PDA

View Full Version : Creative Assembly Are you happy with the current version of the game



Harald Den BlåToth
11-19-2002, 09:45
Does anybody know if Activision is planing to upgrade this version of MTW?
Do you think that our opinion does matter?
Do you wish a more historical veridic version of MTW?
Despite the woderfull idea of the game, there are a lot of things to be added....Diplomacy for example...Treaties, comercial pacts...factions...
Is there something to be done? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

solypsist
11-19-2002, 09:59
I like the game as is.
If you prefer something different, see the Dungeon forum for modifications.

einar
11-19-2002, 10:49
Quote[/b] ]Posted on Nov. 19 2002,02:59 by solypsist
I like the game as is.
If you prefer something different, see the Dungeon forum for modifications.

Yes, but there are some bugs that must be corrected. Another patch is necessary http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

sapphoo
11-19-2002, 15:34
+++Despite the woderfull idea of the game, there are a lot of things to be added....Diplomacy for example...Treaties, comercial pacts...factions...+++

there are already factions in the game you silly man

Prodigal
11-19-2002, 15:41
I like it as is, haven't played anything else since I got it, but as Sapphoo says there's lot that could be added; don't know if treaties would be top of my list, unless those option allowed for things such as allied passage of troops, calling for aid when invaded or likely to be...

KukriKhan
11-19-2002, 15:46
Go easy on the silly man - type references, sapphoo; not every new patron is accustomed to our 'kidding' ways yet, OK? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I think Harald Den BlåToth was referring to having additional playable factions, like the Irish, etc. Indeed, as Soly points out, the guys in the Dungeon have done tons of work on that. And if Creative Assembly follows their usual pattern, an add-on pack will likely appear in 6-7 months, with additional factions.

Welcome to the Org Harald Den BlåToth http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Harald Den BlåToth
11-19-2002, 17:34
Thanks for welcoming me KukriKhan
I'm playing the game more as an history addict than for fun or lack of anything better to do...
In my dreams, wich might not be too comercial,i would like to play a historical sym, if i may call it this way, a game in wich you start from the historical reality...
To do such a thing, first...you need more factions...playable factions....with their own interests...factions you might want to have under you protective sword, or you might conquer...with more or less risks for your future...
I don't know if it makes any sense...there are lots of variables...and i understand it might be quite difficult to build such an AI...
Let's think from the historical point of view...medieval times weren't that bloody as this game is showing...There were interests...interests that mattered in war and peace...interests that gave birth to traditional alliances....there were comercial pacts....how could you fight when you don't have with what to fight?...
For example..I played once with the Danes...and after a time , I've awakened with the almohads in Saxonia...
It's ridicule... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Gregoshi
11-19-2002, 18:46
Harald (welcome, BTW), MTW diplomacy and other strategic features are a quantum leap from the overly simple STW version. You've got some interesting suggestions, but they may have to wait for next installment or two of the Total War series. From comments CA staff has made here, a true historical sim would make the game harder and really narrow the audience, and thus the money to be made. It would be really cool and challenging to be confronted with the same real problems of the different factions.

To add to your list of like to sees, I'd like to see populations (human & horse) figure into unit training. Peasants and other lowly units are only utilized early in the game when you are poor. Once you get wealthy, your armies turn into hordes of high quality infantry and cav. But could a population really support so many quality units? By support I mean have enough people of quality to train all the units that get built during a game. As a purely fictional example and in the game terms, in a ten year period, Saxsony is only allowed to produce a maximum number of units from each category: 1 heavy cav, 1 light cav, 0 horse archers, 1 heavy infantry, 1 medium infantry, 2 spearmen, 0 skirmishers, 2 missiles and 10 peasants. If 2 spearmen are built back to back in Saxony, then the manpower pool for spearmen there has been drained for 10 years. Some provinces may be so sparsely populated that they would not be able to produce a new unit every year.

Something like the above would have army compositions closer to reality with lower quality units playing a bigger role. It would drastically increase the value of higher tech/quality units on the battlefield. And it would also lead to periods of peace as prolonged fighting would bleed off the population. You'd have to wait on replenishing the manpower pool to rebuild your army before attacking again.

Sorry, I'm rambling. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif You may unglaze your eyes now.

Hosakawa Tito
11-19-2002, 19:08
I like your ideas Harold and Gregoshi as I'm interested in history myself. And to carry your idea further Greg, a province's agricultural and commodities output should also be tied into that support of the army. You take away too much manpower to use as warriors, you have less workers back home to support them, productivity should go down. As the game is now, you have increased support costs for larger armies, but your productivity is not impacted from drawing too much manpower from the population.

Gregoshi
11-19-2002, 19:18
Excellent thought Hosakawa.

Stuff like this would give real reasons to fight/not fight. I just don't like thinking It is time to spice up this game. Hmmm, but who to attack? How about Italy....

Harald Den BlåToth
11-19-2002, 19:33
Well, Gregoshi, I must confess that I haven't thought that far as you did...but your ideas would increase the realism of the game near reality...True...more wariors>>less workers...small population+ lack of resources>>>an decreased overall income and military production capacity...
It's very true, that the specialized units, more than the annoying fact that they are ubiquitary, do not make a difference...In my experience with this game...the only unit that has really impressed me was the longbowmen...
Seems to me... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif , there's a lot of work to do for this litle pearl called medieval total war to become a diamond... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ...hope our waiting won't be in vain... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

LadyAnn
11-19-2002, 20:31
Of course I am not satisfied with the game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif (keep producing great game CA).

I want to hear the counsel of the generals as they prepare battle plan the night before;

I want to hear the general talk to their troops when they assemble for battle;

I want to hear the thunderous rally when the soldiers are ready to die;

I want to hear the stillness of the air, as the defender stand the ground watching the attackers advance, only the flapping of the banners and flags could be heard, and their hearts beating like drums;

I want to hear the cavalry gallop, making the ground tremble;

I want to hear the infantry yell in unison when they charge;

I want to see dust kicked up by the horses and men, smokes from markers the defenders setup;

I want to see banner fly in the direction of the wind, indicating how effective are the archers;

I want to see the archers fire markers first to mark their range (fire arrows);

I want to hear drum beats, bagpipe playing (scotts), trumpet sounding, gong (chinese/japanese), firecrackers (chinese/japanese),...

I want to hear the shock of armour bodies, the clanging of weapons, the cry, yell (begging?) of men, the horses neigh.

I want to see river of blood, mountain of cadavers (although it is fine as it is right now, good job CA);

And these are only the battlefield aspect.

However, achieving such would not only be difficult, it may even make the game unplayable. It is only a game...

On the economic/diplomatic front, this is only a very simplistic model. Kings and Dukes spent their whole life manageing their domains, 24/7. We spent a few hours a day, a couple of weeks to cover 150 years.

Anyways, I am digressing here again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.

Annie

Hosakawa Tito
11-19-2002, 20:42
This also ties in, historically speaking, as to the preferred time of year for making war. Winter campaigns were very tough to sustain, because foraging for supplies in the dead of winter wouldn't yield much. In the fall during harvest time many conscripted farmers would demand to go home to harvest their crops, or they would just desert the army. I think these logistic problems really prove the point that most medieval armies were quite small, and the campaigns that involved large numbers of troops were almost impossible to sustain for long.

Vlad The Impaler
11-19-2002, 22:30
wellcome Harald my friend http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif glad to see ya here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

Lady Ann u should write a novel http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

here's my 2 florin opinion; M:TW is really great but can be improved with not too much work;
for example there are provinces that didnt show up in the game or from two significant provinces are made a single one
why not be in the game provinces as : Carinthia , Bosnia , Montenegro , Albania , Thessalia , Epir , Halici , Wolhnya (2 provinces from one ) Moravia , Vojevodina , Styria ? and i sure there are a lot more forgotten ;that should add depth to the game..
Then..my opinion is that we should have seasonal turns ; c'mon if u have guts why not attack in the winter? could be an simple raid ...but this cand bring u money; for example , in romanian history , many times small groups of light cavalrymen pass the Danube on the ice and ride the otoman settlments from Bulgaria; and i dont think that kinda raid is isolated in history;

than the factions;Lithuania should be there at least in one of the periods; Burgundy the same; Scotland the same and u could do 2 provinces Lowland and Highland for example;

i think is possible to do a lot of chages with little work and my guess is that will appear patches or new editions of the game as were Warlord Edition and Mongol Invasion in STW , adding depth to the game; and why not more historical accuracy ( as much as a game could handle being fun and playable )

Gregoshi
11-19-2002, 22:59
Lady Ann, you had me. I was ready to charge gloriously into battle...until you started talking about rivers of blood. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

You do have a point in that where do you stop adding realism? I like history but I'm not into it enough to be bothered by inaccuracies in MTW units. I like some of the realism suggestions for two reasons:

1) as a player you, just like your historical counterparts, have more reasons for starting or ending a war, or at least influence your decision. There aren't enough consequences for starting a war, though MTW was a giant leap in the right direction.

2) worthless units aren't worthless when that is all you have. As long as you have the florin, you can buy as much of any type of unit as you want. Not very realistic. Anthony and the rest of the villagers will never have what it takes to be Teutonic Knights, so you'd better train them as peasants...we won't even talk about dozen broken down nags they call horses. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Point #2 is also my biggest gripe with MP. There are great debates about which units are worth the florin when buying your army. When there is an unlimited number of all units types and it is only a matter of spending the florin, the many units are worthless for online play. But what if your choices were somewhat limited? I don't have a lot of online experience with MTW but I'd like to see a lot more of those 100 different units used than are currently used.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif Er, there I go again. Rambling. Sorry.

LadyAnn
11-19-2002, 23:02
Quote[/b] (Vlad The Impaler @ Nov. 19 2002,22:30)]
Lady Ann u should write a novel http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

That could be the inspiration I was looking for. Time is on my side.

Annie

einar
11-20-2002, 10:42
Quote[/b] ]Posted on Nov. 19 2002,10:34 by Harald Den BlåToth
Let's think from the historical point of view...medieval times weren't that bloody as this game is showing...There were interests...interests that mattered in war and peace...interests that gave birth to traditional alliances....there were comercial pacts....how could you fight when you don't have with what to fight?...
For example..I played once with the Danes...and after a time , I've awakened with the almohads in Saxonia...
It's ridicule...
Well, i think you're right Harald Den BlåToth. The game isn't diplomatic or historical accurate. The game is a simulation of tactical battles. The game has a strategy part, too, but i think the strategy part is less complex than the tactical part of the game. The tactical battles are superlative, the strategy part is average. If you want a pure strategy game i recomend you Europa Universalis 2 or Hearts of Iron. That's my opinion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

rasoforos
11-20-2002, 15:49
At first i would like to support Vlad's oppinion that more historical provinces should exist. Especially during the early years all the major battles and the places where conflicts of interest occured were to the east.i belive the 'themata' (provinces) in asia minor should be more ,perhaps the addition of kappadokia, moreover Greece should be divided in two as it was after 1204 to simulate better the fights between the italian city states to establish bases there and the factions that were created after Constantinople fell to the latins. This way the game will be more accurate and more enjoyable ( for gods sake britain has the same number of provinces with asia minor although asia minor was the center of the world and in britain they were just trying to form nations).

Moreover some elements i would like in the game : after i tottaly dominate Europe i would like to see some stats like the lineage of the emperors , how and at what age they died , my best generals and maps to show the progress of my empire say every 50 years. these changes dont offer much to the gameplay but they would add some spice to playability and historical accuracy.

Gregoshi
11-20-2002, 17:08
Welcome to the Org rasoforos.

How the land is divided up doesn't bother me. I figure it is one map that must be good enough to cover 400 years of changes. I think some of these things were most likely discussed and compromises made based on a number of factors.

I do like that history book type suggestion though. The game Alpha Centauri had both a summary of major milestones during the game and an animated map showing the ebb and flow of territory on the map for each faction. It would be a nice review of your accomplishments after the game is won or lost.

Vlad The Impaler
11-21-2002, 23:48
well rasaporus have a point; the british isles have the same number of provinces with Asia Minor and look on the map please..Asia Minor is a lot bigger than those islands;of course those isles were very important during the middle ages but also Asia Minor; i dare to say that Byz Empire or Ottomans have a bigger importance the the british kingdom ; also..Greece in one province? or Serbia? or Austria ? or Poland ? i think this is about gameplay in SP and can add depth to the game; if Medieval:TW is have an wonderful tactical game ( which i think is harder to make it work than the strategic part ) and an average strategical part; is it abnormal to wish an wonderful strategic part too?
just a thought

Gregoshi
11-22-2002, 00:34
Nothing wrong with that wish Vlad.

My only point was that without knowing how the decision was made to divide up the map it is hard to find fault (at least for me). I can think of a number of possible reasons why Asia Minor was chunked the way it was. What are the ramafications to dividing up the existing provinces into smaller chunks? Is it too tedious to conquer all those extra provinces? Does florin production get imbalanced (too high or too low) in those areas changed? I don't know. Maybe CA does and can comment on that (Gil?).

More does not necessarily mean better, but it sure is nice to think so, isn't it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Vlad The Impaler
11-22-2002, 01:57
well Gregoshi i think that from an historic vue the mediteraneean and black sea coast were more important economically speaking than the extrem west of europe ( england , spain ) or the extreme north; as far as i know till the black plague that was bring in Europe by the mongols that regions were more important; with whom the brithish islands can to commerce at that time? all rare stuff came form Asia on the well known roads; Marco Polo went to east, there was nthin to find in west at that time;
so for that reason i believe it highly unrealistic to make Asia Minor with so few provinces and Greece just one;
M:TW ends when a part of the world fall for good , the byz and with them the whole eastern presumed roman legacy; the western roman legacy was fallen long time ago ;
more provinces can add depth; lets take Bulgaria as example; u can split Bulgaria in 2 , 3 more realistic-with Dobrudja , but lets take two; Vidin and Tarnovo;why not? splitting the income ? c'mon the money were in east at that time; u said that u like history and i'm sure u know about the disgrace that a knight from west look at an merchant at that times ( of course were exceptions but the disgrace was the trend ) ;the money were in east; the big commercial towns of Italy look at east at that times; at least this is the way i see things ....gahhttp://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

can i say gah ?http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif:)

Hosakawa Tito
11-22-2002, 02:02
I think the problem with splitting some provinces into smaller ones is that it would be difficult to place game pieces on them when in the strategy map. I believe that is why the map is the way it is, just a practical solution.

KukriKhan
11-22-2002, 04:52
Agreed, Hosakawa Tito. And CA's historical consultants had to be scratching their heads, trying to come up with a what-if, playable map, that wouldn't get too much flak from history afficianado's, while appeasing gamers.

Tough compromise, that. IMHO, gotta give props to CA for deciding to use a 'reasonable facimile' of reality for our game. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

GameDesigner
11-22-2002, 05:19
Good games, and MTW is one, stay focused. Idealy they have a small set of areas that they put all these effort into. These are sometimes refered to as game axis' if you want to get fancy. In a game like Dead or Alive there is only one Axis'. If you attempt to have too many axis they your design and your game will be weaker. In MTW the axis is the tactical battles. The strategy game essentially exists to set up interesting conditions for these battles. All other aspects of Mideval society have been abstracted in order to support this. It makes for a nice tight design. It's easy to come up with endless wouldn't it be cool features, you can do this for any game. But at least one hurdle these potential features must face is what core game play will they enhance.

Gregoshi
11-22-2002, 05:40
I think Hosakawa has hit on a major reason.

Vlad, perhaps our differences fall into the historical accuracy vs playability. I'm looking at your suggestion from a playability standpoint. Without studying the map (The Asia Minor part of the map isn't familiar to me) and the resources/florin of the provinces, here are some general game play questions/comments I have:

1) By creating more provinces in Asia Minor via splitting, won't crusades arrive at their destination weaker because they will spend a longer time in non-Christian lands? Crusades have little choice in path, so it could be that crusades from Northern HRE have a shorter non-Christian path than from Western France, i.e., HRE can launch stronger crusades than France.

2a) Province A has 3 tradeable goods (very good trade income). If split historically into provinces B and C, province B has the 3 tradeable goods while province C has none (worthless).

2b) Province A has 2 tradeable goods (good for trade income). After the split, provinces B & C each have only 1 tradeable good. Neither is very good for trade income.

2c) Province A has 3 tradeable goods. After the split, provinces B & C both have 3 tradeable goods. The potential trade income in this area of the map has just doubled possibly unbalancing florin potential too far in favor of Asia Minor.

2d) Take the concept of 2a and apply it to special unit production and mines/minerals. The morale: the sum of the parts does not necessarily equal the whole.

3)More provinces means more units/agents tied up to garrions and prevent rebellion.

I'm sure there are many more issues I haven't even thought of. Vlad, I'm not saying that any of the above would be a problem, but simple changes to the map may have big consequences to game play. These are the kinds of things CA has to look at when making changes. The changes you want may be historical, but is the still game playable?

Sorry Vlad, I don't mean to rain on your parade. The programmer/analyst in me took over when I read your proposal. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif I'm sure I'll get over it in a day or two. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Good discussion though.

Hmmm, a question for the modders: can we edit the map and associated files to make the changes suggested here? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the strat map was not mod-able.

KukriKhan
11-22-2002, 05:59
Greetings, GameDesigner and welcome to our little Org http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

You wrote: .... In MTW the axis is the tactical battles. The strategy game essentially exists to set up interesting conditions for these battles. All other aspects of Mideval society have been abstracted in order to support this...

Not to jump too highly on the CA bandwagon, THAT'S what I most like about their games: the situation I'm handed (semi-sorta-historically correct), plus my decisions (your axis) strategically and tactically equal an excellent playing out of the consequences/solutions.

For example: What if the Vikings never went to sea? Stayed land-based like the rest of western Euro at the turn of the first millenium? Would they thrive? Dwindle? Even Survive? MTW plays that out over 400+ years. Fascinating to a history crack-pot such as I.

And on the Tac side: every option picked (type unit, upgrades, etc) assumes a what if principle (what if archers had more valor or armor in this particular battle; what am I willing to pay for?).

Just saying I agree with the thrust of your post, and enthusiastically welcome you to theOrg. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

But point out that it may be the 'other way 'round' in MTW: tactical may drive strategic.

Then again, I've had a few beers, so it may be all ballocks. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif (Note to self: resist the urge to type anything while under the influence) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

GameDesigner
11-22-2002, 06:18
Thanks for the welcome.

Sure, the tactical and stragic games act as positive feedback loops for each other. To be technical the strategy game could be refed to as a secondary axis'. One not core to the game design but that is a significant game play element. Actually the interplay between the two is what makes Total War so enjoyable for me. I've always liked the idea, although it's only been used effectivly a few times before. XCom did a great job although its funny that it had a real time strategy layer and a turnbasd tactical

Dijeeh
11-22-2002, 09:06
I downloaded the 1.1 patch 2 days before i got payed and went out to purchase the game I don't know what the boxed version plays like.

I do wish there was more diplomacy in the game, also a better Trade Interface would make it better to.

A patch to fix the Rebels army's often spawning 5000+ Men in a very tiny province is kind of a pain too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Harald Den BlåToth
11-22-2002, 11:18
Guys, I do not know stuff about programming...so, WILL THIS GAME GET BETTER FROM THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE?
Medieval times were not as tough as in the game...were not that easy as in the game...IT WAS REALLY HARD TO BE A KING...(i'm refering to GREAT KINGS...idiots were a lot too, but we all are trying to be great kings for our factions aren't we? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I'm trying to say that:
1. adding playable factions (moldavians, valachians, swedes, norweigians, scots)
2. dividing the turn into seasons and the possibility to choose the battle map when in defence (eventualy making your own plan for defence with staged nondecisive battles for harassing and weakening the enemy -this would require more battles for conquering a province and this would increase the realism of the game...I played with the germans in the late period and nobody could stop me...if this would have really happend the whole europe would speak german now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif -think at the relative stability of the borders in the western europe, think at the english possesions in France, wich were artificialy kept under control, the peasants and local barons still willing to live under the french crown despite the despotism and the cruel politics of the french kings towards them...It was really hard to conquer and keep in western europe...)
3. improving diplomacy by adding comercial treaties (wool workers from Flanders ran to England, and the english were happy to have them...it was the begining of the english wool guilds monopoly on the wool trade), a short description of the faction's interests, trying to drag the pope on your side, or simply to make him want you on his side...
4. limiting the producing of specialized units (wich are too many, and like averything that's in exces makes you throw out and not apreciatte them at their real value) and introducing some intermediary units of freemen called by the king to fight for their country units that should be the most effortable as price and number)
5. decrease in loyality proportionaly with the length of the campaign...or with your decision as a king to let or not your soldiers to rob the provinces you conquer...allowing you to start wars just for robbery or for conquering (in this last case you's prefer to keep the building already built by the predecessors than destroyingthem for the happyness of your soldiers).................................................................................
............................
These are some headlines for the ideal game I would like to play...
Is it possible?
If it is tehnicaly possible...will CA do it?

Harald Den BlåToth
11-22-2002, 11:25
Einar Are you finnish mate? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Vlad The Impaler
11-22-2002, 22:58
Gregoshi sorry if i look hazardaous in my post;
but i dont see why the tradable goods should remain the same ;for example in wallachia is no tradable good but in the real history salt and cooper mines exists there from XIII century ;also some provinces ( for example Moldavia ) can count as just port provinces.considering u are playin polish faction , and the northen provinces are taken by the more powerful HRE; in this situation Moldavia is very important for Poland as a port province;
my point is that tha tradable goods are not stuck in this position so therefore ur argument seems to me a little thin;
about gamplay ..yes u have a point; but lookin for a historical vue the crusades were little in number so i dont see why u can launch so many crusades; this can be smthin very hard to do and the score in the GA should be bigger; also if u make the crusade harder to lauch u can set some reward for an succesful crusade ; for example when u have a succesful crusade u can build Templars in your capital province ( Ile de France for France for example ) and use them as any other unit; the strategical part of the game seems to me a little easier to programm -i could be wrong but this is my amateur opinion , please correct me if i'm wrong .this is the reason for which i think that more provinces can add depth to the game;
as i know , in medieval times the land was very hard to conquer and harder to maintain position ;
Shogun was very accurate in this matter ( as provinces not as trade ) and why not Medieval go further and further ? i think is a normal evolution .its a great game and can be greater than what it is right now;

Haralf my friend :

1.about another playable factions..yes i think the same ;
2.seasonal turns was also one of my suggestion so i completly agree with u
3.also a very good ideea but i dont have any ideea how this can be implemented ;ur thoughts how this should work?
4.excelent point but i dont agree with u entirely; for example Spanish Jinetes shouldnt be build in limited numbers but ur suggestion could work for janissary or for mameluke(any kind of ); this option can make very valuable the option to retrain units
5.i think that the loiality decrease in the actual version if ur king is far away from ur heartland
about freemen called by the king..i think that they are represented in the game by the militia troops;is not at all accurate but..
thats all for now...

Vlad The Impaler
11-22-2002, 23:00
sorry Harald that i spell incorectly ur name in my last post http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

rpasell
11-22-2002, 23:21
I don't think this has been hit on in this thread yet, but I have seen it elsewhere.

I'd like to see the provinces broken down further. So when you go to conquer Poland, you don't get the whole province at once, but first you conquer a county or region of the province. It would certainly add to the game play. Also a rebeelion wouldn't take place in the whole province, but a particularly unhappy portion of the countryside. Certainly you would have to think a lot more about unti deployment, rather than throwing stacks up as a wall in a province with 1 or 2 borders.

Gregoshi
11-23-2002, 07:15
Vlad we dance nicely, no? LOL

I am not arguing against your proposal. I think CA, when designing the map, was looking for some form of balance across the map. That may explain why Wallachia does not have those salt & copper mines on the game map. Why else would they not put them there? Shoddy research? I hope not.

I recall from some of the discussion with the historical consultant for STW, they had to make concessions and compromises during the development of the game. I am certain similar compromises happened during the development of MTW. I'd love to have a panel discussion with Gil, eat cold steel, Target, Longjohn and others just to answer questions like why this?, what wasn't that included?, etc. It would help us understand why the game is the way it is and the issues they faced during the development. Oh, to be a fly on they wall during their development discussions http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

That's all for now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

Dijeeh
11-23-2002, 07:22
I guess the games title shows it's primary focus.

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

The game is obviously putting the war aspect ahead of the empire management.

Although. I really would have loved better diplomacy and trade http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

fodder
11-23-2002, 15:47
I would like to see historical campaigns which play as campaigns. A Hundred Years War campaign with the map restricted to northern France only, or controlling the Golden Horde on the strat map. This would add more meaning to the battles and micromanaging your units. It could also change the way units are trained - you could raise peasants straight away but would have to wait for noble reinforcements to arrive.

Harald Den BlåToth
11-23-2002, 16:48
- you could raise peasants straight away but would have to wait for noble reinforcements to arrive.
Good point fodder...
Hope that somebody from CA reads these opinions... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif, otherway we just dream with eyes wide open...doesn't look good on a king i guess
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Galestrum
11-23-2002, 18:23
Fact is there have been games in the past that are light years ahead of MTW in the empire management arena

Eu, mastor of orion, and several others. Orion was made like 5-6 years ago as i recall, wasnt obviously near as big on requirements, and surpasses MTW in every aspect of econmic, espionage, military, and diplomatic aspects of the game.

you can never convince me that it would be impossible to add the depth of empire managemnt that orion had to MTW.

I personally think that the reason MTW is not so in depth empire wise is not because they cant but simply because it never crossed their mind. they prby think of MTW as some clone of command and conquer, when if they developed the series to a nice hybrid of tactical and strat it would be a truly grounbreaking game for the ages.

a true hybrid would appeal to both the strat and rts genre fans

GilJaysmith
11-25-2002, 02:20
Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Nov. 21 2002,17:34)]My only point was that without knowing how the decision was made to divide up the map it is hard to find fault (at least for me). I can think of a number of possible reasons why Asia Minor was chunked the way it was. What are the ramafications to dividing up the existing provinces into smaller chunks? Is it too tedious to conquer all those extra provinces? Does florin production get imbalanced (too high or too low) in those areas changed? I don't know. Maybe CA does and can comment on that (Gil?).
I've no idea; I didn't work on the campaign side of things, except for some disinterested bugfixing.

I remember hearing of the campaign map being repartitioned a few times, but can't tell how or why.

Gil ~ CA

Shay
11-25-2002, 09:53
Many Things are lacking or wrong with the game that are detracting from my experiance with it.
Which in turn forces me to use far more imagination than I would like.
The Big Diplomacy is a joke and very very detracting
and the navy is one of the others why, cant i have more in trading there is not near enough experiance, im not talking about making the game medievil total trader or anything but maybe a few more options a little bit better feed back in game ? and oh my god all those bad v and vs for my kings and princess lol but seriously you want me to get an expac for it when im not satisfied from the first. Fix the first and ill get the next , im on bf1942 now trust me you dont have long to fix it too even have a chance to keep me interested enough in order to buy your expac.

Gregoshi
11-25-2002, 15:12
Hello Shay and welcome to the Org.

It seems you are a little disappointed with MTW. I gather that you don't have Shogun Total War. MTW is a big improvement over that game. In STW there was no navy, no trade and diplomacy boiled down to Do you want to fight, or what? That is not to say MTW is not in need of improvement, but with games as complex as the Total War series, improvements will come with each new game.

Musashi
11-25-2002, 15:20
The only thing I don't like about diplomacy in this game is the fact that when you own over half the map, the AI factions refuse to have anything to do with you anymore. Obviously this is meant as a foil to your endgame plans, but it assumes that you're an aggressive conqueror when this may or may not be the case.

Generally when I play strategy games I tend to try to make decisions as if I were an actual head of state. I don't attack anyone who didn't attack me first, I always offer cease fires to any faction who has foolishly started a war with me (Hey, I said I don't start fights, I never said anything about finishing them), I try to maintain good relations with every other faction, etc. If I happen to end up owning half the map, it's not because I'm an imperialistic punk, it's because a lot of imperialistic punks bit off a bit more than they could chew when they started fights with me, and refused my generous offers to let bygones be bygones to boot.

So I think it would be nice if the AIs took your 'track record' into account for things like that. It always seems kind of silly to me when a game just assumes that all the societies are out to get one another.

But eh.

-Musashi

Gregoshi
11-25-2002, 16:06
I play a lot like you Musashi. I've been at war with factions for years without combat and throwing them my prettiest daughters, yet they want nothing to do with peace. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Shay
11-29-2002, 12:17
Hi Greg oh and one other thing on the box i got conned i thought i could play the game in sp mode and get battles with over ten thousand men onscreen i have some serious cpu here so i thought great,fantastic,brilliant,
I love stratergy games total annihilation was my fav and i was addicted to that for about 5 years i thought this may replace it if i were given the experiance of recreating my own empire to a decent degree... if what your saying about them improving the game a little each time they make one . well if they remake this one in say five games and it is made how it should be now, then great for then, but can you tell me why they cant do that now. if its a time thing surely you could understand i dont mind if its in construction longer they dont have to stop at one expac ta had a couple if... the game play is there then the replay value is up and each sucsessive expac refreshes the experiance but tell me, my experiance has been below the par, why would i really want to reexperiance that, mtw is just a little bit too much like war lords 2 but with spys and a nice 3d combat system and tell my why the hell ... and i say again why the hell cant my catapults move when they have dam wheels on them ........ how did they get there in the first place if i built them on site why did my engineers build wheels on them ?
why do all my commanders seem to be constantine something or other how come they all love little boys???? whos personal joke was that? why did the first patch take for ever and a day to come out? will there be a second patch or should i just use the cd for a coaster
seriously 28 odd arrows per archer with no form of resuply in battle ???? un controllable reinforcments
? hell that has to be the worst, what commander on the field of battle goes next in line please,if reinforcements are used surely to god the commander needs some form of controll over them... marching off and on is beyond stupid why cant they be relocated to the back of the reinforment pool at the bare minimum. i have no idea how many people live in each province. how come it takes me a full year to move one province surely this is some mistake.how come i can not denote the size of my units 100 or 200 is not enough add my other complaint to this and i add with respect that i have not played this game a huge ammount just enough to know it cant satisfy me. I honestly think that if i compared it to work i do, it would be like an aprentice construction somthing , id say ok mate not bad for your first go but you have a long long way to go, here is were you whent wrong and here is what you got to do to fix it..... now get cracking http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif and to the devs i say were is the next patch

Gregoshi
11-29-2002, 17:13
Geez Shay, do you really want answers to all those questions? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif If I had that many gripes about a game it would be a coaster already.

I think the answer to most of your questions falls into one of these categories:

1) current software or hardware limitations
2) a gameplay or balance decision

As for your comment about reinforcements, history has shown over and over how little control generals have over battlefield events.

Coaster tip: cut out some felt and glue it to the top side of the CD. The felt absorbs moisture from the glass/cup when it sweats during high humidity. If you don't use the felt, then the water forms a seal about the bottom of the glass and the coaster/CD sticks to the bottom of the glass when you pick it up. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

Puzz3D
11-30-2002, 17:20
Shay,

I think you have to approach this game from a purely tactical perspective. The 3D combat system is the heart of the game. The combat itself has tactical depth since fatigue, morale, formation, charging, flanking, terrain and leadership all have an effect on combat. The turn based, strategic game is not nearly as well developed.

The siege machines are immobile because they are intended for use in castle assaults, and not supposed to be effective on open field battles. The ai using them in open field battles strikes me as a mistake.

The command more than 10,000 troops statement on the box is misleading. You need 4 full armies in a battle using max unit size and mostly 200 man units to get that number of men on the battlefield all at once, and 3 of those armies, although allies, will be under ai control not your control. There is no mention on the box of the max size of a single army. It's simply intentionally misleading.

I find that marketing departments are constantly doing this type of thing with almost every product you can imagine. The original Shogun box was a blatant example of this when it implied that there was a multiplayer campaign. There was none, and even MTW multiplayer is just 3D battles with no surrounding campaign structure for them.

I like the game a lot, but that's because I like tactical games. I also enjoyed TA a lot, but I'm not very good at those RTS games. I thought Myth was great, and still do.

Michael the Great
11-30-2002, 20:36
Ahoy mates http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Hmm,yeah Harald,they MUST introduce Wallachia,Moldavia and Carpathia(romanians)as a playable faction,with some unique heroes 4 them(Vlad the Impaler),tough I dunno what unique units they would have... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Wonder if any o u would like 2 see more types of formations in thy game(like in other RTS games)?
Puzz,I personnally think that MTW rulez the battlefield of strategy gamez,and yeah,Myth was cool 2,wich did u like more,2 or 3?

GilJaysmith
12-01-2002, 13:01
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Nov. 30 2002,10:20)]The command more than 10,000 troops statement on the box is misleading. You need 4 full armies in a battle using max unit size and mostly 200 man units to get that number of men on the battlefield all at once, and 3 of those armies, although allies, will be under ai control not your control. There is no mention on the box of the max size of a single army. It's simply intentionally misleading.
Why is the box deliberately misleading? I mean, yes, you may think you've been misled, but where exactly does it say, You'll easily get 10,000 men in a single-player battle pretty much every time you fight a battle in a campaign, and that's just in your own army - which seems to be how you're reading it?

There aren't 8,000 men in every battle in Cossacks, which is the only other game I can think of which talks about thousands of men. And most games use the word epic when talking about battles with a couple of hundred men. I trust you've raised this issue with all of them as well, and aren't just picking on MTW.

MTW is about as epic as a game gets. The box marketing is not deliberately misleading and in my view isn't even inaccurate. And even if it was... so, you don't always get 10,000 men in a battle. But you can easily get 5,000 between two armies, and you can have 3,200 in your own army pretty much whenever you want. Given these facts, is it really worth getting steamed that you can't always have 10,000 men?

Grumble, grumble...

Gil ~ CA

Dark Angel
12-01-2002, 13:25
I agree.

What does it matter how many men are fighting?

The graphics are a good balance. If you have more men then they would become no more than just blobs unless you zoomed in then you would lose the perspective of the battle.

It you want more men then assume each figure represents 10 men then you can have truely eric battles.

Perhaps the marketing was a little misleading but focus on what is after all a minor point and you will hate the game. If you do then it is your choice to never play it again.

Sorry if this upsets anyone but if you feel really angry then invade a province and kill everyone.

Best wishes

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

CBR
12-01-2002, 13:41
Well on my box it says Epic 3D battles featuring over 10,000 warriors That doesnt mean YOU control 10,000 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

In SP a normal battle with huge units, it would be nearly 4K warriors max at the same time, more with reinforcements. And then ofc there is the epic battles with more than 2 factions involved..

In MP you can easily get the epic battles with 20k+ warriors in a 4v4 if you want.

So I cant see how ..featuring over 10,000 warriors is that much misleading.

CBR

Shay
12-02-2002, 10:14
I gladly await the day when an epic battle contains 40 plus thousand men a side on screen http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif and the battle map is huge enough to have your reserve in play but far away. to have a roman army containing 40 thousand men fighting a barbarian army with over 200 000 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif so what if i cant see them all fighting at once so what if it would be terribly hard to control them all if it were played at normal pace with men fighting it out for minuets and not seconds and a single battle of such magnitude could take hours or a day and the map of titanic portions involving cities with individual buildings so on and so on http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif then a sp would be brilliant if only i can live long enough to see this. for such a game i would pay a grand ransom.

Gregoshi
12-02-2002, 15:46
Quote[/b] (Shay @ Dec. 02 2002,03:14)]...for such a game i would pay a grand ransom.
Shhhhhhh...someone from CA might read that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

HopAlongBunny
12-03-2002, 04:13
Might be what they need to hear Gregoshi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

einar
12-03-2002, 14:18
Quote[/b] (Harald Den BlåToth @ Nov. 22 2002,04:25)]Einar Are you finnish mate? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Well, I was born in Spain, but i've finnish ancestors and i'm very proud of this. I like finnish music (Gjallarhorn, Hedningarna, etc, etc) and i am studying the culture of Finland (Suomi). I like Finland because a little part of me is there http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I haven't visited yet Finland and i'd like very much to go there. But my life, my relatives, my job is here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Spain is a very ineteresting place, with a culture that isn't so southern like many european people thinks. There are celtic regions in Spain (Galicia, Asturias) with a celtic culture and a celtic countryside. You can say that there are two Spains: the northern Spain and the southern Spain. In the north you can listen to pipes (yes, like the Irish or scottish, a bit different, of course), look at a green country, have a rainy and snowy weather. The south is different, you can listen to flamenco music, go to Andalucía or Granada, etc, etc.

It's a great country, yes, and there are many many unknown things about it.

Finally, you can say i'm a 50% spanish guy and 50% finnish guy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Vrashk
12-18-2002, 01:52
I must agree with whoever it was that mentioned the box was intentionally misleading.

The text written on the box was obviously intentional(how else did it get there?),
And I'm pretty sure the ones making up the text knew it would be misleading for the average gamer. in order to glorify the game, like all computer boxes do.. (no one wanting to sell something would write, watch over more than 10 000 men battle on screen, but dont expect to see it unless you play custom battle or MP)

If you read something on the back of the box of a game which is mainly a single player game* You do expect the features detailed would happen** in the single player game.

The features detailed on the box*** are only available in MP or custom battle where you choose all participating forces yourself (or together with your opponents/allies).

Sorry for that little rant, but I had to.. And no, I'm not dissappointed by the game at all, and no I havent suffered from the text on the back of the box, but I do consider it deception..


Deception is not the same as lies, and deception is a big part of marketing, trade and.. you knew it... Total War


*The singe player game is more extensive and detailed. so obviously it is a single player game. Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament are multiplayer games

** I think no one can honestly say they've been involved in an 8 faction battle in the campaign mode..

*** Or .. For me it was a plastic Cd case.. Something I loathe I want Hard Paper boxes for computer games back. Plastic suck