Still going to buy game?

[RZST]

well seeing as there seems to be people who are starting to hate the game because of so called fantasy units, i was wondering if people will still buy the game and maybe have fun while playing it.

if you like historically accurate games then assuming you play mtw/stw, well being able to command your units on the battlefield and telling them where exactly to go is kind of unrealistic, maybe that happened in shogun era but i doubt when battle started during middle ages the units didnt exactly go to where they were assigned to go.

i dunno, im just ranting.

[alman9898]

Agreed. It's fine to want a historically accurate game, but jeez, theres no need to make such a huge fuss over it. The units arent everything in RTW... remember the improved diplomacy, cooler graphics, spectacular city siege part? Granted, I'd prefer historically accurate units as opposed to "fantasy," but overall, they dont bother me. What DOES bother me is CA's choice to lock other factions and force feed me the romans.

[Galestrum]

erm, everyone will be bothered by something, but i could just as easy go, i dont care about the locked factions or what not http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif this game is about history - so it should be historical, that even being up for debate is ridiculous http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-curtain.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

as far as the better diplomacy etc etc i have yet to see it in action - i was led to believe thered be "great sieges" in MTW and there werent, crusades took 20 years to get from england to the holy land http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I just want to play the game, i'm really not that bothered about the unit situation. Lets just wait till it comes out before we start bitching. After time commanders last night i really can't wait to play as the different Gladiator units http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Seven.the.Hun]

history is hazy at best, i do not understand, what does this have to do with a computer game?

[TosaInu]

Hello,

The original STW made the user pretty stuck with the units. No way to change nor disbled them. You could have changed the BIFs of course, but there were no tools around.

STW WE allowed to change unit stats. MTW allowed to change much more stats. VI allowed even more, even adding 10 new BIF slots. Even if RTW is going to offer the same things as VI the units can be modded. Who knows what great tools RTW will offer? Perhaps you don't even have to wait for a dedicated modder to tweak the game for you.

It's a pity if the game isn't going to provide you 100% pleasure clean out of the box (I fear that this is pretty impossible as there are many different wishes and expectations, all of them good for me), but I'm quite confident that the game can be tailored to the different needs.

Good games are good, but bad games that can easily be tweaked to become good ones are even better. That's my view on it at least.

[frogbeastegg]

Even if it is Roman Fanasy: Total War someone will mod it to a historically agreeable game. There is plenty of time left, and much we don't know, but if we demonstrate to CA that there is an audience for accuracy there is more chance they will be able to talk their publishers into letting them do an accurate game. Remember the Viking with horsn on the VI box? If that was because of the publisher thinking of cool images that fit stereotypes than what about Ramses and his walking dead friends in RTW? They look 'cool' in screenshots and fit the Egyptian stereotype...

Besides the game has Romans in, so as long as it isn't total rubbish how can I refuse? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin.gif

[Trax]

Right now I would still buy it, if things will go worse, I may reconsider...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

NO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[BobTheTerrible]

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

I will still buy it. No matter whether it is historically accurate or not, it will still have huge battles, where guys actually fight each other, and it will have some improved diplomacy features too. As long as the game is moddable, there WILL be a historical accuracy mod, whether the game is released historically accurate or not.

As I've said before, nobody can judge it until we have the game.

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

[Sir Robin]

Yes

I love the concept behind the Total War series. While I was latecomer to STW, I bought MTW pretty quickly.

Both games inspired alot of "if only they," in me; while most other games cause alot of "what were they thinking?"

Creative Assembly has tried to produce "fun" wargames that blend history, entertainment, and playability.

Everything I have seen about RTW looks like it is continuing this trend.

True it may not be the leap ahead that we want, but it does look like a strong improvement in most areas.

Even the atrocious "History Channel" series of games are surprisingly lacking in historical accuracy.

If the History Channel brand will not make a fully historically accurate game how can we seriously demand that Creative Assembly make one or else?

I will purchase RTW as soon as I find it on the store shelf. I am also in the process of trying to save for a pc that will be able to play it smoothly.

I cannot judge RTW until I play the finished product. I have concerns and worries but that is because I am human and have become obsessed with this game.

Compared with the other products out there, Lords3 anyone, I find even MTW to be a superior product and wait, very impatiently, for RTW's release.

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
My main concern at this point is having to get a new computer to play it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

The recent flavour of fantasy is more than enough imo. If it overwhelms historical atmosphere, I'll reconsider.

So, my vote is Mooo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
_

[RZST]

yes i too need a new computer...this time an ACTUAL gaming computer...not some 2 year old notebook :(

[BobTheTerrible]

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

Well, if it's at least pentium 4 it should run it. My 900 mhz celeron can't even handle MTW's big battles.

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

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
Before the hyperthreaded 3.06G P4s come down to reasonable price range, I won't be buying a new puter. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
-

[Aelwyn]

Since I know little about Roman history, I couldn't care one lick if its accurate or not. I mean, I'd be upset if they had Legionaires vs Orcs or something stupid like that. And, I like knowing that the game is mostly historic. But, if they come out with certain units like the Druids that may or may not have existed, I have no knowledge of it, so it doesn't bother me. And even if I did have vastly greater knowledge on the subject, my life has greater concerns. I'll enjoy it anyways.

[Nelson]

Quote[/b] (Aelwyn @ Mar. 27 2004,22:53)]Since I know little about Roman history, I couldn't care one lick if its accurate or not... I'll enjoy it anyways.
This is how most buyers feel IMO. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

It is also why I find the need of marketing types to override history with the likes of bull warriors and giant kensai so puzzling. If most people will enjoy the game regardless of unit accuracy why not keep them correct? Some players only like a game if it is accurate. No one says, "The troop types in this game are too accurate I won't play it". Do it right and CA offends no one. Blow it and they offend at least a few.

There is no reason not to have a high fidelity units. Sales would not be harmed and might even improve.

Every step toward greater historic realism in Total War has been applauded.

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

[Sir Moody]

the reason for all the unhistoric units is simple - to have more units in the game - most uninformed people will look at a game and judge it by the bullet points on the back - things like fully 3d strat map - over 150 units etc - unfortunatly there isnt that kind of diversity in real history so they imagine some

its really not an issue as the modders out there (like the NTW, HTW, Med mod teams) will make a historic mod sooner or later

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Sir Moody @ Mar. 28 2004,11:42)]the reason for all the unhistoric units is simple - to have more units in the game - most uninformed people will look at a game and judge it by the bullet points on the back - things like fully 3d strat map - over 150 units etc - unfortunatly there isnt that kind of diversity in real history so they imagine some
Indeed

Thus I voted YES.

So far we know for sure of one invented unit (the Bull Warriors) that is plausible and one unit that is historical but equipped oddly. If that is a lot of fantasy units, then I need to get a new definition of a lot.

[The_Emperor]

I'll vote yes, I have been looking forward to RTW for ages and to not buy it because the Druids had sickles rather than swords, or the Iberian warrior had some fancy new headgear doesn't make sense... I mean how petty can I get

Personally I love the whole thing of the Total War Series, the pace of it all conquering a large chunk of the world in an important era.

However historical accuracy is a good thing. Shogun got me more interested in history than I did before, reading the Way of the Daimyo on the CD and everything it really helped to open me up to it.

Also I don't envy CA in choosing unit types for RTW... Especially with the Celtic Barbarians, who didn't have a standard army with specific unit types.

The more historical accuracy the better, but history is always a little hazy... For centuries people thought the Celts built Stonehenge until that was disproved. We truly cannot know everything about how people lived back then.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Sir Moody @ Mar. 28 2004,11:42)]the reason for all the unhistoric units is simple - to have more units in the game - most uninformed people will look at a game and judge it by the bullet points on the back - things like fully 3d strat map - over 150 units etc - unfortunatly there isnt that kind of diversity in real history so they imagine some

its really not an issue as the modders out there (like the NTW, HTW, Med mod teams) will make a historic mod sooner or later
Do you really think so? I think it's the opposite. Check this thread (12th post - ALL based on Historical data):

Europa Barbarorum Iberian Faction for RTW (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=14218;st=150;r=1;&#entry257335)

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Hey, boys http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif You're really not helping. If everybody says "NO, I will not buy the game, unless Historical accuracy is respected." then CA will take notice and stop making fantasy units... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

[Sir Moody]

ROFL no they wont talk about deluding yourself - CA is a company, Activision is a comapny - they want MONEY in vast amounts by catering to ALL possible fields rather than one they will make MORE money - if a few die hard history nuts want to cut their noses off to spite their faces CA isnt gonna take notice you are a minority even if you dont buy they will still get hundreds of sales and thus they are making the game for the widest possible user base

no game is fully historically accurate and this is far better than most why compalin because its drifting a tiny bit from the history?

[Kraxis]

Lets make a guesstimate here...

If we would be so lucky *singing* I should be so lucky... lucky lucky lucky... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif What was that?
GAH

Well, the guesstimate is that we would get a great number of votes. Say 100. All vote no. 100 votes of no, out of an expected million or more.

As long as the mags keep jumping up and down at the game you can be sure it will sell very well, if not like Warcraft III and the other top sellers. What does a small core of fans count into that?

On top of that, I don't think it is that bad yet. Yes I expect worse to come (for the two 'bad' units have not let me down greatly), but I simply can't be sure.
So with what I know I have a definate YES.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Sir Moody @ Mar. 28 2004,15:22)]ROFL no they wont talk about deluding yourself - CA is a company, Activision is a comapny - they want MONEY in vast amounts by catering to ALL possible fields rather than one they will make MORE money - if a few die hard history nuts want to cut their noses off to spite their faces CA isnt gonna take notice you are a minority even if you dont buy they will still get hundreds of sales and thus they are making the game for the widest possible user base
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif

Can't you take a joke? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Mar. 28 2004,15:29)]Lets make a guesstimate here...

If we would be so lucky *singing* I should be so lucky... lucky lucky lucky... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif What was that?
GAH
ROTFLMAO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif

Kylee impersonation? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif


Quote[/b] ]Well, the guesstimate is that we would get a great number of votes. Say 100. All vote no. 100 votes of no, out of an expected million or more.

As long as the mags keep jumping up and down at the game you can be sure it will sell very well, if not like Warcraft III and the other top sellers. What does a small core of fans count into that?

On top of that, I don't think it is that bad yet. Yes I expect worse to come (for the two 'bad' units have not let me down greatly), but I simply can't be sure.
So with what I know I have a definate YES.
Of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[RisingSun]

I'm far more let down by the deceit and deception the devs have spoon fed us the last year. "New improved province system." Pff. Hardly. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

[MiniKiller]

yes though i really wnated to just moo

[Lord Aeon]

The concept that someone could see R:TW on the "New Releases" shelf and pass on it because of "historical accuracy of units" is absoluely unimaginable. Unfathomable even.

If some of you tight-rectum-ed eunuchs wanna deprive yourselves of the joy of playing what will probably be the greatest strategy video game ever made, it won't make the least difference; CA/Activision won't lose any sleep over it. Their primary focus is making a game that is challenging and fun while appealing to a large audience. The fact that R:TW will likely retain great mod-ability and complexity (i.e. these are not being sacrificed for "accessibility") out of the box should be enough to show you that these guys mean business, and that this product will be worth your cash.

...Wow, i think this is the first time i've ever been a fanboy... congrats CA, you've got my unwavering support. And believe me, i'm the right guy to have on your side. Now let's get this game out, eh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[crushinator]

Quote[/b] (Lord Aeon @ Mar. 28 2004,22:29)]The concept that someone could see R:TW on the "New Releases" shelf and pass on it because of "historical accuracy of units" is absoluely unimaginable. Unfathomable even.

If some of you tight-rectum-ed eunuchs wanna deprive yourselves of the joy of playing what will probably be the greatest strategy video game ever made, it won't make the least difference; CA/Activision won't lose any sleep over it. Their primary focus is making a game that is challenging and fun while appealing to a large audience. The fact that R:TW will likely retain great mod-ability and complexity (i.e. these are not being sacrificed for "accessibility") out of the box should be enough to show you that these guys mean business, and that this product will be worth your cash.

...Wow, i think this is the first time i've ever been a fanboy... congrats CA, you've got my unwavering support. And believe me, i'm the right guy to have on your side. Now let's get this game out, eh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
nice post tbh http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

the truth is that we NEED this game to appeal to the mass market. CA can not afford to spend so much time creating a game like this (with new 3D engine etc) if they don't sell a shit load of copies. Bad sales could mean we may not see another sequal http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif .... but if RTW sells really well, imagine how much money they will spend on building the next installment of the TW series http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

if CA tried to make the game 100% historically accurate, which 'version' of history do they use? a lot of what we know about the era is all guesswork and there are always varitions http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

CA have stated on a many occasions that the game will be very mod friendly ... this is perfect, as the community can make the historically accurate game that will appease the history buffs, while the 'fantasy' version will really appeal to the average punter

perfect strategy if you ask me. clever stuff CA http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

[Nowake]

lets keep it simple folks ..

YES

[Rosacrux]

Hola

I am one of the most vocal advocates for historical accuracy in RTW. I've posted numerous ramblings (more or less accurate or factual) for this matter, I've had some heated debate over it, I've even intented the terms "Bullshite warrior" and "Chosen AxeGit".

But I will most probably buy the bloody thing. Or at least try it our first, to make sure it doesn't irritate me too much. I am too bloody much into ancient history and warfare to actually look the other way when rabid dogs appear, next to hords of flaming pigs, while AxeGits wave their Axes in the background and the Bullshite warriors are advancing, horns first, to spill the guts of the Romans on the ground http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

But if the level of unhistorical bullshit is anywhere close to bearable, I'll buy it. And work to improve it, along with all fellow modders. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Basileus]

Im dissapointed with the historical inaccuracy but i still will buy, its preety sad though that CA isnt listening to its most hardcore fans.

[Captain Fishpants]

Quote[/b] (Basileus @ Mar. 29 2004,06:59)]Im dissapointed with the historical inaccuracy but i still will buy, its preety sad though that CA isnt listening to its most hardcore fans.
How do you know we're not listening?

In order to listen, one must be quiet. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ Mar. 29 2004,13:47)]
Quote[/b] (Basileus @ Mar. 29 2004,06:59)]Im dissapointed with the historical inaccuracy but i still will buy, its preety sad though that CA isnt listening to its most hardcore fans.
How do you know we're not listening?

In order to listen, one must be quiet. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Well listening wouldn't do much good here... all these posts must be read. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Lord Aeon @ Mar. 28 2004,22:29)]The concept that someone could see R:TW on the "New Releases" shelf and pass on it because of "historical accuracy of units" is absoluely unimaginable. Unfathomable even.
No it's not.



Quote[/b] ]tight-rectum-ed eunuchs
ROTFLMAO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif

We've hurt the little cutzy, cutzy boy, didn't we? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-cry.gif

I'm soooooooooooooo sorry http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Mar. 29 2004,06:39)]I am too bloody much into ancient history and warfare to actually look the other way when rabid dogs appear, next to hords of flaming pigs, while AxeGits wave their Axes in the background and the Bullshite warriors are advancing, horns first, to spill the guts of the Romans on the ground http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif
Me too. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[Lord Godfrey]

If the horns on the Viking didn't stop me from buying VI, a few "fantasy" units won't stop me from buying RTW

[Galestrum]

hmmm, you know - i dont expect 100% accuracy, seriously how can it be so, our knowledge of that era is not entirely perfect, if it is in any era. I think the point is why put stuff in, where there is no evidence and why have ancient egyptian units in a greek controlled egypt, why have isis helmuts on a bull rider and why have a hippy druid battallion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

be that as it may, let me ask a question inspired by the above post - you didnt not buy VI because of the horned viking helmuts, but show me one person that DID buy VI because of vikings with horned helmuts? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-curtain.gif if someone is "in" to a "historical based RTS" games, they are not going to buy the game because of a "l33t druid" or "horned viking" unit. and the kind of loser that would go "omg look at that l33t roxor type druid guy, i need to play a game that will exceed my attention span in the first 5 minutes" isnt going to buy RTW in the first place http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-clown.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Galestrum @ Mar. 29 2004,15:53)]hmmm, you know - i dont expect 100% accuracy, seriously how can it be so, our knowledge of that era is not entirely perfect, if it is in any era. I think the point is why put stuff in, where there is no evidence and why have ancient egyptian units in a greek controlled egypt, why have isis helmuts on a bull rider and why have a hippy druid battallion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

be that as it may, let me ask a question inspired by the above post - you didnt not buy VI because of the horned viking helmuts, but show me one person that DID buy VI because of vikings with horned helmuts? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-curtain.gif if someone is "in" to a "historical based RTS" games, they are not going to buy the game because of a "l33t druid" or "horned viking" unit. and the kind of loser that would go "omg look at that l33t roxor type druid guy, i need to play a game that will exceed my attention span in the first 5 minutes" isnt going to buy RTW in the first place http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-clown.gif
Very true... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[Murmandamus]

But if they don't have druids, who will cast the healing spells? Obviously they have been listening to the constant requests for a middle earth based game and are giving us a compromise. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

I don't think those units are as bad some are making out, though that bull warrior helmet and the unit colours in some of the screenshots do look pretty rediculous. Make the banners coloured, not purple armour ffs.

As always, buying the game will depend on the demo. So far it looks promising but I'm not expecting RTW to have the same historical feel of STW and MTW which is a shame.

[Doug-Thompson]

OK. I voted "wha?"

Fantasy units? Druids?

[Scipio]

I will definately buy this game Even with these so called "fantasy units" it will be enjoyable and if you aren't happy with the units you can always mod http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[RZST]

people. go read Lord Aeon's reply a pew posts above.
all in all CA is still a company, and companies need money. in order to get the money they need to cater to a large majority rather than a tiny minority.

judging by the poll alot of people will still buy the game and only a small number wont. imo its still a good thing for CA since they will eventually make another game.

im guessing all the rtwhaters are only focusing on Battle Realism, well what about the campaign map? imo, compared to other tbs games out there RTW campaign map looks pathetic, gameplay wise.

[PSYCHO]

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ Mar. 29 2004,07:47)]

Quote[/b] ]How do you know we're not listening? In order to listen, one must be quiet.- Captain Fishpants

Rub the Pandora’s box and the genie speaks, .. in which case I have three questions:

1) If CA is listening to community comments about the units, do those comments influence CA in any way or is there a rigid CA master plan to stick to?

2) Are all RTW units finalised at this juncture or is there still opportunity for cosmetic changes before release?

3) Is CA willing and / or able to make small cosmetic changes before release later this year?

(*settles in for a response*) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-glasses2.gif

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (PSYCHO @ Mar. 30 2004,00:40)][1) If CA is listening to community comments about the units, do those comments influence CA in any way or is there a rigid CA master plan to stick to?
When I was younger (much, much, younger) I always listened to what my father said... and then went out and did excactly the opposite http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Guess that's the case here...



Quote[/b] ]2) Are all RTW units finalised at this juncture or is there still opportunity for cosmetic changes before release?

There is plenty of time for cosmetic or otherwise changes. For instance, they'll change the rabid dogs into hordes of idefixes, add a special Panoramix druide unit, change elephants into flying Dambos and introducing Bambi as a special unit for the african civs Oh, and a whole new line of Egyptian units is ante portae: Terribly Gazing Sphinxes, Anubis Juggernaut Charioteers, Isis Infantry, Yog Sothoth Kthulugh Ftagn... oops... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-curtain.gif


Quote[/b] ]3) Is CA willing and / or able to make small cosmetic changes before release later this year?

Well, I don't really want to sound optimistic but they actually have agreed to reduce the size of the Bullshite warrior's horns http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

What? you actually wanted a CA guy to answer those questions? Oh, sorry... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Mar. 30 2004,01:12)]
Quote[/b] (PSYCHO @ Mar. 30 2004,00:40)][1) If CA is listening to community comments about the units, do those comments influence CA in any way or is there a rigid CA master plan to stick to?
When I was younger (much, much, younger) I always listened to what my father said... and then went out and did excactly the opposite http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Guess that's the case here...
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif



Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]2) Are all RTW units finalised at this juncture or is there still opportunity for cosmetic changes before release?

There is plenty of time for cosmetic or otherwise changes. For instance, they'll change the rabid dogs into hordes of idefixes, add a special Panoramix druide unit, change elephants into flying Dambos and introducing Bambi as a special unit for the african civs Oh, and a whole new line of Egyptian units is ante portae: Terribly Gazing Sphinxes, Anubis Juggernaut Charioteers, Isis Infantry, Yog Sothoth Kthulugh Ftagn... oops... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-curtain.gif
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif



Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]3) Is CA willing and / or able to make small cosmetic changes before release later this year?

Well, I don't really want to sound optimistic but they actually have agreed to reduce the size of the Bullshite warrior's horns http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

What? you actually wanted a CA guy to answer those questions? Oh, sorry... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Hurin_Rules]

Couldn't we just have a toggle that would eliminate all the fantasy units?

Iberian Bull Warriors were bad, Chosen Axemen worse, but Druids are just so utterly stupid.

I teach medieval history, and I can tell you right now that I'll have some of my students asking me how effectively the Druids fought at the Battle of Adrianople. Oh dear god, please stop it CA

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Mar. 30 2004,12:56)]I teach medieval history, and I can tell you right now that I'll have some of my students asking me how effectively the Druids fought at the Battle of Adrianople. Oh dear god, please stop it CA
Just say that you work from the notion that medieval times only started with the coronation of Charlemagne. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Doug-Thompson]

Clarification, please.

Are these "fantasy units" going to do "magic" like hurling thunderbolts, or are they just colorful characters?

I looked up druids on a link, which says they boost morale.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Rank and file soldiers of that era were extremely superstitious, including the Romans. Having a morale-boosting element represented by guys with funny swords and calling them Druids is OK. Adding an element of the irrational might be more "realistic" than a "pure" combat sim.

For instance, it would be extremely realistic to make the Roman player perform a sacrifice or "see if the chickens peck" before attacking. If the results aren't right, he can't attack, or attacks with a severe morale penalty.

Perhaps there weren't anybody who dressed like the "druids" in RTW, but there was a morale element that they represent. View them as symbolic.

[PSYCHO]

Quote[/b] ]Iberian Bull Warriors were bad, Chosen Axemen worse, but Druids are just so utterly stupid.- Hurin_Rules

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif Really ? ... "Chosen Axemen worse" but "Druids utterly stupid"? ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif and your sources are ...?

Being a history teacher, you of all people should know that it is best to have a good holistic knowledge of the subject matter before propagating a certain view of the historical record. Further, to be regarded as a reliable authoritative source on a particular period one needs to have studied that particular period. Qualification by association isn’t acceptable. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif
So what books, papers, journal articles, archaeological artefacts, data etc on the Druids have you found that support your proposition that CA’s inclusion of Druids is “utterly stupid”?

my2bob

[Galestrum]

show me a source where druids fought as a unit - had sickle swords and those shields http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

Heres a source for them not being included "the druids are exempt from military service" page 54 of the druids byP. Ellis 1994

the entire book is obviously just about druids and not once does it mention druids as warriors - additionally the closest thing to druids ever fighting is the rare occurrence where some historians claim that Dumnorix was both a king and a druid - however that is not poven and is only inferred by a segment of historians. This is in agreement with the other books in my library covering the celts and romans when they had interqctions with the celts.

So I have yet to have seen any evidence whatsoever for the inclusion of entire units of marauding druid warriors - at best they should be a strategic agent OR possibly be mentioned as being part of the "royal guard" unit of the celt factions - ive never seen any basis to include druids as some sort of elite celt shock troop http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[RZST]

dear lord this is just like a God debate o.o;

[Murmandamus]

Or just a source showing that any sane person with a choice of weapons chose to go into combat armed with a sickle against a trained army like the romans and lived. Or how the sickle could possibly be a usefull/effective weapon against the conventional weapons of the time.

I also see the druid as more of a strategic map unit like the priest but for pagan provinces, but I don't know much about druids or what their function in society was.

Perhaps if CA were to provide some background on what they based these units/equipment on we maybe could have a more informed discussion.

Maybe the next unit will be a guy with a candelabra glued to his helmet and armed with a winnowing scoop. They would give a bonus to nearby units fighting at night and would be experts at hiding in the forest. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-clown.gif

[Murmandamus]

Answering my own question, it seems they were used in combat. Not sure how effectively though.

This one looks pretty nasty
http://www.liongate-armsandarmour.com/ew231.htm

[Hurin_Rules]

Thanks for the help guys and gals.

Its true, you can't prove a negative; I could just as well ask you to prove that the pink unicorn, son of the great pumpkin and the tooth fairy, who visits young children to teach them the dangers of toe fungus, doesn't exist.

But there is no historical evidence that druids fought as units, or had any of the armour/weapons attributed to them by CA. Druids were priests/shamen/poets, not a specialized troop type.

[Galestrum]

hehe you had to go into some obscure african tribe to find a sickle knife http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif i cant imagine that being a great weapon let alone that huge unwieldy looking sickle sword.

As far as druids functions, they were a separate cast and depending upon your source and/or the time and region referenced had various groupings. Caesar referred to just druids, either there were no distinctions or in his opinion they were not worth mentioning or he didnt know.

Other sources mention mentions druids being broken up into bards (singer, poets), historians, and judges (brehons as i recall), as well some groups having a religious function these are mainly called druids. They were a separate segment of society and a respected one but different than the nobles, chieftains what have you (in most cases). I would call it soemthing like a civil (druids) vs a military (chieftains, warriors, kings) distinction of government.

The book i mentioned earlier is an excellent read and thoroughly covers the druids, their functions and place in celtic society. It also gives this information from all viewpoints, those pro and anti celtic and gives a balanced view along with what our social sciences glean today about them. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[The_Emperor]

The only real source I have found regarding Druids in combat is when Tacitus describes the invasion of Mona Island...

From that we can assume a number of Druids were in fact female. But he mentions nothing about their equipment.

[The Druids at Mona Island]

On the opposite shore stood the Britons, close embodied, and prepared for action. Women were seen running through the ranks in wild disorder; their apparel funeral; their hair loose to the wind, in their hands flaming torches, and their whole appearance resembling the frantic rage of the Furies. The Druids were ranged in order, with hands uplifted, invoking the gods, and pouring forth horrible imprecations. The novelty of the fight struck the Romans with awe and terror. They stood in stupid amazement, as if their limbs were benumbed, riveted to one spot, a mark for the enemy. The exhortations of the general diffused new vigour through the ranks, and the men, by mutual reproaches, inflamed each other to deeds of valour. They felt the disgrace of yielding to a troop of women, and a band of fanatic priests; they advanced their standards, and rushed on to the attack with impetuous fury.

The Britons perished in the flames, which they themselves had kindled. The island fell, and a garrison was established to retain it in subjection. The religious groves, dedicated to superstition and barbarous rites, were levelled to the ground. In those recesses, the natives [stained] their altars with the blood of their prisoners, and in the entrails of men explored the will of the gods. While Suetonius was employed in making his arrangements to secure the island, he received intelligence that Britain had revolted, and that the whole province was up in arms. (Boudicca's Rebellion)

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Mar. 30 2004,16:42)]
Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Mar. 30 2004,12:56)]I teach medieval history, and I can tell you right now that I'll have some of my students asking me how effectively the Druids fought at the Battle of Adrianople. Oh dear god, please stop it CA
Just say that you work from the notion that medieval times only started with the coronation of Charlemagne. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
HEHEHE Good answer... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Murmandamus @ Mar. 30 2004,21:17)]Answering my own question, it seems they were used in combat. Not sure how effectively though.

This one looks pretty nasty
http://www.liongate-armsandarmour.com/ew231.htm
It was used to hack around the shield at the shieldarm. But I'm sure there were bigger versions of these.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (PSYCHO @ Mar. 30 2004,19:59)]
Quote[/b] ]Iberian Bull Warriors were bad, Chosen Axemen worse, but Druids are just so utterly stupid.- Hurin_Rules

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif Really ? ... "Chosen Axemen worse" but "Druids utterly stupid"? ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif and your sources are ...?

Being a history teacher, you of all people should know that it is best to have a good holistic knowledge of the subject matter before propagating a certain view of the historical record. Further, to be regarded as a reliable authoritative source on a particular period one needs to have studied that particular period. Qualification by association isn’t acceptable. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif
So what books, papers, journal articles, archaeological artefacts, data etc on the Druids have you found that support your proposition that CA’s inclusion of Druids is “utterly stupid”?

my2bob
A whole lot of them...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Murmandamus @ Mar. 30 2004,21:03)]Or just a source showing that any sane person with a choice of weapons chose to go into combat armed with a sickle against a trained army like the romans and lived. Or how the sickle could possibly be a usefull/effective weapon against the conventional weapons of the time.
Preciselly. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif



Quote[/b] ]Perhaps if CA were to provide some background on what they based these units/equipment on we maybe could have a more informed discussion.
Very good sugestion. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif



Quote[/b] ]Maybe the next unit will be a guy with a candelabra glued to his helmet and armed with a winnowing scoop. They would give a bonus to nearby units fighting at night and would be experts at hiding in the forest. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-clown.gif
ROTFLMAO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif

INCREDIBLE... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Murmandamus @ Mar. 30 2004,21:17)]Answering my own question, it seems they were used in combat. Not sure how effectively though.

This one looks pretty nasty
http://www.liongate-armsandarmour.com/ew231.htm
I don't remember British Druids being that taned... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

AFAIK, the only "Druids" that fought were Dacians, but Dacian culture wasn't exactly Celtic...

[RisingSun]

Poppycock According to the latest news from CA, all barbarian cultures will be heaped into one, silly, unorganized mob (Just kidding, so don' have a heart attack) As well, all of N. Africa and the Mid-East will have a Pharonic Egyptian culture, just like in history And as an added surprise, like a new Golden Horde, Mohammed and his followers will sweep through Arabia in the year 55BC Your history books are WRONG, this is when Islam ACTUALLY started

[RZST]

jesus aymar, do you always say "EXCELLENT" "LOL" "VERY TRUE" o.o; it getting annoying, your not contributing anything to these kind of threads.

on another note, 50 people will still buy the game and 10 wont. hmmmm thats a good ratio. point of this is that you guys(rtw haters) are just whining way too much.

heh, i bet you guys would still buy the game even if you said no.

[Lord Aeon]

Quote[/b] (Ky Kiske @ Mar. 31 2004,17:37)]jesus aymar, do you always say "EXCELLENT" "LOL" "VERY TRUE" o.o; it getting annoying, your not contributing anything to these kind of threads.

on another note, 50 people will still buy the game and 10 wont. hmmmm thats a good ratio. point of this is that you guys(rtw haters) are just whining way too much.

heh, i bet you guys would still buy the game even if you said no.
Which is "preciselly [sic]" my point. Ky Kiske's got it right.

And like i said, there'll be plenty of mod-ability, so that if druids really annoy you to the point of asphyxiation, you'll be able to mod them out and breathe again. I don't see anything wrong with this approach, and i applaud CA for taking it.

There's far too much whining going on in here. For Christmas' sake, it's a game. It's supposed to be *fun*, not a freakin' history lecture or a video-book. Lighten up, people.

[RisingSun]

How is seeing stupid, retarded, sickle-wielding druids any fun at all?

[oblivious maximus]

Its not fun. If your into that, why wait?...


http://www.battle.net/images/battle/images/banners/468_warcraft_instores.gif

[alman9898]

It's ONE UNIT. Who gives a crap? The game has so many other impressive features... not buying just because it doesnt have your favorite historically accurate barbarian unit or whatnot is absolutely ridiculous. MTW wasn't completely historically accurate and peeps still bought it and loved it. Who cares?

As I said, I only have two quarrels with what CA is doing

1.) Locked factions
2.) The commanders yelling "Charge" in English (the fact that they yell it though is still very cool)

And that's not going to stop me from buying RTW. No sir-ee.

[Herodotus]

QUOTE]History doesn't get in the way. It shows the way.
[/QUOTE]

Here, Here

I think that historical accuracy is very important in a game that claims to be set in a real period of history.
CA should not follow the Hollywood line of appealing to the lowest common denominator for marketing reasons. This line of production leads to a serious lack of quality (not to mention distorting history in the minds of the masses). CA should cater to the likes of serious gamers/fans, an idiot average buyer of one of these games will not know the signifigance of any of the units fantastical or not so why cater to them?

CA should be commended for producing quality games while other companies were churning out games that were all the same(C&C copies etc.). These companies have been around forever, you know the sort, they couldn't care less about gamers, all they care about is money, they ship there product and advertise it as the best thing ever when its rubbish. It would be unfortunate to say the least if the CA team was pressured by their superiors into this sort of production when they alone have had the bravery to brake out of the mold.

It is ironic how little the big gaming companies know about games. It is the unique quality games that make the big money eg. C&C made big money but the copies fared less well, but they continue to make games in 'proven' categories. Also they underestimate the tether of gamers, if i get ripped off by a company (they said it was great, i bought it, it wasn't) then i will never buy from that company again. As MTW is a great game I will get RTW. but if it is a dud then bye bye CA.

Finally I'd like to say how that I think CA are doing a good job and that they do seem to be aware of the lowest common denominator factor (the belief that a product should be marketed to its stupidest consumer). They have made a brilliant compromise as you can select the level of detail you would like when starting a campaign.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Ky Kiske @ Mar. 31 2004,17:37)]jesus aymar, do you always say "EXCELLENT" "LOL" "VERY TRUE" o.o; it getting annoying, your not contributing anything to these kind of threads.
Really? Your really think so? My, my... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif



Quote[/b] ]on another note, 50 people will still buy the game and 10 wont. hmmmm thats a good ratio. point of this is that you guys(rtw haters) are just whining way too much.

heh, i bet you guys would still buy the game even if you said no.
RTW haters? LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

It is because we love the TW series that we do not want it spoiled with stupidity. Got it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Lord Aeon @ Mar. 31 2004,19:09)]
Quote[/b] (Ky Kiske @ Mar. 31 2004,17:37)]jesus aymar, do you always say "EXCELLENT" "LOL" "VERY TRUE" o.o; it getting annoying, your not contributing anything to these kind of threads.

on another note, 50 people will still buy the game and 10 wont. hmmmm thats a good ratio. point of this is that you guys(rtw haters) are just whining way too much.

heh, i bet you guys would still buy the game even if you said no.
Which is "preciselly [sic]" my point. Ky Kiske's got it right.
No he doesn't.



Quote[/b] ]And like i said, there'll be plenty of mod-ability, so that if druids really annoy you to the point of asphyxiation, you'll be able to mod them out and breathe again. I don't see anything wrong with this approach, and i applaud CA for taking it.
How do you know that? AFAIK, you're not working for CA. So, you can't know if it will be MODable or not.



Quote[/b] ]There's far too much whining going on in here. For Christmas' sake, it's a game. It's supposed to be *fun*, not a freakin' history lecture or a video-book. Lighten up, people.
No, it is not supposed to be "fun", if it steers from the real objective: historical battle simulation.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (alman9898 @ Mar. 31 2004,21:01)]It's ONE UNIT.
Not it's not. So far in 9 units, 2 are deeply flawed. Druid and Iberian Bull Warrior.



Quote[/b] ]Who gives a crap?
I do.



Quote[/b] ] The game has so many other impressive features... not buying just because it doesnt have your favorite historically accurate barbarian unit or whatnot is absolutely ridiculous. MTW wasn't completely historically accurate and peeps still bought it and loved it. Who cares?
Again, I do. CA's compromise with accuracy, does make it obvious that if incorrections are portraied, we should be able to ask for corrections.



Quote[/b] ]As I said, I only have two quarrels with what CA is doing

1.) Locked factions
2.) The commanders yelling "Charge" in English (the fact that they yell it though is still very cool)

And that's not going to stop me from buying RTW. No sir-ee.
In fact, the 2nd reason is (compared to the units) almost unimportant.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Herodotus @ April 01 2004,04:40)]QUOTE]History doesn't get in the way. It shows the way.


Here, Here

I think that historical accuracy is very important in a game that claims to be set in a real period of history.
CA should not follow the Hollywood line of appealing to the lowest common denominator for marketing reasons. This line of production leads to a serious lack of quality (not to mention distorting history in the minds of the masses). CA should cater to the likes of serious gamers/fans, an idiot average buyer of one of these games will not know the signifigance of any of the units fantastical or not so why cater to them?

CA should be commended for producing quality games while other companies were churning out games that were all the same(C&C copies etc.). These companies have been around forever, you know the sort, they couldn't care less about gamers, all they care about is money, they ship there product and advertise it as the best thing ever when its rubbish. It would be unfortunate to say the least if the CA team was pressured by their superiors into this sort of production when they alone have had the bravery to brake out of the mold.

It is ironic how little the big gaming companies know about games. It is the unique quality games that make the big money eg. C&C made big money but the copies fared less well, but they continue to make games in 'proven' categories. Also they underestimate the tether of gamers, if i get ripped off by a company (they said it was great, i bought it, it wasn't) then i will never buy from that company again. As MTW is a great game I will get RTW. but if it is a dud then bye bye CA.

Finally I'd like to say how that I think CA are doing a good job and that they do seem to be aware of the lowest common denominator factor (the belief that a product should be marketed to its stupidest consumer). They have made a brilliant compromise as you can select the level of detail you would like when starting a campaign.[/QUOTE]
Preciselly. Very well spoken. You've taken the words out of my mouth.

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
Many, many people don't read history anymore and even when they do, they prefer easy going popular stuff often lacking accuracy or full of prejudices about something or another.

People prefer cinema/TV and recently games. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I know pseudo-intellectuals quoting a famous playwright's words as if they were the words of the real historical personality. (No, not Shakespeare in this case but yes, his plays are in the same box.)

So; the makers of popular stuff, appealing to masses, like motion pictures for the cinema/TV or computer games, have ethical responsibility of keeping to reality within certain limits, or properly labeling fantasy/alternative history acoordingly. The current "wild capitalistic" marketing world has nothing to do with the mentioned responsibility and naturally will not enforce it. However, thankfully, it's living its dusk but that's OT...

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif
_

[RZST]

people. what is CA? isnt CA a COMPANY? and what do comnpanies do? they make money.


Quote[/b] ]Really? Your really think so? My, my...
-yes i think so, thats why i said it. duh.


Quote[/b] ]RTW haters? LOL

It is because we love the TW series that we do not want it spoiled with stupidity. Got it?
-well what else can i label you that is short enough to write? antiRTWunits?
-i love the TW series too so dont say that to me.
spoiled with stupidity? how do you know whats is good the CA and what it not? your just a consumer that will buy their products no matter what even if you say no, so shhhh.


Quote[/b] ]we should be able to ask for corrections.
-yes we should, but dont expect CA to comply. hell i want a better campaign map but CA seems to not take notice of it.


Quote[/b] ]How do you know that? AFAIK, you're not working for CA. So, you can't know if it will be MODable or not.
-you just contradicted yourself o.o; i mean you disagreed with the guy but you also said "you cant know it if will be modable or not". get what im saying?


Quote[/b] ]No, it is not supposed to be "fun", if it steers from the real objective: historical battle simulation.
-fun? whats your definition of fun? i enjoy sending hapless peasants to their doom, am i having fun? yes. do you find that fun? maybe, maybe not. your not in position to say whats fun or not.


Quote[/b] ]CA should be commended for producing quality games while other companies were churning out games that were all the same(C&C copies etc.). These companies have been around forever, you know the sort, they couldn't care less about gamers, all they care about is money, they ship there product and advertise it as the best thing ever when its rubbish.
-i agree with what you say however you cannot compare RTW to other games, games like C&C are Real Time Strategy, Total War Series is a hybrid, turnbased and real time. if you compare C&C to TW's Battle part then TW would win, if you compare Campaign mode of TW to Civilization then civilization would win by a whole lot.

[PSYCHO]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-glasses2.gif

...and no, your response Rosacrux doesn't count http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (PSYCHO @ April 02 2004,00:30)]http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-glasses2.gif

...and no, your response Rosacrux doesn't count http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
But... why? It was such an articulate and witty one?

Not to mention that I actually predicted they (CA) would introduce a Druid unit befor they actully did The only flaw is that it isn't - yet - named Panoramix... but there's time to correct that error http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

CA, we want them cool Egyptian units One more idea: Cleopatra Heavy Pike-nosers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Lord Aeon]

Quote[/b] (Mouzafphaerre @ April 01 2004,17:46)]-
Many, many people don't read history anymore and even when they do, they prefer easy going popular stuff often lacking accuracy or full of prejudices about something or another.

People prefer cinema/TV and recently games. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I know pseudo-intellectuals quoting a famous playwright's words as if they were the words of the real historical personality. (No, not Shakespeare in this case but yes, his plays are in the same box.)

So; the makers of popular stuff, appealing to masses, like motion pictures for the cinema/TV or computer games, have ethical responsibility of keeping to reality within certain limits, or properly labeling fantasy/alternative history acoordingly. The current "wild capitalistic" marketing world has nothing to do with the mentioned responsibility and naturally will not enforce it. However, thankfully, it's living its dusk but that's OT...

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif
_
That's a buncha malarkey.

This is Western culture, buddy. CA doesn't have an ethical responsbility to do ANYthing but make sure the game doesn't melt your children's eyeballs or something. Why do you people not get this? The fact that they're doing much more than this is only to their credit.

And enough with the condescending attitude from you history buffs that think just because you know when Charlemagne was born, that this has endowed you with some sort of mystical superiority over the rest of us, and that we're all of us doomed to a life of intellectual mediocrity if we don't carry the same knowledge. Let me enlighten you:

1) Many of us may not read history books faithfully, but that doesn't mean we don't know what a book *is*, where to find one, or how to understand those squiggly little "word" things inside 'em. The implication that all people that didn't major in history at Berkeley "prefer" fluff over concrete knowledge is... irresponsible at best. Nice analysis. Where'd you get your psych degree from? 'Cause i can tell you where i got mine...

2) I'm also a molecular biologist. I can talk to you all day long about the nucleation of the pre-initiation complex by TBP in eukaryotic transcription, but that doesn't necessarily entitle me to get all uppity with Hasbro because their "Operation Brain Surgery Game" isn't "biologically accurate". Do you have any idea what i'm getting at here?

As long as the game doesn't say "100% historically accurate" on the box and the game is working and fun to play, i consider CA's responsibilities complete. I mean, you guys certainly *believe* you're a clever bunch; you'll figure out a way to mod out the undesirable units. And even if you don't, you'll live.

[Rosacrux]

Lord Aeon,

Even though I promised myself I won't be serious about this any more, I'll break my promise to address your post.

You seem to misunderstand this whole issue, don't you?

CA is a company (as is Activision). It has a product - the TW games line. Quite succesful too, I must say. Lots of people have bought the previous installments of this product. Made good money for CA and Activision.

The core of those people who bought and played this game, is the lot of us here, those who continue to play it even two year after its release and support it with various means.

You might not like the sound of the word "responsibility", so what about "good business vs bad business"? Dumping the very core of its customers, is not good business for CA. It is very bad business, you know.

Got it now? Good. And please, next time try to be more polite when adressing people who apparently have more to say about this than you.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Ky Kiske @ April 01 2004,20:17)]
Quote[/b] ]RTW haters? LOL

It is because we love the TW series that we do not want it spoiled with stupidity. Got it?
-well what else can i label you that is short enough to write? antiRTWunits?
In fact, what you called us previously was the most inapropriate term. Besides, this one isn't correct either. You could have called us Anti-Mistification-RTW-Group. That one would be accurate.



Quote[/b] ] -i love the TW series too so dont say that to me.
Well, it doesn't seem so.



Quote[/b] ]spoiled with stupidity? how do you know whats is good the CA and what it not?
It's not what is good for CA that matters, it's what is good for the buyers of their games: WE.



Quote[/b] ]your just a consumer that will buy their products no matter what even if you say no, so shhhh.
Wrong again. If this stupidity about Fantasy units keeps up, I won't buy the game at all. MTW/VI will be the last TW series I will have bought.



Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]we should be able to ask for corrections.
-yes we should, but dont expect CA to comply. hell i want a better campaign map but CA seems to not take notice of it.
That doesn't mean you need to shut up about it. You have the right to keep screaming, as much as I do.



Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]How do you know that? AFAIK, you're not working for CA. So, you can't know if it will be MODable or not.
-you just contradicted yourself o.o; i mean you disagreed with the guy but you also said "you cant know it if will be modable or not". get what im saying?
The guy said something like: "the game will be so easy to MOD, so you can all MOD it after the release. No worries."

I said: "How do you know that? AFAIK, you're not working for CA. So, you can't know if it will be MODable or not."

No contradition at all. You're inventing things...



Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]No, it is not supposed to be "fun", if it steers from the real objective: historical battle simulation.
-fun? whats your definition of fun? i enjoy sending hapless peasants to their doom, am i having fun? yes. do you find that fun? maybe, maybe not. your not in position to say whats fun or not.
Neither are you.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

If the inaccuracy in units bother people i'm sure the problems can be solved with some modding. Christ, i can't wait to mod Rome http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Lord Aeon @ April 02 2004,05:17)]
Quote[/b] (Mouzafphaerre @ April 01 2004,17:46)]-
Many, many people don't read history anymore and even when they do, they prefer easy going popular stuff often lacking accuracy or full of prejudices about something or another.

People prefer cinema/TV and recently games. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I know pseudo-intellectuals quoting a famous playwright's words as if they were the words of the real historical personality. (No, not Shakespeare in this case but yes, his plays are in the same box.)

So; the makers of popular stuff, appealing to masses, like motion pictures for the cinema/TV or computer games, have ethical responsibility of keeping to reality within certain limits, or properly labeling fantasy/alternative history acoordingly. The current "wild capitalistic" marketing world has nothing to do with the mentioned responsibility and naturally will not enforce it. However, thankfully, it's living its dusk but that's OT...

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif
_
That's a buncha malarkey.

This is Western culture, buddy. CA doesn't have an ethical responsbility to do ANYthing but make sure the game doesn't melt your children's eyeballs or something.
BS. Sure it does.



Quote[/b] ] Why do you people not get this? The fact that they're doing much more than this is only to their credit.
Sure it is. And that's preciselly the reason why they have to be sure that they don't turn their reputation into ridicule.



Quote[/b] ]And enough with the condescending attitude from you history buffs that think just because you know when Charlemagne was born, that this has endowed you with some sort of mystical superiority over the rest of us, and that we're all of us doomed to a life of intellectual mediocrity if we don't carry the same knowledge. Let me enlighten you:

1) Many of us may not read history books faithfully, but that doesn't mean we don't know what a book *is*, where to find one, or how to understand those squiggly little "word" things inside 'em. The implication that all people that didn't major in history at Berkeley "prefer" fluff over concrete knowledge is... irresponsible at best. Nice analysis. Where'd you get your psych degree from? 'Cause i can tell you where i got mine...

2) I'm also a molecular biologist. I can talk to you all day long about the nucleation of the pre-initiation complex by TBP in eukaryotic transcription, but that doesn't necessarily entitle me to get all uppity with Hasbro because their "Operation Brain Surgery Game" isn't "biologically accurate". Do you have any idea what i'm getting at here?
Yes. To your own frustrations and regrets.



Quote[/b] ]As long as the game doesn't say "100% historically accurate" on the box and the game is working and fun to play, i consider CA's responsibilities complete.
I don't. A matter of opinion.



Quote[/b] ]I mean, you guys certainly *believe* you're a clever bunch; you'll figure out a way to mod out the undesirable units. And even if you don't, you'll live.
My, my... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif Such supressed anger...

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
Dear Lord Aeon,

Before puking your rage onto me an my post, please try understanding the point of it correctly.

No flame war from me.

Regards
_

[Gregoshi]

And to think we still have six more months of discussions like this to look forward to... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif Another three months we'll be in the "pistols at 10 paces" stage.

Everyone has differing views of what they want in a game and their tolerances to deviations in those wants. Dealing with these differences in each other is a weighty burden we must all bear if we are to get along. The RTW discussions are degenerating from talking about RTW to sniping at each other. Is the sniping going to make RTW a better game? No. Will it make these forums a better place for we TW fans? No. Before you hit that "add reply" button, ask yourself what you hope to accomplish with your post. Also keep in mind that nobody like to be made the fool, especially in front of an audience and will most likely respond in kind. Is that the road you wish to travel in these (or any other) forums? I know I don't.

Now, everyone (self included) go to time-out for 10 minutes and think about how you've been behaving...and then we'll all go out for ice cream. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Lord Aeon]

Ah, Aymar. Aymar, Aymar, Aymar... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

What can i say about Aymar that hasn't already been said about Afghanistan? His posts are bombed out and depleted. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif So i won't respond to those.

For the rest: Just because i don't agree with your points doesn't mean i misunderstood them. I thought i sorta said that already...

Aaaanyway, i know exactly what you're saying. You're saying, "oh me oh my, CA is adding in non-historical units, and they're gonna ruin the game for me, and because i am the most important customer Activision/CA has - since, of course, i bought M:TW and played it - they should cater to my needs."

Believe me, i get it.

And i'm saying: Guess what? I bought and played the game too, in case that little inference has escaped a few of you, and i don't mind druids in the game. Neither do tens of thousands of people who bought and played Medieval that *don't* visit or post on these boards.
I'm also saying: You'll probably be able to make the game what you want when it's released. And if historical accuracy is the most important selling point of this game for you, you shouldn't be playing Rome, you should be playing with toy soldiers in a comic book shop somewhere.

But i'm done being the voice of dissent, and i'm gonna be a nice guy from now on. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Group hug? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Basileus]

Calm down ppl its still just a game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif and if you dont calm down i´ll send my Iberian Bull Warriors to kick your asss http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Zawath]

Those history fanatics always make me laugh. I really don't care much whether the barbarian is using a sword or an axe. Its the same when a WW2 buff starts claiming that the war film was totally unrealistic piece of junk just because the Tiger tank´s cannon was one inch too short

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Lord Aeon @ April 02 2004,12:15)]Ah, Aymar. Aymar, Aymar, Aymar... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Poor Lord Aeon, I realy fell sorry for him... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-cry.gif



Quote[/b] ]What can i say about Aymar that hasn't already been said about Afghanistan? His posts are bombed out and depleted.
Well, weel. What can be said about Lord Aeon that hasn't already been said about Bush? He's an... (no need to elaborate) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif



Quote[/b] ]http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif So i won't respond to those.
Good. I'll follow your example for the first and last time, right after this post... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif



Quote[/b] ]For the rest: Just because i don't agree with your points doesn't mean i misunderstood them. I thought i sorta said that already...
Contradicting your earlier posts? You do understand us? Interesting... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif

I thought we were just "tight-rectum-ed eunuchs" or "rtw haters"...



Quote[/b] ]Aaaanyway, i know exactly what you're saying. You're saying, "oh me oh my, CA is adding in non-historical units, and they're gonna ruin the game for me, and because i am the most important customer Activision/CA has - since, of course, i bought M:TW and played it - they should cater to my needs."
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif Another "deluded" guy... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif



Quote[/b] ]Believe me, i get it.
No you don't. If you had, you wouldn't be arguing with us.



Quote[/b] ]And i'm saying: Guess what? I bought and played the game too, in case that little inference has escaped a few of you, and i don't mind druids in the game. Neither do tens of thousands of people who bought and played Medieval that *don't* visit or post on these boards.
How do you know if they mind or not? Have you asked them? Or are you GOD?



Quote[/b] ]I'm also saying: You'll probably be able to make the game what you want when it's released.
It's a good word: probably. Once again, slowly and one at a time, for you to understand:

How do you know?

Do you work for CA?

You don't, right?

So, accordingly, you just don't know...



Quote[/b] ]And if historical accuracy is the most important selling point of this game for you, you shouldn't be playing Rome, you should be playing with toy soldiers in a comic book shop somewhere.
No. Since you like fantasy, you should be the one in the comic book store. That caters for your age... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[oblivious maximus]

Quote[/b] (alman9898 @ Mar. 31 2004,19:01)]It's ONE UNIT. Who gives a crap?
See, now its unit after unit. When is it going to end?

[oblivious maximus]

Im a member IL2 WWII flight sim community. Its made by russian Oleg Maddox. He takes serious pride in making the sim/game as accurate as possible from cockpits to climb rate.

I can only compare this to him releasing a high-altitude BF-109 Night Strike bomber. This never happened.
There is no amount of pressure that UBiSoft could put on Oleg to try and sell us that crap.

We obviously dont have this kind of relationship with CA.

[Pindar]

It appears RTW is getting large amounts of press coverage. Voices hear may be of no value.

[Pindar]

I notice many posts about modability (sp) but why should be be necessary? Why not forge a game without the silliness of 12th Dynasty Egyptians rooming about out of time. Alas.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that as long as there is the option of being able to mod the game people here will quickly alter it for the more discerning gamer. For the masses they don't care in the slightest as long as it looks good and plays well.

I'm surprised that they didn't stick some Vikings in at the top - y'know, some continuity...

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

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (oblivious maximus @ April 02 2004,19:25)]Im a member IL2 WWII flight sim community. Its made by russian Oleg Maddox. He takes serious pride in making the sim/game as accurate as possible from cockpits to climb rate.

I can only compare this to him releasing a high-altitude BF-109 Night Strike bomber. This never happened.
There is no amount of pressure that UBiSoft could put on Oleg to try and sell us that crap.

We obviously dont have this kind of relationship with CA.
You might get a kick out of gamespot.com's review of IL-2 "Ace" expansion.

It says on-line IL-2 players are a serious bunch, and warns readers not to go there unless they are ready to accept a good thrashing.

[oblivious maximus]

Thanks Doug, i just went there and read it. I have to say its a good and fair review. The screenshots there are low and will look ten times better if you have a good card.

[PSYCHO]

Well, in keeping with the general feeling here, I gonna have my own rant to no one in particular


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


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif I FOR ONE, AM SICK TO DEATH OF ALL THESE BLOODY FANTASY PROPONENTS SAYING "well, you know if you don't like it, if you want Rome Total War to actually reflect the ancient world, you can always just mod it" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif
MOD IT?.. MOD MY ASSS...MOD THIS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

HERE'S AN IDEA?..HOW ABOUT CA ACTUALLY NOT CATER TO THE LOWEST COMMON INTELLECTUAL DENOMINATOR AND MAKE STUFF HISTORICALLY BASED ...AND IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS READING OR COMPREHENDING, YOU CAN DUMB DOWN YOUR VERSION WITH YOUR OWN PRECIOUS MOD

GOD DAM WE HAVE WAITED 2 YEARS FOR THIS AND NOW THESE PEEPS WANT US TO WAIT FOR GOD KNOWS HOW LONG TILL SOMEONE HAS THE TIME AND PATIENCE TO WORK OUT HOW TO FIX STUFF AND PRODUCE WHAT SHOULD'VE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FIRST PLACE IF SOMEONE ELSE TELLS ME I HAVE TO DESIGN THE GAME OVER AGAIN IN A MOD I'LL ....*$%@&#%@$% http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif




... ah, wonderful carthasis of emotion..much better http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flat.gif

[Lord Aeon]

Yo mama.

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

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Well if no one has said it yet, you could always mod it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Seriously, if some of the developers see people upset about the direction of units, they should start listening because alot of geezers are getting slighty miffed about it.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (PSYCHO @ April 05 2004,22:34)]Well, in keeping with the general feeling here, I gonna have my own rant to no one in particular


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


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif I FOR ONE, AM SICK TO DEATH OF ALL THESE BLOODY FANTASY PROPONENTS SAYING "well, you know if you don't like it, if you want Rome Total War to actually reflect the ancient world, you can always just mod it" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif
MOD IT?.. MOD MY ASSS...MOD THIS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

HERE'S AN IDEA?..HOW ABOUT CA ACTUALLY NOT CATER TO THE LOWEST COMMON INTELLECTUAL DENOMINATOR AND MAKE STUFF HISTORICALLY BASED ...AND IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS READING OR COMPREHENDING, YOU CAN DUMB DOWN YOUR VERSION WITH YOUR OWN PRECIOUS MOD

GOD DAM WE HAVE WAITED 2 YEARS FOR THIS AND NOW THESE PEEPS WANT US TO WAIT FOR GOD KNOWS HOW LONG TILL SOMEONE HAS THE TIME AND PATIENCE TO WORK OUT HOW TO FIX STUFF AND PRODUCE WHAT SHOULD'VE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FIRST PLACE IF SOMEONE ELSE TELLS ME I HAVE TO DESIGN THE GAME OVER AGAIN IN A MOD I'LL ....*$%@&#%@$% http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif




... ah, wonderful carthasis of emotion..much better http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flat.gif
HEHEHEHE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif My thoughts exactly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Herodotus]

Quote[/b] ]Those history fanatics always make me laugh. I really don't care much whether the barbarian is using a sword or an axe. Its the same when a WW2 buff starts claiming that the war film was totally unrealistic piece of junk just because the Tiger tank´s cannon was one inch too short

How about the war film (U52 or whatever) was totally unrealistic because it was the British who captured the enigma machine and not the Americans who were not even at war with Germany yet? If you don't think that is a gross rewriting of history then go tell big brother you love him.

[RZST]

wheee, ok guys. lets all be polite and go back to topic o.o;

[Tricky Lady]

I would prefer to have historically correct units, but I don't care if CA decides to put some fantasy units in the game.
As long as Egypt is not in Northern Europe or the Romans have a general named Napoleon Bonaparte, I'm happy with it. Don't forget, this is yet another upgrade of an already superb game... Things can only get better IMHO.

[JAG]

I will still buy the game and play it.

[BobTheTerrible]

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

I am not trying to insult anyone persoanlly here, I'm just going to try and make a point.

CA is a company. There is no law that says companies must make historically accurate games. As long as CA doesn't create a game that causes kids to spontaneously combust, CA can do whatever the hell it wants. Since there is a larger market for easygoing people who don't care about hardcore historical accuracy, their obvious choice is to appeal to them. CA has no responsibility to provide s with historically accurate games.

As for whether I'll buy the game or not, well, that depends if my computer can run it or not.

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

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (Clownmite @ April 09 2004,19:39)]As for whether I'll buy the game or not, well, that depends if my computer can run it or not.
Ditto.

[hellenes]

I ve voted yes mainly because of the mods etc etc option which will make the game more historically accurate...
However if the CA makes all those for 12 year olds units for the "broader" audience i have to dissapoint them as the majority of the "casual" RTS'ers wont bye a game where you cant build ANY building online (yes yes a MP campaign http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif )
the point: I had my mouth SHUT after me trying to agitate RTW in a greek warcraft forum...
The reason?: "To Medieval eixe plaka se single player, alla ousiastika eixe aniparkto multiplayer giati ka8e "game" i8ele meres na teleiwsei, kai opws kai na to kanoume online fainetai i axia tou RTS. Kai to Rome apo oti fainetai de 8a exei kai polles diafores oson afora to gameplay apo to Medieval, opote.."

Translation: "The Medieval was fun in single player, but virtually had non existing multiplayer because each "game" needed days to be finished, and at all events the value of the RTS is shown online. And Rome as it seems wont have many differences as the gameplay is oncerned to Medieval, so..."
The link: www.warcraft.gr/forum.asp...1869.m1157

so even if CA makes "santa claus" units firing gifts out of their deers a$$ the clients of blizzard/ensemble/etc etc are highly unlikekly to buy the game....

Hellenes

PS: The frustration that is very possible to come is a REALITY mod without any egyptian time travellers or unshaved motorbikers with jeans to dominate the MP pushing the original game aside (most probably amongst the hardcore historicall fans players)

[SirGrotius]

responding to a hot thread...

Yeah, but it was the Poles who figured out how to use it (the Enigma machine).

[shingenmitch2]

"CA is a company. There is no law that says companies must make historically accurate games"

No sh*t... that's why they never do... Everyone understands the $ incentives for fantasy. The frustration comes because FOR ONCE we'd like to see a company do it right... (Especially this one cause the game has such potential.)

Explain to me how the company can spend so much damn time on get the mechanics of battle accurate (missile arcs, rain effects, hill effects, morale effects,) down to the last detail AND then still populate the game with inaccurate units?
---------------------
"As long as Egypt is not in Northern Europe or the Romans have a general named Napoleon Bonaparte, I'm happy with it."

Why would that annoy you and Egyptian snake warriors with poison whips not? Interesting line being drawn... some crap is okay, but just don't get TOO stupid...

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

-------------------
Oblivious,
IL2 is perfect example. A great game. You buy if you want to play a WW2 flight sim... I doubt there is anyone who bought it that thought "OMG, there's no fantasy planes in this it sux"

Same with the TW series. Peeps buy this game because they want the experience of commanding ancient armies. If there was not a single fake-unit in the game no one would complain -- who is going to bitch about the missing "Thracian sickle thrower"? or for that matter the Ibero-bull warrior. They don't exist, and if they weren't there no one would miss them.

Kids actually learning about ww2 with IL2. And what's more the accuracy IS what makes the game fun. And if RTW is accurate as possible it would STILL be fun, because it is the strategy of the fight that makes it interesting, not the variety of units --- back to chess: 6 UNITS Exact same for both sides, but the game is fun 1000 years after it was invented... because it about the strategy.

[Ser Clegane]

While I would like to see only historically accurate units - and as many other posters I fail to see how "fantasy" units make the game any better or which customers are going to buy the game because of these units (and would not buy it without these)

Will I still buy RTW? Yes, I will (at least if things do not totally get out of hands), as long as the gameplay, AI and diplomacy options are decent and the game is bug-free.

I do not think that the presence of some "fantasy" units will affect gameplay to such an extent that it becomes unbearable.

[Tricky Lady]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ April 11 2004,05:55)]---------------------
"As long as Egypt is not in Northern Europe or the Romans have a general named Napoleon Bonaparte, I'm happy with it."

Why would that annoy you and Egyptian snake warriors with poison whips not? Interesting line being drawn... some crap is okay, but just don't get TOO stupid...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
-------------------
let me answer with a quote of Ser Clegane:

Quote[/b] ]I do not think that the presence of some "fantasy" units will affect gameplay to such an extent that it becomes unbearable.

[Lord Aeon]

I guess i'm not sure why these slippery slope arguments are still being taken seriously.

"If we concede to druids, next thing we know, there'll be orcs and dragons"

What? Why does this sound reasonable?

[LittleGrizzly]

been playing total war games for the last 3 years (the day they stop making these ill have to get a girlfriend or something) i love the games but i dont now much at all about history and aslong as the game seemed reasonably realistic i could play happily

what you've go to remember here is the people who come on a forum are the really hardcore fans and there only seem to be a few complaining so it seems to me they're expanded their potential customer base will keeping the current one mostly intact...

[shingenmitch2]

Little Grizzly--

I think you are my case-in-point. You say "i love the games but i dont now much at all about history and aslong as the game seemed reasonably realistic i could play happily"

Exactly... if there was never a Kensai or Druid, you'd never notice AND never care. All you care is that the battle plays good. Accurate units can only make the gameplay better and it would keep us history buffs even more satisfied.

--------------

I doubt if more than 10 peeps bought MI because of the Kensai. What person who knows little about history even knows what the hell a Kensai is? If they don't know what it is, why would that be an incentive for them buy the game?

I don't know much about history, never heard of an Iberian Bull warrior --- BUT I HAVE to get Rome because it's got them.

All I know that the Kensai did was add a non-historical unit that made history guys role eyes AND added an imbalanced unit that F*d up multi-play. Ever experience 3v3 where one guy took all Kensai? Felt like a real battle --- NOT. Arcade game? yup. Play better? NOPE. Peeps start banning it from their games. YUP.

[Doug-Thompson]

IL-2 has been mentioned as a model of accuracy. The latest version of that great game includes several jets that were in the prototype stage, at best, and never saw operational service in WWII or, in some cases, ever.

I'd rather see CA make a few concessions — which probably have more to do with play balance than selling the game to 12-year-olds — than fail commercially, leaving us with nothing but Age of Mythology and other such pure fantasy.

[shingenmitch2]

Doug,

I too would rather have a few concessions then see the series fail. I doubt, however, this series lives or dies on the basis of fantasy units. My point above is how many people are going to buy the game because of the iberian bull-warrior? or Germanic war-dog units? My guess is that is very small. Most buy it for the "what is it like to be a Roman general" or "what is like commanding a Macedonian phalanx" aspect than anything else --- and I think that is only enhanced by accuracy.

As for IL2 -- I don't know the new version, but I doubt those experimental planes are part of the "core" campaign. I have no problem with a game including a whole bunch of "what if" scenarios (i.e. what if the Comet or ME262 was out in 1942), in fact that can be quite nice, but they are usually options.

I would be perfectly happy if RTW has both fantasy and historical if I can easily turn off the fantasy, but so far it doesn't sound that way, and thus my griping.

[shingenmitch2]

Ah, one other thing,

The poll should include:

Yes, in spite of fantasy

Yes, because of fantasy

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ April 12 2004,10:52)]My point above is how many people are going to buy the game because of the iberian bull-warrior? or Germanic war-dog units? My guess is that is very small. Most buy it for the "what is it like to be a Roman general" or "what is like commanding a Macedonian phalanx" aspect than anything else --- and I think that is only enhanced by accuracy.
You're right, shingenmitch2 --- which is why I strongly suspect these fictitious units were included for play balance reasons more than market appeal.

Once perfected, the Roman legion was dominant. Unless they were fighting Hannibal, Rome could put up with political appointment of generals and alternate-day command of their armies because, as a rule, anybody who followed their basic army doctrine would win. Just be sure to entrench that camp every day, and so forth.

I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that playtesting showed a serious balance problem and that is why we're having a flurry of fictitious units.

(Just for clarity, I prefer to use the word "fictitious" to "fantasy" in this case. When I first opened this thread, I thought there were going to be centaurs or something.)

[oblivious maximus]

All planes in IL2 were manufactured by its countries and flew and meet their real capabilities. The United States P-80 which is famous for Korea, was active for service in Italy.
Regardless, these ACTUAL planes are not part of your campaign.
I cant say the same for the Indian elephants,legions of King Tuts,Bull Warriors,Warbands,NightRaiders,Druids and what ever it is next week you will have to get through to play as a different faction.


shingenmitch has made such good points, i dont understand why some of you guys dont understand that every dumb unit they add hurts the quality of the game and maybe long term sells.

[shingenmitch2]

"I prefer to use the word "fictitious" to "fantasy" in this case."

Agreed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

"I strongly suspect these fictitious units were included for play balance reasons"

I sure hope so...


"Once perfected, the Roman legion was dominant."
If balance is the issue, i'd prefer to see them balanced by other means -- e.x.: base German unit is 150 men while legion unit is much smaller say 60, like the CMAA. Thus the legion unit may be better, but now they have to slog against bigger hordes of lesser technology. (hehe, fictitious Roman unit size––I'm willing to sacrifice accuracy for game play, but I think how it is done is important)

I'd say that the legion never really proved better than the Parthians or Sarmatians on the steppe, but I get your point http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[oblivious maximus]

I think we might be preaching to the choir right now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Satyr]

While I enjoy the accuracy of the games (such as it is) and I very much enjoy playing Medmod, I really don't care if there are things in the game that weren't in fact real. Like others have said here, it is the gameplay that matters. It is my troops smashing into your troops that matters. If one of them has an inaccurate head piece, I won't give a rat's a$$ after the second time I see them if they play well. The first time I played MTW and watched my cav run up a hill, wheel, and charge into the flank of a company of peasants and watched the peasants collapse and run I knew I would play the Total War games forever. And Rome is hopefully just the next game in that forever scenario. Bring it on

For that matter, if LOTR:Total War showed up in 3 years, I would buy it too

[Herodotus]

Quote[/b] ]Once perfected, the Roman legion was dominant. Unless they were fighting Hannibal, Rome could put up with political appointment of generals and alternate-day command of their armies because, as a rule, anybody who followed their basic army doctrine would win. Just be sure to entrench that camp every day, and so forth.
Wrong, the Romans suffered many defeats, it took brilliant generals to command Roman armies effectively. The main strength of Rome was not the quality of there common soldiers (although they were certainly not unimportant). It was the amazing string of great men who commanded her armies such as Marius, Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. I'll write up some examples of commanders who were not so good later.

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ April 10 2004,22:55)]or for that matter the Ibero-bull warrior. They don't exist, and if they weren't there no one would miss them.
No they didn't exist, but in effect if CA had to go by the accounts of the times then the Iberians would have four units. Iberian small roundshielded guys with javelins and swords, celtiberian hexagonal or oval shielded guys with swords and spears, slingers and the spanish cavalry.

Now that is what is completely correct. But since each group is so vaguely presented how are the Iberians going to have Elite units (you can't say that chieftains didn't have an elite bodyguard)? Simple, we create some that fits one of the disciptions pretty well but are actually invented. And that is how the Bull Warrior come to be. He was created with historical equipment (thought the helmet is just a wee bit odd) and as such he is plausible, though we can't know if any Iberian warriors went about like this guy, there simply aren't enough accounts of them.

The Night Raiders are more or less user requested from this very board (from a very dedicated patron), so I don't hope there are anybody complaining about them.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ April 28 2004,09:56)]
Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ April 10 2004,22:55)]or for that matter the Ibero-bull warrior. They don't exist, and if they weren't there no one would miss them.
No they didn't exist, but in effect if CA had to go by the accounts of the times then the Iberians would have four units. Iberian small roundshielded guys with javelins and swords, celtiberian hexagonal or oval shielded guys with swords and spears, slingers and the spanish cavalry.

Now that is what is completely correct. But since each group is so vaguely presented how are the Iberians going to have Elite units (you can't say that chieftains didn't have an elite bodyguard)? Simple, we create some that fits one of the disciptions pretty well but are actually invented. And that is how the Bull Warrior come to be. He was created with historical equipment (thought the helmet is just a wee bit odd) and as such he is plausible, though we can't know if any Iberian warriors went about like this guy, there simply aren't enough accounts of them.

The Night Raiders are more or less user requested from this very board (from a very dedicated patron), so I don't hope there are anybody complaining about them.
Check this link about Lusitanians and Celtiberians (12th post and the respective web links in it) for better suggestions on elite units of the Iberian Peninsula... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

Lusitanians and Celtiberians (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=14218;st=150)