What should be highest priority for devs...

[ELITEofGAZOZ]

When I read the posts about the newest Rome TW units I realized that players have different preferences.

Would like to have an overwies about our preferences...

[Stormer]

id like to vote the bottom 3 but i voted NO.3

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I voted 4. I don't care how historically accurate the units are unless they are balanced and allow fair and enjoyable play.

[theKyl]

the bottom three are all important to me, so i nullvoted.

[Shahed]

Autheticity & realism would be most important to me for RTW. It is not fantasy TW therfore it should be as realistic as possible while offering enjoyable gameplay.

It would be a pity to see units that have strengths over others but that would be realistic. Therefore I favor realism and playability above all.

A new TW would have to compete on a graphical and audio level to stay relevant in the coming world of "cinematic gaming".

[Shahed]

May I add that in my opinion, it would be very wise for a lot of research going into what the units were actually like. This would enable us to have a sound and viable representation of these units in a game which will essentially be historically based.

[Nelson]

Units can not be too authentic or realistic.

History doesn't get in the way. It shows the way.

[Monk]

voted for 4, as long as units are balance and the game is fun i wont have a problem.

[Basileus]

Authenticity and realism of units is what i like, might not be so balanced but hey http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Dîn-Heru]

voted for authenticity and realism.

[Hakonarson]

Historical and authentic units ARE balanced http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Lord of the morning]

Id say historical and authentic. Units in reality were balanced to a point. But Royal knight in MTW is better than peasants and teherefor they cost more. Upping the prices on powerfull units is what should be done. That is also something that is very éasy to fix in a patch if the game turns out unbalanced. Also the challange will be even greater if the roman armies are very mighty, then youll just play the barbarrians once youve have learned the game. What makes this game greater than something like LOTRTW is that is historically acurate.

[RTKLamorak]

Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ April 25 2003,09:05)]It would be a pity to see units that have strengths over others but that would be realistic.
I am a little confused with your comment Sinan... even in a balanced game units will have, and should have strengths over one another...it would be no fun having 16 units with same stats, and same strengths and weaknesses. it becomes unbalanced when units (e.g MI's ashigaru), or types of units (e.g heavy cav in MTW) have to many strengths, or less weaknesses over the other.
Yukki often refers to the "rock/paper/scissors" gameplay that Mizu's 1.03 mod for Mongol invasion achieved, and it really made for an extremely well balanced game. It sticks to the core principles of spears beat cavalry, swords beat spears and cavalry beats swords; and ensures no single unit/or unit type is over or under powered. all units still have their own strengths and weaknesses, just that none are over or underpoweered.

I voted for Balanced... if you go for historical accuracy then you will not get a balanced game. A half hearted approach is neutral for me.. i enjoy playing the game a lot but often find it frustrating that certain unit types are to overpowered.

Mods are a good answer but unfortunately not enough people use the mods.... although unlikely i would like to see some real thought into RTW balancing by the dev's but doubt this will be the case. with mtw patch.. they almost didnt think (after how many months did we wait for patch) the effect the combination of changes would have on the game balance. They made heavy cav cheaper, spears more expensive, and swords have further bonus vs spears. 2 of the 3 mabye, like cheaper cav and sword bonus but by implementing all 3 they have almost made spear obsolete. Obviously huge credit should go to the devs for this truely great game but it is frustrating to see such small things spoiling a lot of the fun in multi play. most 1v1s i play i see an army consisting of 6 heavy cav, 6 sword, 4 pav. even againest cav heavy armies spears just dont cut it anymore (pre patch they did an ok job but..) .. i reallykinda miss the days where spears actually tore cavalry apart.

In Rome Totalwar hopefully they will have one seperate stat system for single player/campain mode which is accually historicallly accurate, and then an entirely diffferent, and balanced set of stats for online play. mabye only a dream but is nice to hope http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

however i, as many people (definitely not alll tho http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif ) will buy the game to keep with the crowd of friends we have made along the way, and keep the community moving forward and expanding. I will adapt to the new system balanced or not, but the game would more new players, and retain more of the old guys if they really made made an effort to balance RTW.

so if you have not read most of this drawn out post http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif i think that

having a seperate set of stats for single player modes, that is historically accurate, and another seperate set of balanced[B] stats for multiplayer would be the best approach to try and balance Rome Total War.

[ELITEofGAZOZ]

I second your points, Lamorak.

[A.Saturnus]

Winning a battle with balanced units that are historically absurd would leave a bad taste for me. Would I prefer balance, I would play Warcraft 3. I`m not so naive to believe that real battles in medieval times actually are simulated by MTW, but it`s still much more realistic than any other game. If I would choose balance above historical accuracy (though, I, too, think there`s no need to choose), then I could go with fantasy units as well, cause realism is pointless then. That`s a singleplayer perspective, though.

[A Nerd]

Historical and Authentic...but I hope they are pretty too

[CBR]

Historical accuracy is a must..its when its not accurate we get all the problems.

Just take MTW right now.

Lancers are a bit too much right? well they are in the wrong era

Byz inf..lots of people dont like them... please tell me when Byzantines had troops like that in their armies?

Horsearchers too weak? When I can come with as many Knights as the enemy can with horse archers....

Missile units generally too weak? Did you know that Longbows actually only cost 100 florins or Jan Inf only 150? Someone got the bright idea to add 250 to longbows and 200 to all shortbow armed units. And the fix was to reduce the cost of upgrading them...upgrading that really only helps the missile units in melee.

Spears too weak? Yes lets invent some powerful sword units that eat spears for breakfast and be able to buy lots of them..and damn they look cool.

Balancing a game like this is not something you do in a afternoon. But in my MPwars mod I have found it to be relative easy when it comes to unitstats and costs..missile weapons takes longer to tweak. My main limitations is the battle engine and not enough historical units

Some of the balance issues that I still need to tweak is actually because I didnt follow the various history books/wargames army lists I have used for the mod, mainly because of the limits in MTW battle engine and how to buy armies.

No just give me historical units with historical capabilities and balance is not a problem. It's when you leave out units and invent others the problems start.

CBR

[Aelwyn]

Balance Its a given that the units should be historically accurate, and all this takes is research, which CA seems to be good at. Thats not something they need to work on, and I doubt they'd sit down and say...."hmm...this needs to be balanced more than accurate, so start making up unit names gentlemen, this needs to be very inaccurate cause we can't do both". http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif The only important thing they need to work on now is the balance http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Skomatth]

I agree with Lam and CBR. Read what they say devs

-Parrot

[Tera]

For most of us, multiplayer gaming is the only reason why we're here. And 90% of our moaning is about unit balance. I was here when the MI community was reduced to 30 maximum each night. And I blame unit balance for that...among other things.

What we really need is continous patching support...not all the imbalances of the game get out in few weeks of beta testing...it takes time.

One patch per game is not enough for the best strategy game ever made...don't you think so? Hopefully R:TW will sell a lot, maybe millions. And CA should hire guys like Yuuki or CBR again to help them creating good patches.

I hope they're listening...this is a vital point in my humble opinion.

Tera.

[DthB4Dishonor]

I also agree with Lam and CBR. If guys want all this perfectly historical accuracy then I suggest next time they play MP take 8 units of peasants about 3-4 knights and 4-5 archers. You will have some very elite Knights I'll give you that.

[Swoosh So]

Lol only 7% vote for appearance and the game is going 3d http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif