Out of frustration

[Old Bald Guy]

Sorry, CA, but I'm not going to spend more money on your expansion pack. You did a great job with Medieval:Total War, perhaps so good it's frustrated me. The game is so close to perfect, I want to play it and play it and play it.

However, because of a few things that are NOT right, I'm finding less incentive to play it over and over.

Diplomacy--there's really not any.

1. After a point and far too early, AI factions will not accept cease fires, alliances, or trade.

2. The agent units are not worth the effort of keeping up with them. Who needs them? Most times, one is forced to blast the enemy, anyway.

Economy--only one way to play

You set up sea trade. Or go broke. If a player limits himself, the game is more interesting. It would be even more interesting if there were more than one way to make money. Internal trade? Vassal fiefdoms? Alliances for sale? Make war, make big money abroad

Great Achievements deteriorate into conquest--

GA makes the game better, as you can win the game without killing all your neighbors. But as the game is now, you know you can only score enough points by kicking butt. Yeah, great achievement, but we've already got that in global conquest.

Only one basic strategy--poor AI

Unless the player puts artificial limits on himself, there is only one way to play--setup long trade routes, build huge armies, roll over the opponent. I've yet to see the late period because the campaign is OVER before the period. Something simply isn't right here.

According to the recently posted inteview about VI, it's essentially done, only being polished. IMHO, MTW was NOT polished. The one and only patch improved the game, but certainly didn't finish it.

How much support can we expect for VI? More than we've gotten for MTW? And, when RomeTW comes out, will we make suggestions, only to be told there's an expansion pack coming which will address them, but you'll need more money from us?

Sorry, CA, but you've got to support us to the extent we've supported you.

A frustrated and ultimately disappointed customer.

[Praylak]

Besides half of your points being either invalid or outright incorrect, I do support your idea of a making this war game and even better war game. It's obvious though, we'll have to pay for the improvements set to come.

[Knight_Yellow]

and what do u think we need to know this for http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

do u whant a bluepeter badge or sumthing?

if i dont like a game ie. age of mythology i dont post to microsoft saying why i wont buy another 1, i just dont buy another one.

[Leet Eriksson]

just out of frustration i will be buying Viking Invasion just for the hell of conquering england with norsk speaking,wolf-skin clad,half naked vikings or housecarls http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

EDIT:one helluva typo....

[Knight_Yellow]

ditto im buying it for the scotts and picts.

of course i play mp more than sp so it will depend on how many people will play VI era over the net.

[Lehesu]

Jeez I think that this game, being as close to real strategy as any, is imperfect but still loads better than any other strat. If one wants to get nit-pickety about it, that's fine. But there is no point of reference to compare Medieval to as no other game has approached Medieval's style (Don't cop out and use Shogun.) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

[Satyr]

Obviously he doesn't understand how to build an economy. Try some farming, build mines. Heck, raid some. But don't tell me that trade is the only way to win. How do you propose to play the end game when there is no one to trade with? Build those farms old f@rt. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[Knight_Yellow]

its wierd sum ppl buy this to act all friendly and make virtual money, sorrey m8 thats the sims u whant.

i buy it to have the opportunity to decide the fate of whole civilizations, this usualy involves killing them all.

[CBR]

Oh Ill buy it...raping and pillaging Scots...priceless http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

CBR

[Knight_Yellow]

ha ha ha notice how a frenchman wouldve said he was insulted.

thats a goodun *prepare to die* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

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

[USMCNJ]

How can you not buy it. The expansion itself will only cost like $30.00. Now think about this. That's a whole new campaign, and i would say atleast 100 hours of replay value.(i've been speding like 10 hours every week since sept 21, that's pretty sad, but it's true). Now if you buy any other game you will put out like $50.00, and probably finish the game in 8 hours, and play 4-5 times more in your lifetime.

Still not convinced think about this way, what else can you buy for $30.00? You can go to a club put $10 - $20 just to get in, and then buy like 2-5 drinks. Or you can take your $30.00 and buy food from the dollor menu, and it will only feed you for a couple days. So why are people making a big deal over $30.00?

[ichi]

OBG:

I think that it is great that you have made a decision not to buy VI. It is well known that CA/Activision puts little emphasis on support for their games, and I may follow you in your revolt against that policy. It is not enough to simply just 'not buy' the next version/edition/expansion, 'cause for a good feedback to occur info must flow.

I'm here cause I'm addicted to this game, and I think MTW (and STW) is one of the best, if not the best, game package ever. But a little support from the developer should be standard, and by incorporating input from users into the game the game can become EVEN BETTER. You caught a lot sht here but by raising your voice you have contributed.

I will not hold my breath for giant, immediate change, but . . .

RFJ (real fine job)

ichi

[Lord Romulous]

can i say that while I agree that there should have been
another patch to fix the tech problems that a portion of the mtw players are experiencing and the features that dont work properly, I think you before you announce that CA support is poor you should consider the individual devlopers who have devoteded a great deal of their time to these forums to help players add insight into the total war series.

guys like, giljaysmith,longjohn,eatcoldsteel etc have gone well beyond the call of duty to provide support for the totalwar series.

so my belief is that the support from the CA dev team has been excellent.

CA managment and Activision should have allocated more money for patches and i hope that they will take this into consideration for VI and RTW.

old bald guy
most of the gripes you have are nothing to do with patches or support but are just your wishlist of extra features you would like the game to have. these would no doubt have been incorporated in the game if they had had enough money do it.

basicly what you complaining about is that mtw is not the most perfect game that could ever be devised and does not have all features tweaked to their absloute maximun to create a god like experience. hate to break it to you but their is no such thing as a perfect game.

it is your prerogitive to not like the game or think it could have preformed better in certain aspects but these are not support issues but rather just that you would like the game to have done a better job of implementing the features and to have added more features.

you cant expect a game to include everything under the sun.
the way it works is that they advance the game and the features as much as financialy possible in each game version of the total war series. if there is enough interest then they produce the next game in the series which again adds more features.

[A.Saturnus]

For me it is simple:

I payed less than 50€ for this game. How many hours did I play it? 200, 300? I guess more. I`m not about to stop. And I enjoyed at least 90% of that time. That makes MTW one of the best financial investments of my life. Is it perfect? Thank god no, I guess I had already forgotten the rest of my life if it were. Was there support? Yes I think so. Devs show up here a lot of times and the patch did address the worst bug, the CTD. I have played worse games with worse support and still thought them worth their money. So I`m a pleased customer and I expect to be more pleased of VI. And that`s why I`ll buy it for sure.

[Knight_Yellow]

heres a fought when did the first proper patches come around?

maybe 4-5 years at the most.

so why is it that we expect games company's to give us patches?

maybe the youth ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ) of today are just spoiled little brats.

in my opinion medieval total war is definatley in my top 3 games ever and the fact that the addon gives me a whole new map and whole new civilisations (including my ancestors) makes me feel better.

[Juan Madsen]

In my opinion this is one of the very best strategy games and warfare simulation software that has been develop since the invention of the computer. At least for the general public.

It has defects and many points can be improved (diplomacy and naval concepts particullarly) but above all this the saga is improving over time, is adding more features, more units, more possibilities... and with a continuous support from ourselves, the customer base, we will most probably be surprised of what we will be given in few years time.

Compared with other things in the market this game is favolous.

PD.- I hate RTS games. MTW has found a very interesting way in my opinion of combining the stress of real time actions with the slow pace of taking strategic decisions. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[Praylak]

Yes, you guys defienetly got a point there. I mean whats out there that could possibly even remotely compare?

[Orda Khan]

I don't think flaming a person for airing his opinion is what these forms were intended for. If you don't agree with what has been said then put forward your argument but don't start name-calling, please.

I happen to love this game, though I too have been told to 'get back to Shogun' simply because I have posted some frustrations. At least this post was legible, which is more than can be said for many.

It is true that MTW was and still is far from perfect and it would seem a lot like it that way. Personally I prefer to get what I paid for. PC games are no different from any other merchandise in as much as they fit a 'trades description' When the final product does not meet this description is when the manufacturers are ripping us off. They will carry on doing this unless people take action and as already pointed out, this can be by not purchasing more or by posting about it.

Let's not kid ourselves eh? There many issues in this game that can drive one to despair, you only have to read the posts. If you want to disagree then by all means do so but is calling someone a 'boring old f@rt' a mature, constructive response?

In my experience, sitting back and taking what you are given means you will continue to receive the same service. It's probably the case that a lot of people love this game so much that they complain about bugs etc. When I consider the amount of copies sold World wide I would expect to find more than the hundred or so in the MP foyer, regardless of the 'small percentage of the game' argument.

Back on topic, I think there are ways other than trade to boost annual income, stealing nice rich provinces is probably the most satisfying

..........Orda

[Apeboy]

Orda,

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

Chances are I will pick up VI. There are very few games for us to choose from when it comes to this genre. Unfortunately I think this fact is sometimes too well known to those who produce these games. Some of the tweaks that would enhance the gameplay are many times topics of interpretation and the perogative of the developer on how they wish to implement them. On those topics any change is icing on the cake. Best example here is the heavy reliance on rebellions towards the latter part of the game to make up for dismal AI performance early on.

The kicker to many on this board is the game killing bugs that have yet to be addressed. I hope some, if not all will be fixed in VI. Namely the poor crusade tracking which still plagues a campaign even after the patch. My latest stopper was a Spanish crusade bouncing back and forth between Aragon and Algeria. The crusade would sail across the Med to Algeria only to bounce back to Aragon after ending the year. They finally rerouted north, back through my French held provinces then down the Iberian penninsula and into northern Africa. This process took at least 15 years, siphoning troops off nearly a dozen times rather than once. The continual ignorance of AI nations, ie the Spanish declaring a crusade to Muscovy, loading it up with resources while the Elmoheads are tearing into them in the south. On top of that they declare war on me(the French). GA is one of the more frequent mentioned gripes as well. We all have horror stories of spending hours of gameplay only to find out it's all for nought. The examples I just used came from my last campiagn, not drawn from several.

One can't help but to wonder if the game was tested from stem to stern prior to release. Many of these bugs were apparent in my very first campaign. If the game was throughly tested and bugs were known why did it take so long for some fixes?

-Apeboy

[Old Bald Guy]

Hey, no problem. I've been around these places long enough to have developed a thick skin. And it sure beats the USENET--which many of my detractors need to visit to hone their skills. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I like the game...LOVE the game. If I didn't, I'd just go forth to the next game, knowing I got my money's worth. Next to Civ2/3, Half Life, and others in a very small group, MTW has given hours of pleasure. That was not the point of my whining.

This is is oh so close. If they took all of the suggestions that have been given on these boards and simply improved what we've already got, I'd buy it in a NY minute. I don't need a new campaign to keep my interest. I don't need new units. Unlike so many who chimed in, I didn't grow up with an MTV attention span. I don't need new, but I would like better. Perfection? Heck, this puppy is so close to being the game you'd take to a deserted island that it deserves to be improved. (Aside: I KNOW how to get every florin out of the economy. It's the first thing I do.) The point is, there should be more than ONE strategy to win the game. This isn't Red Alert, fahcryin'outloud.

VI, is it going to be an improved MTW or a new game with the same frustrations? I'm afraid it will be the latter. If you just want to kill people, there are shelves filled with them. But if you want something special, why should one be blamed for asking for it?

I mean no offense to the generous CA programmers who have given their time at the Org. I appreciate the work they've done. If that isn't obvious, put down the mouse and take a course in remedial reading. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

[Gaius Julius]

It's too bad you feel this way.
Yes; M:TW does have some warts, but it's still a great game.
You list some of the shortcomings you feel it has.
Remember, that some sacrifices had to be made in the interests of gameplay.
I don't know if there will ever be the "perfect" game.
It would seem that the AI, is the chief concern you have about M:TW.
I would suggest; that you try MP, playing another human being should be a greater challenge.
Finally, if no one buys the games/exp.paks, then the developers simply will stop making them.
Hope that's food for some thought. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Praylak]

This discussion has brought about an interesting question though. What would M:TW fans want the most out of CA's future efforts... refinement of what we got,... or new stuff..?

Is it possible and realistic to believe we can get both in one shot?

The concept of Rome:TW is like a distant dream, so just consider the expansion.

[Nelson]

Old Bald Guy (which would be a good sig for me, BTW), I feel your pain. Your first point is a good one. The AI does stop diplomacy once and for all at some point, often senselessly so. Hold all of Europe but England and King Churchill won’t even talk about a cease fire let alone marry your daughter and join the family.

As for your second point concerning agents, well, they can be very useful if you choose to make them so. If they’re too much bother they can be ignored. One can regret that diplomacy is the way it is, of course, but it is unlikely the designers would revisit such fundamental aspects of the game in the guise of support. At this stage of Total War’s evolution, this is where CA found itself.

AI is not ready for prime time where avid and frequent players are concerned. This is a challenge no game has yet overcome. No amount of post publication support can do it. Only a prolonged AI development effort designed to run on very capable machines will have a chance to match a strong player and then the sales figures will need to exceed those already attainable in order to justify the expense such an undertaking would incur. We can only hope that someday this will happen and that we won’t need a supercomputer to enjoy it.

[NateEngle]

> This discussion has brought about an interesting question though. What would M:TW fans want the most out of CA's future efforts... refinement of what we got,... or new stuff..?

In a word, yes.

> Is it possible and realistic to believe we can get both in one shot?

Personally I think both are possible, although as a nod to OldBaldGuy I'd also note that it should be realistic for players to expect patches of things that are obviously broken. The victory points tally for MTW Glorious Achievements seems to be something that's demonstrably broken (and probably easily repeatable with the source code pulled into a debugger) so that's one I wouldn't mind seeing fixed in a patch someday, but if not then I guess that's Ok too. If worst comes to worst I can track my correct score with pen&paper, and I know when the clock runs out who the real winner was.

As far as VI is concerned, when it comes out I know I'll be a customer, and not just as an employment subsidy for CA programmers. As a table-top miniatures gamer from way back (since playing Jack Scruby's Grand Army in 1976) I find the TW visual effects pretty incredible. Often I'll pause the action and zoom the camera down to ground level in the middle of a melee just to admire all the details it takes into account. From my standpoint this is just table top miniatures gaming with a decent strategic campaign on the side, and you guys paint all the figures. How can I lose?

> The concept of Rome:TW is like a distant dream, so just consider the expansion.

All I ask is that you give it your best shot on the first release, but try to hold back enough of a reserve to fix the most-glaring of the inevitable brain farts. Clearly putting parameters in text files allows for extensive post-production mods (with entirely volunteer labor), so in some ways those aspects of an expansion pack can be assumed as an "exercise for the reader". That just leaves fine-tuning the AI and the game engine (and running polls to see what eras customers want to see next). Personally I'm already looking forward to Victorian Era:TW and Elphinstone's retreat from Kabul...

[Orda Khan]

Quote[/b] (Apeboy @ Mar. 04 2003,11:35)]Orda,

Stop making sense. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Lol. Thanks Apeboy, that's a first http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

......Orda

[Galestrum]

*agrees with orda*

If someone buys a game they have every right to complain till the cows come home, and while this game is better than most and overrall a great game, it does have several glaring deficienicies which hamper this game alot.

Merely because a game is very good, does not mean it cant have been better.

[cugel]

I totally agree with everything Old Bald Guy said . . . except that I'm going to be getting VI. There will be enough added gameplay to make it well worth it, even if you don't play the Viking campaign very much (just like with Shogun: MI).

His points are totally valid and no-one seems to have made any real effort to address them rather than simply flaming him for expressing his opinion.

1. Diplomacy IS broken. That's just a fact. You can't trade or form alliances or agree to cease-fires with anyone after the first few years, no matter how beneficial it would be to the AI. Don't tell me you haven't thought how absurd it is when a faction attacks you, you clean it's clock, reduce it down to a few or 1 province that's about to go under and you offer a cease-fire - and the AI refuses, etc.? I've completely given up using diplomacy after the first decade in any campaign. There's just no point. The AI will agree to nothing so why bother? The agents just take up space and become more of an annoyance than a help. I take the position that if a feature is included in a game it ought to work at least reasonably well.

2. The AI performance is quite poor in some basic ways. I'm not talking about perfection or spending unrealistic amounts of time honing the AI, but simple programming techniques that weren't used creating quite unnecessary problems. This indicates a lack of consistent effort. For example, AI trade is broken (CA has announced they're going to fix it for VI (hurray&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif but why was the game released in this way in the first place and why was this not fixed in the patch?) As an example, CA programmed the requirement that to build a trade network you have to have a chain of ships, but the AI doesn't do it (we modders in the Dungeon have spent literally hundreds of hours collectively trying to fix this problem - with some success, but why should we have to work around issues that should have been fixed before the game shipped)? There are programming glitches such as the fact that the Byzantine AI doesn't keep a ship in the Marmara and the Italians don't keep a ship in the Adriatic (no matter how many they have) so that trade from Constantinople and Venice respectively are cut off. Read the MedMod v.1.7 thread in the Dungeon for Wes W's comments about some of the more obvious programming glitches and about the extensive efforts being made to mod work arounds to fix them (such as AI failure to do a simple check to see if there are enough troops to defend a province AFTER the AI has moved troops out of it to attack another - result, another faction moves an army into the vacated province - the AI factions trade provinces around like poker chips and the buildings progressively are destroyed). After a century or so the player's is the only faction with advanced buildings. Game, set, match Again, hopefully this will be fixed for VI, but again this was a simple and obvious problem from the first. Why wasn't this observed and fixed in playtesting? Or in the patch? Or in response to comments from players on the boards? All it would take is a few simple changes to the code.

Naval war is another feature that doesn't work right. Don't tell me you haven't noticed the ridiculous lack of sense of the naval AI? How it doesn't calculate the overall naval strength of it's opponent before attacking or consider the effects on its trade or whether it will be starting an unwinnable land war, but just tries to get a local advantage in 1 sea zone, then sinks your ship starting a disastrous (for it) naval war? A war that cuts off it's trade, sometimes isolates it's king so that rebellions break out all over it's provinces (game over for that faction). Again, hopefully the naval AI will be fixed in time for VI, but this was also a basic feature that should have been addressed in the patch at least.

In MP, I hear, they've been waiting since Shogun for certain issues to be addressed.

This game missed being a classic all-time greatest game by such a little margin that it's very frustrating. Especially when you see that simple changes could fix a majority of the problems, but there's no new patch and we have to wait and buy TW:Rome before many obvious things are addressed (like the broken GA). A little product support after the game ships would go a long way. I can't believe that it would take that many man hours to fix the obvious shortcomings.

[Galestrum]

cugel well said

[Knight_Yellow]

simply put im gonna buy it.

but i dont agree with the intent of this post.

[Praylak]

I think the problem here was in the exaggerated form OBG used in describing the game’s faults. (IE : “You set up sea trade, or go broke” which is just not true.) There’s allot of die hard patriots here, and that could have been perceived as offensive on what many consider to be the best effort made to date for the genre.

Lord Romulous made some good points, and I believe one day we’re going to get everything we expect in the game without the flaws. Looking back at the original Shogun compared to now, I think CA is on track and will eventually deliver our final addiction. I hope it’s R:TW, but I’m not banking on it yet.

As we continue to purchase their products, flaws included (it’s a human thing btw), they will continue to evolve this game series. We can communicate to them the error of their ways, and they’ll take note and fix things when they can. They have acknowledged the trade issue, and it’s going to get fixed. Unfortunately that wasn’t in the initial budget, so we’ll have to pay for it. But in return they’ll complement us with some extra goods. It’s a fair compromise I think. You have to remember, I’ve experienced every game developer out there for the past tens years. Were not dealing with D Smart or Microshaft here. CA loves their games, they want to make the best of it, and deliver to us the experience no one else can seem to do. Now get out yer wallets. LoL.

My point is, how is it beneficial to the game and the community, by stating he will not purchase the expansion for the said reasons?

[YunDog]

cugel,

I agree totally with all your well though and accurate evidence for MTW being near enough but not quite what it had the potential to be. And theres the rub for most of us - as we know from history CA wont be patching or fixing any of these issues in MTW or VI for that matter. So whats the motivation to point out the obvious floors that left the game unfinished. I think its that people realise the developer now has moved on to RTW and there is a certain amount of frustration attached to loving MTW and knowing how great a game it could be with a few small changes to the programming - ones that would be relatively simple to make yet would re-envigor the game to the community and have myself and I suggest many more playing MTW for the next years. With the fixes you suggest MTW could be an ausome and very replayable game but the developer is saying goodbye to MTW and saying we should too - but we the community dont want to say goodbye to MTW - not until we have it working the way we want it to.

So whats the solution - there is only one

The developer must release the game code so that the community can finish what they could not - and we must put pressure on them to do so ceaselessly.

[A.Saturnus]

Quote[/b] ]
His points are totally valid and no-one seems to have made any real effort to address them rather than simply flaming him for expressing his opinion.


Flaming someone for his opinion is of course bad. I also agree with most points. Yes, diplomacy is broken. GA is broken. Some other things too. But I don`t agree with the conclusion not to buy VI out of "protest". If people stop buying good games because they have flaws (the games, not necessary the people http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ), will the industry make good games without flaws then? No, but bad games that have the same flaws but are simply easier to sell. Maybe some of you have realized that good games are not necessarily the best selling ones. It`s easier to throw just another C&C or Counterstrike clone out. Even if you provide no support at all, enough guys will probably buy it. Making a game that`s something different, that explores a new genre, is much more risky. And CA is a small company, if they make one game that`s a flop, it`s probably over. A company like Blizzard can easily test its products till the last bug, because they know it will be top-seller anyway. But CA are on a slippery slope each time (maybe less with Rome, cause of its graphics), and I definitely appreciate their risc and see it as my damn duty to buy VI


...6...

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Mar. 05 2003,07:58)]
A. Saturnus,

I could'nt agree more.

Just my twopence -

CA take a bit of stick at times and many of us have a good whinge - ok, were all human. However, CA have shown the "Gaming world" how to really produce wargames and have generated a very loyal following in the process.

As for and see it as my damn duty to buy VI I'm not too sure about the 'duty' bit ... but there's little doubt that VI will, IMHO, be a class add-on and looks to be providing something for everyone.

Anyone who has purchased MTW (and maybe STW/MI) and still believes CA's add-ons may not be worth the price of 3 cinema tickets is burying their head in the sand

[Old Bald Guy]

I suppose there's no reason to continue. I can certainly understand the reasons many have given for buying VI. CA has earned it. It's a damn good game. VI may address many of my issues. (Thanks to those who agree there are issues.) Perhaps they'll make it much better. All I've been saying is, I don't expect VI to be finished, either. Someone needs to stand up and say the emperor isn't fully dressed. On a different map, he'd still be unclothed. If VI is different, yet the same, I don't need it. If I can play MTW and the problems are fixed, I'll get it the second day. Got it, now? Just drawing a line, ya know?

I'm not disagreeing with anyone who has posted in this thread, and thanks to all for giving their dos centavos. Everyone has valid points. (Ok, maybe one guy didn't, but it's a free speech thing.) You all stated good cases, and pointed out I could be wrong thinking. (I still think the economic part is broken...three trade goods which can't be traded except locally???) But, I'm pretty confident that if I and others say what we expect of further CA efforts, they may listen, knowing they may not sell as many copies as they might have. It's worth a shot, isn't it?

CA can be like others who put out new games and expect to keep their customers, or they can show that they really are different. It's their choice, and mine. What's so hard about that? I don't expect support, I just don't buy the next one if it's not forthcoming. But don't urinate in my ear and tell me it's raining. One patch is NOT good support, esp when it's been acknowledged that some of our complaints are valid. Check out Half Life. The total patches have become an 84 mb file Now that's supporting your game to a ridiculous extreme. And not near the replay value of MTW. If VI is supported the same as MTW, then I'll stick to what I already have. Rome TW may blow me away, but will it be fixed when people find flaws that keep it from being Game of the Year? So far, I'd have to say the evidence is it won't.

Sorry if you see it different, but different horses for courses.

OBG

ps--Praylak, I too lived through Battle Cruiser. Oh my LOL The all-time best flame fest. Derek Smart, PHD. HAHAHAHA