Grievances About R:TW

[RisingSun]

I figured if the devs were ever to look in here to see what the community is disgruntled about, they would have to do a lot of searching. So, I think we should make a formal, compiled list in here.

Please state your complaint and the reason.

I'll start: Playing the Romans first mandatory

Reason- There is no point to such a ridiculous restriction to freedom in a series which has always been about such freedom, not to mention many of us barely finish a small percentage of our campaigns. Short attention spans, you see. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Only 11 factions playable-

Reason- This is a step down from VI, and it should not really be necessary to mod your game just to play a faction which really should have been playable in the first place.

I hope this thread works out well.

[Galestrum]

Well, there are small "issues" that I have seen, but nothing to make me really http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif over, however, there have been things in MTW that i thought really really made the game not live up to shogun or my impressions on how good MTW could have been. So these major past issues are things which I greatly hope have been addressed before RTW comes out.

1) Troop building/production: In MTW the AI would field armies that were horrible. Entire "peasant" armies in the thousands, or "archer" armies supported by 1 or 2 peasant class infantry were more common than anything resembling a balanced strike force. The AI must be able to look at what units it currently has and then "balance" it out. I DO NOT want to invade Macedonia and face 15 units of skirkishers, 1 horse, and 1 hoplite/phalanx. Balance of armies is very key and please let us face something challenging. The strength of the grekk armies is the elite phalanx type units, AI please please build these and not hordes of peasant class skirmishers. It is so anti-climatic to see the big battle that has been brewing for 20 years turn into 2000 peltasts and 60 hoplites opposing you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Also try and streamline the production process, i dont want to have to build buuldings for 100 years before i can chrun out my first Hastati unit, no more intricate build requirements for the AI to get confused with please.

2) Strategic and Tactical AI: When deploying its armies no more archers left alone when they could be supported by infantry and cavalry. On the rare occassion the AI fields a worthy army, itll usually deploy it in a horrible fashion or have it led by its worst general. Hopefully this has been greatly vastly and immensly improved, TC seems to show this but who knows?

Stratgicly, please defend your major cities, dont let the equivalent of constantinople fall ungarrsoned or to an assault while your "imperial" grand army is off attacking some village in the hinterland. Also, have some sort of rhyme and reason to wars, dont just have them to have them, have a plan, dont attack one ship in the med and then sit still for 20 years not wanting peace. This goes into my 3rd must....

3) Diplomacy, I think theyve heard this one, but it does need to be greatly improved, hopefully allies will make an effort to help, coordinated attacks, lending troops, money equipment etc etc etc. Please allow other avenues for fun other than just 400 years of constant non stop war, there needs to be something else - lest it get boring.

The interviews and TC seem to suggest that the above has been addressed, i surely hope it has and greatly because the above ruined MTW for me and made me extremely hesitant for the upcoming RTW. I dont want to have to mod everything to make RTW a challenge. Please no more all peassant armies, i want to face legions, phalanxes and other standard and elite forces, not all archer/peasant class armies with 1 units of "ok" guys. Please defend rome,carthage, etc.

[Galestrum]

well, i just read the first diary so now i have more to add http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


Quote[/b] ]If you conquer the city, you will own the province

well that is from the diary, as it was written, it sounds as if the cities of RTW are merely the equivalent of the castles in MTW, so in reality there is no improvement here - capture the city/castle you get the province. same thing as before, just different names. Also i was under the impression that more than one city could/would be in a province http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif if so, lets say there are 3 cities, what happens to a province when the cities could be divided amongst 3 factions? also, can cities be "built" from scratch or are they just there?

Point being, i had really hoped and did believe that there would be more than one city per province and that provinces would be more complicated than before, now it appears we still ahve the old own the city/castle you own the province construct http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif


Quote[/b] ]We knew that siege battles would become an integral part of the game, and we planned from the beginning to concentrate a large part of the effort on making the sieges fun, spectacular, and colorful

the above is not a gripe yet - but i hope that all this extra work and the "cool" factor of siege warfare is/was not wasted. What i mean by that is that in MTW the AI hardly ever assualted a castle and if it did, it would only do it if it had like 1000 guys and you had 3 archers and a knight inside. That hardly made for "exciting dramatic awsome or spectacular" siege warfare.

Lets hope that the siege battles are often and worthy of all the effort that CA has put in, otherwise it is just a wasted feature really as it was in MTW imo.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Non-Ptolomeic Egypt? Iberian Bull Warrior helmet? Locked factions? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-bigcry.gif

[RisingSun]

I really hope all this stuff they have been feeding us isn't just developer propaganda, as has been illustrated with the city thing- new name, same thing. I hope more of the game doesn't turn out this way- and I have my suspicions.

Looks like I hada good idea for once. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Mouzafphaerre]

-

Sacrifice of historical atmosphere (to avoid accuracy) to crappy holywood fantasy (pharaoic Egypt etc.)

No real improvement in the province structure (which is identical to that in PC/board shareware World Empire) but funky toying (animated units) to charm kiddies.

I'm afraid it will trouble modding if the new strategic map aint a texture but a 3D model itself.

No mention of diplomacy.

No naval battles.
[/list]
_

[Sir Robin]

I do not have any greviances with CA over RTW.

I really can't until I play the finished product.

While I have some concerns or worries I don't know how it will all pan out until the game is released.

[jLan]

I think there is a slight improvement over MTW in the strategic/provincial deal. Now you can decide where to build forts and stuff, so you can decide where to meet the enemy. It doesn't turn to battle the moment they march into your province, you only fight them when your army meets theirs. Meaning you can build forts along all the choke points along your border and garrison them, and you will get to fight from there. :) This part sounds better than in MTW.

I still think they should have scrapped the province deal altogether though.


I hate the locked factions deal - it should be removed. Re-installing for whatever reason will be a pain in the arse.


Also, CA needs to vastly improve AI and diplomacy. Maybe allow for other kingdoms to swear fealty to you? Say you are a big mighty empire bordering a small kingdom. You tell em they'll either be conquered or they can swear you fealty, lend you their armies in times of need, and maybe provide you with armour/gold/whatever. Anyway, diplomacy and AI were my main gripes with MTW.

[RisingSun]

From what we hear, the diplomacy is alledgedly improved. But having more options does not mean the gameplay is any better. I'm only sceptical about this now that the true nature of the "revamped" campaign map comes to light. It has little more than a couple extra features, like positioning your army, or building a fort here rather than there, etc. The system is essentially the same. Win a battle, province is yours.

I hope all this work they've put into sieges is worthwhile, considering hardly anybody (AI or player) assaults in MTW. I remember they made a big deal out of the siege engine- "Now you can crack some walls before you crack soem heads." or something like that. Big disappointment, that was.

[Hurin_Rules]

In a word: Druids.

Get real.

[The_Emperor]

My biggest grievance is the fact that a very large number of MTW people cannot Host games online because of Routers...

I hope this will not be an issue with RTW, but if it is I will truly be http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif

You only need to take a look online to see the number of people who are screaming for someone to host a game... Forget all this gamespy kack, I have ADSL and I want to be able to use it

[lancelot]

This is quite weird, I started a thread very similar to this the other day too...only trouble is mine is dying in the dungeon.

basically similar to this one except I wanted to create a petition type thing for RTW expansion/future game. (

its probably too late to influence RTW now....unless they put back the release AGAIN, but lets not pull at that thread)

So anyway check out the dungeon too and get this puppy of the ground. (the second sub-forum)
I put it there so modders could have their say too.

But for the sake of Rome- I want to see-- Navies given their due importance.

[RisingSun]

Well, what else do we have?

[Pindar]

Perversion of Egypt.

[Pindar]

I would like it if they limited the areas where one can recruit troops (something akin to the WesMod model perhaps).

[rory_20_uk]

ON the Diplomacy front saveral other games have managedf it better for years (the Civ series). So it is not beyond the ken of man.

Other factions that at least in some small way see what type of leader you are: if you break alliances all the time they'll distrust you - not rocket science here folks And there MUST be the way to bribe the others into peace / an alliance. Rome was saved from the Gauls by such a practice.

Provinces are still there??? Damn - I thought I'd seen the last of that terrible idea http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif I'd've preferred a system perhaps like the spheres of influence seen in Civ 3, except that armies could also be used to extend / disrupt the influence.

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

[Intrepid Sidekick]

Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ Mar. 25 2004,17:52)]The system is essentially the same. Win a battle, province is yours.

I hope all this work they've put into sieges is worthwhile, considering hardly anybody (AI or player) assaults in MTW. I remember they made a big deal out of the siege engine-

OK two points here:

1 - Winning a battle won't win you a province. Not unless the city it belongs to is captured in the same process. i.e. it's a seige battle.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

2 - You can't capture a province unless you capture it's city. So the work we have put in to sieges will have been worthwhile http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Intrepid Sidekick @ April 04 2004,08:00)]
Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ Mar. 25 2004,17:52)]The system is essentially the same. Win a battle, province is yours.

I hope all this work they've put into sieges is worthwhile, considering hardly anybody (AI or player) assaults in MTW. I remember they made a big deal out of the siege engine-

OK two points here:

1 - Winning a battle won't win you a province. Not unless the city it belongs to is captured in the same process. i.e. it's a seige battle.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

2 - You can't capture a province unless you capture it's city. So the work we have put in to sieges will have been worthwhile http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Interesting... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif

So, at least two battles before a "province" is captured?

Thanks, Intrepid Sidekick http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[rory_20_uk]

So, if one owns the city, what happens:

1) The occupier of the city gains all benefits as if there wasn't a large army camped outside.

2) NO one gets any benefits until there is one owner of the area.

3) A split between the two.

4) Something else.

???

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

[RisingSun]

But, you can just starve the city out anyway, so who, realistically, will want to assault very often? The same thing was said abou MTW- you could assault castles, etc etc. But, when the time came it was simply easier to starve them out, unless it was a pitifully small garrison.

Thanks for stopping by, by the way

[rory_20_uk]

Either:

The beseiger takes massively more casualties than the defenders

The loyalty of the region is so low that there are uprisings so often to mean that speedy resolution is required

The defender can sit tight for many, many years.

Of those the first would be more applicable of the barbarians, as the Romans and other more civilised Civs would be more able to organise a siege without the army from desintigrating from disease or boredom.

The defender sitting for many years is unrealistic really. A major city lasting a year under a blockade would be very tough on the defenders.

I think that having exceptionally low terrotory loyalty would be the best solution: either take the city or suffer the consequences of the locals.

Where a phalanx or three is supposed to come from out of the woodwork I don't know.
But having a truely representetive peasant loyalist uprising would defeat the object, as the end result would be the siegers win another battle against some more chaff.

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

[Durruti]

Naval conflict; naval conflict; naval conflict. I don't want to remind of Admiral Mahan, however the new game will be RTW (ROOOME -t-w). Rome was a Mediterranean civilization. Control of the Med was key to Rome defeating Carthage & becoming the New World Order-in much of the West & near East.

Therefore, a fair & if possible tactical naval combat is advisable. In MTW the naval combat is symbolic at best & skewed. It is filled with cheats, unfairnesses & un thoughtoutnesses. It would be sad if RTW is ruined by an unworkable & unfair & only symbolic naval combat.

I guess it's late to suggest an Age of Sail II style real time naval combat to accompany the Total War real time style of land combat. Age of Sail II is far from perfect, but it tries to tactically render naval combat. From Salamis Bay to Rome's naval battles with Carthage, to (Late)Rome losing control of the Med to pirates, naval control of the Med was as vital to Rome's existance-as it was for Athens.

The other solution to this naval conundrum would to render the naval presence, overseas troop movement, and trade as totally symbolic. In other words (& what words might they be?) your armies can shift to the other side of the Med & to England if you Pay imaginary privately owned corporate fleets-pirates to chauffer your troops.

Keep the emphasis where it has always been for Total War - on the eye candy-catching land battles. There can even be a sort of land connection between France-England & Gibralter-Africa & Constantinople as it is in MTW (the presence of the Statin Island Ferry at these points can be a given.

My point is (whew I finally remembered what my point was) that it would be better to have no naval presence at all (like in STW) than to have the inadequate naval portrayal-presence of MTW.

Finally, Diplomacy-diplomacy-diplomacy, and we have a wonderful well-thought-out, balanced STRATEGIC game to lose ourselves in. I'll drink to that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif