemy. That is not the case with MTW, but I believe It's somewhat closer to it than STW was. I believe all units should have at least one vulnerability.

3. Of course I can limit my forces, say never shoot with Sipahis, never attack etc. , but : A. That is not to the credit of the game design B. I can't affect the strengths/vulnerabilities of the enemy units. If it's moddable, that is, not just change a unit's armor but make it better or worse against specific types of units (spears, swords etc.) - I'd really like to know.

4. Usefulness of strategic units : Spies need a tavern (4 years) and brothel (6 years), and then you are training 1 spy a year in a castle (level 3) province. That's about 30 years into the game if you started with a fort in the province, and you didn't build it for any other unit type. These are the most important years for building your empire and getting ahead of the other factions. And border forts cost you 1 spy a year, and a spy affects loyalty by about 10% ? (I don't know these last facts, correct me please) That's just too little too slow. As I said, a typical campaign takes 80-100 years to 60% domination.

As for garrison, crushing rebellions is more effective in my opinion, at least until a province starts making multiple fighting units in rebellions (maybe after 15 rebellions or so).

I find fighting units to be a better investment than mines.

I agree assassins are important - feed them on emissaries and keep them for an inquisitor. But inquisitors take even longer to build for than spies.

5. Ogre, about Blizzard, I meant they didn't change fundamentals since Startcraft (great game). Maybe I'm wrong, didn't get WC3 yet just read about it. About commander view, you are probably right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif just a thought.

[Ogre de Warrior]

Its ok. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I was a little out of sorts this morning. Anyway, as for the unit thing-

Most units that are good at several things, such as melee archers or spearmen that can handle infantry as well, generally come with a high price tag, or a large morale penalty, and are usually pretty rare. The only exceptions to this are units like Boyars, and thats good because it forces everyone to come up with their own strats for dealing with those units.

I agree a bit with point number 3 you made in your reply. Its fun to limit yourself to what you can do in a game, but that shouldn't be the only way to have fun.

WC3 isn't the greatest, but its damn near close, you should try it out. Don't believe EVERYTHING you hear about it, although Blizzards patches leave MUCH to be desired on occasion.

Again, not tryin to flame, just stating my opinion.

[Ktonos]

Everything has advantages and disadvantages. MTW is a much better, in fact a class or two better than STW. Some of your points are right but they don't make up your conclusion of STW>MTW. I disagree that STW has a better atmosphere than MTW. New terrain, special units for each faction and music based on the province/faction, weather affected by geographical position rather than season make up for a better mood for MTW. Also I don't like an obvious Seasors/Rock/Paper system. No general was ever viewing a battlefield and had in mind that simple game. I agree with the rest but I can accept them.

[chunkynut]

Quote[/b] (omine-san @ Dec. 03 2002,04:41)]3. Of course I can limit my forces, say never shoot with Sipahis, never attack etc. , but : A. That is not to the credit of the game design B. I can't affect the strengths/vulnerabilities of the enemy units. If it's moddable, that is, not just change a unit's armor but make it better or worse against specific types of units (spears, swords etc.) - I'd really like to know.
Hi again

My point was, i think, misunderstood. I really meant that limiting yourself by (like some people have posted) not using anything but AUMs to march across europe. Just because these units are uncommonly strong (strongest in early i think) doesn't mean you should endevour to have 16 units of these each time you go to war on a territory.

I was not saying you were this type of player, but as i have said people have posted saying "almos are too easy", yeah but then they say "i mean 16 AUMs beat the £^&( out of the balanced armies the AI, the only other units i had to produce were replacments". This to me is boring and that is what i meant by limiting forces. You could probably go into battle with those 16 units or another elite unit and dominate the map, but is this fun?

I don't want to be dragged in more to this thread * thinks it might turn more nasty * http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Edit: sorry, to your last bit i think it may be to much for modding but go over to the Dungeon and post something there i hope you get the response your after http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[MagyarKhans Cham]

warcraft 3 is very very well done, most annoying is that teh keybuttons are in reverse of shoggies buttons on teh mouse.

[MizuKokami]

don't get me wrong either... I LOVE THIS GAME....in both mp and sp. there are just things i would like to see, if not in this total war, in the next. i hope that it can be figured out how to drag a ballista or catapult closer to the front. or figure out how to get troops to the other side of a river without suicide runs. (maybe if we use the red zone...hehe) to be able to make tactical decisions without worrying about wether or not your men will run as soon as they realize their flanks are exposed. because sometimes men run just because they are away from the rest of the army, when all they would have to do is hold for a few more moments till you're in position. it would be nice to be able to set a front line like you would move pawns on the chess board, holding key posistions and giveing access for your bishops and nights to expand their sphere of influence. (my fingers are crossed) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[gothicform]

i wish we could have a fog of war on MTW too. its great to be able to see your opponent but id like it so if i wanted i could only see the enemy in view. what i dont understand is why you cannot move cannons when they have wheels on them.

[solypsist]

the cannons have wheels so they can rotate, which is easier to do on the battlefield than move. keep in mind there's more to a cannon and most other artillary than just the engine itself. it takes all the guys just to move it a little (whic his usually ,what, 6 to 12 men?) but then you have the ammunition and other accessories (powder kegs, wadding, etc.) even in the American Civil War you almost never had cannons moving around, and this is a good 400 years after this game.

[MagyarKhans Cham]

u sure? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Magyar Khan]

well in the game gettysburg u keep the cannons moving.

[GameDesigner]

Sorry the use of field mobile artillery was brought to prominence by Gustavus Adolphus in the 20 years war and was used by virtually every western army from that point forward. There was usually a differentiation made between heavy or siege artillery and normal more mobile artillery. In addition to normal field artillery which was mobile but not exactly nimble there were lighter pieces designed to travel with cavalry units, often refered to as horse artillery, although of course all artillery was horse drawn.

[GameDesigner]

Uh sorry that was the 30 years war. ALthough of course he also fought against the Poles, Lithuanians, and Russians prior to that.

[Foreign Devil]

Quote[/b] (omine-san @ Dec. 02 2002,09:34)]too much unit variety of too little gameplay significance. It blurs the tactical options.

MTW has no video clips, no in-game cut-scenes, no throne room, no victory clips, nothing near the depth of The Way Of The Warrior and Senjoku-Jidai, and whatever happened to archer battlecries ? …

has anyone had battles as exciting and memorable as those in Shinano or Mino ? when there are highlands at all, they are usually at the edge of the map again.



1. Sieges – a good feature. And good potential with mobile artillery – why not ?

2. Reduce scope of commander view to natural, man-height view, with small scout units or individuals. Perhaps periodical glimpses of the whole battlefield, reflecting units reporting their location and status etc. This will allow true surprise factors and management under uncertainty.
My Two Cents:

Personally, I like the unit variety, it gives a certain sense of historical accuracy. Highland Clansmen rock Although I concede it did take some time to familiraze myself with all the different units (and so far i've only seriously played catholic factions, being of irish decent;) ). Besides, after a while, the cut and dry shogun units got a little stale after I got to know them. Variety is good.

Video clips- I agree completly, I thought that was a really good feature of Shogun. And thier should be an ending movie, at least (what?? no ending movie??&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.

Regarding maps, I'd just like to say that I've had some pretty incredible battles in Shinano.

I love seiges I love seiges I love seiges (did I mention that I love seiges? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif )

Ahh If anything, make the scope larger, I love watching the epic scale battles. Thats what lured me into buying Shogun in the first place.


Ok, thats it for now. I hope my quoting job wasn't too confusing.

[solypsist]

No one has been saying that artillary can't be moved in totality, just that they can't be moved during battle. a 2 ton cannon being pulled along behind a horse isn't going to be able to be used until it's set.

[Foreign Devil]

Soly, did you wink at me or is that just my sleep deprivation?

[Nelson]

I liked your post omine-san. These are my thoughts regarding your comments. I will preface my remarks by saying that I believe M:TW is vastly superior to Shogun where it counts. I also expect a historically sound tactical system using realistic units that is closer to a sim than a game like Warcraft for example.

1). I have always disliked the rock-paper-scissors analogy. It oversimplifies everything. Who says tactical options should be crystal clear? This isn’t chess. Combat is pretty damn blurred. Some units could melee AND fire effectively. Some unit types were weak across the board and others were strong generally in most situations. Not EVERY unit type had glaring weaknesses and not every unit needs or deserves some sort of special role in the game. History has never been like that so neither should Medieval. Sometimes similarly armed units would only look different and I’m glad CA acknowledges this fact. Poorer units have a place in the game. The vast unit selection is excellent.

2) OK. You won without ships and bishops and your point is taken in that they are not essential to quick victory. This game is rather like Morrowind in that you can play the power game, ignore most of the quests, use one weapon, wrap it up quickly and then (if you’re of a mind to) decry all the extra equipment, armor, etc. as unnecessary. Or you can play through repeatedly trying different approaches for the fun of it.

The strategic units allow for playing a different style of game as opposed to trying to win as quickly as possible every time (which is fine of course). I like having the options the strategic units bring to the table. It’s a matter of play style.

3) If you want more sound and battle cries I agree with you. We do know what several actual battle cries were after all. More is better in this regard. I do think the game has character in spades as it is though. Cut scenes are superfluous IMO.

As for the lesser points:

1) I like the maps and am glad there are so many and that they vary by border. Japan is more uniformly mountainous than Europe and North Africa. If the opportunity presented itself, Shinano style battles in Switzerland could happen. In Medieval you must deal with heat from time to time.

2) I find upgrading worthwhile. As for the “unimpressive” units that result, I believe the advances historically were evolutionary and not really all that spectacular from one stage to the next. You expect more significant enhancement from the upgrades. In terms of time, 10 turns in a game of hundreds isn't so long (unless patience is running thin http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif).

3) There is too much rain in Medieval. I’m accustomed to the yearly turns but I do in fact miss the seasons from Shogun. What happen to the fog? I agree with you about the weather.

4) Skirmishing is less effective because archery is less effective because effective armor is so common. We might miss it but it seems right to me the way it is. When the enemy is lightly armored skirmishing works.

5) Loyalty requires watching. It is a pain. One can opine as to whether this is an asset or a liability in the game .

I like all of your suggestions except stealth units and mobile bridges. I would include pike units with cav as units that do poorly in the woods. Long pole arms and trees don’t mix. I would not confer a woods combat bonus to any unit not even woodsmen.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] (MizuKokami @ Dec. 03 2002,17:53)]don't get me wrong either... I LOVE THIS GAME....in both mp and sp. there are just things i would like to see, if not in this total war, in the next. i hope that it can be figured out how to drag a ballista or catapult closer to the front. or figure out how to get troops to the other side of a river without suicide runs. (maybe if we use the red zone...hehe) to be able to make tactical decisions without worrying about wether or not your men will run as soon as they realize their flanks are exposed. because sometimes men run just because they are away from the rest of the army, when all they would have to do is hold for a few more moments till you're in position. it would be nice to be able to set a front line like you would move pawns on the chess board, holding key posistions and giveing access for your bishops and nights to expand their sphere of influence. (my fingers are crossed) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
I don't want any of that stuff

Catapults, Ballistas and stuff, are a neat little "entertainment" trick and have a useful momment or two, mostly during sieges, but TotalWar is about Generalship.

All of your comments except that re artillary, indicate poor Generalship and understanding of the game, rather than something that needs adjustment in the game by the programmers.

You wish to be able to make "tactical" decisions w/o concern for the quality and caliber of your men, nor your ability to "lead" men. What kind of General is that?

Your men are not Robots. Humans are not normally disposed to suicice, nor to cooperating in efforts to get them killed stupidly. Men will only risk their lives in efforts they deem will (or might) have success.

Realize this is "medieval" warfare, before "Gunpowder" armies and the type of insane discipline exacted from the soldiers of that era.

Frankly, what you want is for the programmers to compensate for your poor skills.

The "Chessboard" part of TW is the Campaign Map not the battlefield http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[LadyAnn]

Dare to compare M:TW strategic map to chess? It is more like Risk.

Annie

[The Last Emperor]

I believe the up & coming Crusader Kings based on the Europa Universalis engine will offer a deeper sense of stratigic gaming compared to MTW, though the tactical battles phase of MTW will always be the outstanding factor between them, its what make most of us interested with TW series in the 1st place-epic battle scenes similar to Kurosawa movies. A combination of the 2 games would be the dream team http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[Magyar Khan]

it would be nice if tehy had the same units as we have and u can actually play teh battle in that game on teh tw platform and input teh outcome with a simple "yes or no".

[Leet Eriksson]

sadly in crusaders kings you can't play the muslims,it would be interesting playin as them...but still with all those factions in crusaders kings it would be alot of funyou can even be a prince of a small state

[HopAlongBunny]

Overall I like the game; doesn't seem to be any glaring errors that destroy the game. IMHO everything works more or less the way it should.

The fact that it still CTD's is my biggest complaint. I play SP and losing hours of work because of a bug is annoying. Someone will probably advise me to save more often, hence not lose all that work...if it does the CTD while you're trying to save...what good is that?

Personally, I wouldn't buy an add-on in this series if they don't make the present offering work right.

[LadyAnn]

Bunny: svnguyen was posting a work around about Crash to Desktop. Perhaps it would lessen your woes until the next patch came?

Annie

[omine-san]

Replies, especially to Nelson and Foreign :


Historical background is good for atmosphere, a sense of depth, and sometimes instructing. However, if it stands in the way of gameplay, I'll take gameplay every day of the week. I don't care, for example, that the mongols never landed in masses in Japan. I also know that there were never wizards in the world, yet I play Heroes etc... you get my meaning.

I like the strain and challenge of difficult and complex fighting, touch-and-go situations both on the strategic map and in every battle, having to calculate each move to maximum efficiency. Barocca's Ironman and Japan Darkest Age campaigns kept me hooked for months precisely because they were very difficult, but possible. Playing more leisurely, exploring various units just for the variety - nothing wrong with it, of course, it's just not for me.

And to that purpose, I like the units to be distinct tools that I can use in creative ways. A good game for me is a game where you must be creative and accurate in order to be efficient. Yes, you could call it playing chess - in mutlmedia and captivating story and background. If there are units that you can just produce one type in masses and forget everything else, then that is a big minus in a game.

As I said, this is not the situation in MTW, only a little more in that direction than STW. MTW is still one of the best there is. But I look at both these games, and I'm thinking - where did the designers put the most brain-hours making MTW ? One thing is sieges, which is a really good feature. My apologies that my praise is less detailed than my criticism... another is marine play , which has big potential, and a much richer strategic map with governors and V&V (good) and more agent types (potentially good). 400 maps, over 100 units, loyalty system design - not for me, at least not the way they are now.

[Daevyll]

Though MTW certainly has facets that leave room for improvement (most of all sieges and diplomacy in my opinion), I still think its a brilliant game and better by far then STW.

The fact that you have 100 units is a definite plus in my book, I just love meeting a new type of enemy on the field for the first time etc etc, and I really dont care if some of them are a lot alike. Part of the fun is discovering what each units plays like, and getting access to it for the first time, reading the description etc.

For every units there are several counter units, to be used in conjunction with terrain etc. This is as games design should be.

As for STW, well I havent seen anything along the lines of Warrior Monks (ie units that totally spoil the balance in a game when they appear) in MTW. Nor does valour-pumping a certain unittype (like Ashigaru) make games a foregone conclusion. Are you certain you dont remember STW with a bit of a pink haze in your eyes?

In my opinion the only thing in which STW is superior to MTW are the mini-movies (which I adored), and the nice 'Sengoku jidai' web-mini-documentary.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] ]I like the strain and challenge of difficult and complex fighting, touch-and-go situations both on the strategic map and in every battle, having to calculate each move to maximum efficiency.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he just describe, both STW AND MTW??

I reiterate,

"You wish to be able to make "tactical" decisions w/o concern for the quality and caliber of your men, nor your ability to "lead" men. What kind of General is that? "

Focusing this discussion,

You have two main issues, correct?

1) Too many units with "similiar" purposes.
2) Loyalty, valour, whatever (forget the proper term); in otherwords, your men flaking out when you send them WAYYY out on the flank all by themselves, correct?

Re 1): Question, do you want more units of "dis-similar" purpose; or are there already existant sufficient number of units for your desire, but you feel that the re-dundant units s/b removed?

If so, then simply use ONLY the units you prefer. Yes, at first, you might find it annoying to discern the redundant units, but once done re this issue you have the game you want.

Re 2) Please explain in greater detail (example) your issue(s). Frankly, I believe you just haven't taken the time to master the game with regard to this area. JMO.

Really, can you send "any" unit way out on the flank? No But, can you send a unit that won't flake out? Yes Just have to use the "correct" unit, and unfortunately (actually this is a fortunate thing gamewise) one will not ALWAYS have the right unit. Though, if that's your overall battle strategy, one can ensure that one does have such a unit or units at MOST times, if one chooses to apply the needed attention to that effect.

I can only surmise, that you are dissatisfied, that not only will a Peasant unit flake out, but so will a unit of MAA, CMAA, Knights, etc. This is dependant upon a unit's "Valour" (or whatever) level. I believe you wish to have this dependent upon unit "type", rather than have all types of units effected equally. Correct?

True, it would make things simpler and a good deal more "definite", but would certainly be less challenging, less realistic and less fun (,though certainly not at the moment I'm being victim of a wimpy unit).

Whenever such a situation occurs, I know its because I made a stupid decision and endeavor to be less stupid the next time. Fortunately with in a TW Campaign, there's always another battle to be fought and an opportunity to be less stupid.

Granted, it may take some folks awhile to realize its not the game that's stupid, but them. [Not meant as an insult.]

I'm sure many recall and some still suffer, the REBELLIONS ARE A BUG bug. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[ShaiHulud]

Nelson Damn, What a great post you made It's everything I THOUGHT I was saying, but more in depth and better stated. I may be getting old...damn

[Nelson]

We are old, Shai

I must have been having a rare "junior" moment when I wrote that post. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif