What is RTW's Unique Selling Point?

[Pellinor]

Following on the the Egyptian controversy, plus the whole German thing (and watching Troy last night, come to think of it) I am a little confused over the game's marketing strategy. Can anyone help me out?

Normally when selling a product you try to identify a Unique Selling Point: the one thing that your product does that makes it better than everyone else's. In gaming terms, the XBox has Halo and DoA Volleyball; Age of Mythology has big stompy God things; Doom has the BFG - that sort of thing. Killer Apps.

The idea is that you don't compete on ground that someone else dominates, you pick your own battlefield.

The USP for Shogun and MTW, as far as I can tell, was that they were trying to be very realistic and historically accurate. Shogun went all out with the Way of the Daimyo, but they both had things like fatigue, morale, limited ammo, etc. Contrast that with Age of Empires, probably the biggest RTS around when Shogun came out, and you can see the difference. I never finished AoE, by the way, as I got Shogun and have never felt the urge to play a traditional RTS again.

I thought RTW was going the same way, especially with things like Time Commanders - playing up the historical aspects. However, all the focus nowadays seems to be on the fantasy/Hollywood side: it's trying to compete with Age of Mythology by going all out on the thousand elephants flaming pigs, cool-looking fantasy units, and so on. The thinking seems to be "everyone else does this, so we have to go one better".

This seems to me to be going against all the rules of marketing and branding I ever learnt. You only compete against someone else's USP if you are absolutely sure you can top it - and if they have the brand recognition anyway you're at a natural disadvantage. If you have a well-recognised USP, with Total War does, then to abandon it in foavour of another approach is to leave your high ground and attack the enemy on ground of his own choosing. The Way of the Daimyo has a lot to say about that sort of thing.

So I ask: what is RTW's Unique Selling Point?

[Rosacrux]

Oh, well, a marketing thread... lovely. Why don't visit over my thread and answer for us the question "how is historically accurate dull and uncool" too?

As for your question... CA (and prolly Activision) believe they do have THE killer engine. That is why they are going down to the lowest common denominator and market their product:

- to the same target group as the traditional RTSs aim at (10-18y old, for starters, with the same basic profile as the average Warcraft player)

- with the same USP the traditional mumbo-jumbo RTSs use (since they do believe they have the edge in that kind of competition, betting on the superb, as it seems, battle and graphics engine)

Marketing-wise, this is a stupid tactic. Your points about the established brand and user basis are spot on, and CA-Activision are throwing this into the garbage bin, with no signs of second thoughts whatsoever.

If they succeed, we can all kiss the TW we knew (and most importantly the TW we expected) goodbye, since they are going even further down this sloppy way.

But with all the positive reviews and the incredible hype, they didn't need the additional fuss and the hollyweird units. They got the market rolling for them, why destroy (that is what they are doing) your established audience, and your living promoters? It just doesn't makes much sense, does it?

[The_Emperor]

Indeed they have already proven themselves in the marketplace with two games that have both been hugely successful... It has been a winning formula for them for years, so why change it?

They do have the killer game engine with the great graphics and awesome battles and that in itself will drive this game forward.
There is no reason as I see that changing an already hugely successful formula to include more sterotypical units, is going going to help things. Especially if it may drive out already dedicated fans.

CA are pushing the historical accuracy factor a lot in their marketing of Rome, sadly thats the part that most people have serious reservations about.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Well, boys What can I say that you haven't said already?

It's a bloody shame http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif Shame on you for letting this happen, CA http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[Trax]

They are trying to please everyone, but may end up pleasing no one.

[shingenmitch2]

the movie TROY is a great example... it did nothing well.

Was it a faithful recreation of the ancient bronze age war for Troy?... nope.

Was it an inaccurate recreation of a Classical Greek war for Troy?.... nope.

Was it an all-out fantasy movie that play off of Homer's use of gods and goddesses along with fantasy armor, etc. in the "Clash of the Titans" mold?... Nope

Was it even a faithful recreation of Homer's Illiad? Nope.

As they say, a jack of all trades, master of none.... equals a boring movie that it a loser.

Jackson's Tolkien succeed, not because it was a fantasy movie, but because of its attempt to as faithfully adapt Tolkien's book as is possible on film.

Which brings me to RTW.
The selling point of this game ENGINE is its claim to be the single most accurate modeller of mass combat and combat factors. The ENGINE showcases mass fighting in a realistic way.

So just how smart is it to use a Simulation engine and then plop in fantasy units?

Beyond that point...
Fine if they want to do a Fantasy Total War, well then DO a fantasy total war. And go all out.

Dispense with the pretense of ancient warfare. Give me orcs and elves and dwarves and goblins and dragons, etc. Give me Barbarians with horns on their helmets, and Shaman/Druids that can cast spells.

BUT, if your going to use the most realistic battle engine to do ancient warfare... then give me the freakin' REAL DEAL. Spend time and research units and cultures and do them correctly. Get someone on the dev. team like that TIME COMMANDERS expert to talk over the factions with.

I find this thought revealing. The way they have added inaccurate units in now, peeps can't wait to mod the thing. Hmmm. If they did it 100% accurate, how many would clamor to mod in fantasy units? I think virtually none at all because they don't exist. No one will say... oh they forgot this or that fantasy unit...

[andrewt]

The simple fact is that there are very few things that appeal to the mass market. Most of the products and services today are successful only if they manage to carve out a successful niche for themselves.

What I'm most curious about is why CA/Activision thinks that the mass market people are

a.)too dumb to appreciate historically accurate units

but

b.)smart enough to play a complicated strategically and tactically deep game

at the same time. I just got my undergraduate business degree. We were given lots of examples of products that were good ideas but failed in the marketplace because they were targeted and designed for the wrong target market. This game seems as a good example of something targeted to the wrong market segment.

Fact is, I don't see how this game can compete successfully against games like Warcraft3 in the mass market. In Warcraft3, you can still enjoy the game even if you had no clue what half of the units and abilities are for (your average Warcraft3 player is this dumb). In the TW games, you need to know a lot of things, otherwise you'll fail in the campaign.

Look at console games. The successful mass market games are the ones where you can still enjoy the game even if you are button mashing even though you'll enjoy them more if you actually learn the game.

[The Wizard]

As I stated in Rosa's thread, the battles. Read over there, I'm too lazy to write up something about marketing right now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif



~Wiz

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Trax @ June 08 2004,10:51)]They are trying to please everyone, but may end up pleasing no one.
Preciselly. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 08 2004,12:32)]the movie TROY is a great example... it did nothing well.

Was it a faithful recreation of the bronze age war for Troy... nope.

Was it an inaccurate recration of an Ancient Greek war for Troy.... nope.

Was it an all-out fantasy movie that play off of Homer's use of gods and goddesses along with fantasy armor, etc. in the Class of Titans mold... Nope

Was it even a faithful recration of Homer's Illiad. Nope.

As they say, a jack of all trades, master of none.... equals a boring movie that it a loser.

Jackson's Tolkien succeed, not because it was a fantasy movie, but because of its attempt to faithfully adapt Tolkien's book as is possible on film.

Which brings me to RTW.
The selling point of this game ENGINE is its claim to be the single most accurate modeller of mass combat and combat factors. The ENGINE showcases mass fighting in a realistic way.

So just how smart is it to use a Simulation engine and then plop in fantasy units?

Beyond that point...
Fine if they want to do a Fantasy Total War, well then DO a fantasy total war. And go all out.

Dispense with the pretense of ancient warfare. Give me orcs and elves and dwarves and goblins and dragons, etc. Give me Barbarians with horns on their helmets, and Shaman/Druids that can cast spells.

BUT, if your going to use the most realistic battle engine to do ancient warfare... then give me the freakin REAL DEAL. Spend time and research units and cultures and do them correctly. Get someone on the dev. team like that TIME COMMANDERS expert to talk over the factions with.

I find this thought revealing. The way they have added inaccurate units in now, peeps can't wait to mod the thing.
Great post, shingenmitch2 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 08 2004,18:32)]I find this thought revealing. The way they have added inaccurate units in now, peeps can't wait to mod the thing. Hmmm. If they did it 100% accurate, how many would clamor to mod in fantasy units? I think virtually none at all because they don't exist.
Not entirely true. There are at least 3 fantasy mods in development at the org for MTW. Why shouldn't there be any for RTW? I also don't think it beyond the realms of possibility that someone might want to make an Ancient Egypt mod, and now they'll have a head start http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

Anyway, the 'fantasy' units aren't aimed at people at this fine forum, so there's no reason why there should be people celebrating them. I don't think the game is going to end up pleasing no-one either; most people, including myself, bought and love Shogun and Medieval for the gameplay, not the historical accuracy, and we'll buy Rome for the even better gameplay. Not that I don't think I've learned about the respective periods, but that comes much more from the faction and era descriptions than what the units look like.
Those of you for whom historical accuracy is a deal-breaker are in the minority, but fortunately you will have access to mods, or the ability to mod the game yourself; a luxury not available to consumers in most industries, so count yourself lucky.
For those of you who will choose to cut off your nose to spite your face and not buy the game, that is your right.
If CA and Activision fail to break in to the mass market, they will cry for losing you, if they succeed, they won't shed a tear.

Schrodie's Cat

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (andrewt @ June 08 2004,13:59)]The simple fact is that there are very few things that appeal to the mass market. Most of the products and services today are successful only if they manage to carve out a successful niche for themselves.

What I'm most curious about is why CA/Activision thinks that the mass market people are

a.)too dumb to appreciate historically accurate units

but

b.)smart enough to play a complicated strategically and tactically deep game

at the same time. I just got my undergraduate business degree. We were given lots of examples of products that were good ideas but failed in the marketplace because they were targeted and designed for the wrong target market. This game seems as a good example of something targeted to the wrong market segment.

Fact is, I don't see how this game can compete successfully against games like Warcraft3 in the mass market. In Warcraft3, you can still enjoy the game even if you had no clue what half of the units and abilities are for (your average Warcraft3 player is this dumb). In the TW games, you need to know a lot of things, otherwise you'll fail in the campaign.

Look at console games. The successful mass market games are the ones where you can still enjoy the game even if you are button mashing even though you'll enjoy them more if you actually learn the game.
Very well explained. Exactly to the point. I believe your analysis is very correct.

[Oaty]

Well I'm going to assume everyone that posted here has either MTW or STW. So first we have to look at the origin why we bought into this series. Well before I had any of the total war series games, I was bored with the current games I have. I was yearning for a game that allowed you to command armies into combat. I remembered seeing the Shogun preview at bestbuy a year before and drooled over it but said I'm not going to pay 40 to 50 bucks for the game (forget the original price of the game but it was at least 40 bucks) Well I was doing a websearch and remembered Shogun and did web search after web search and finally found a site that had a demo. I downloaded the demo and found it quite intriguing the atmosphere they had put into that demo was quite impressive(I had to look in the mirror to make sure I did'nt have slanty eyes).

Well I played the Shogun game for a while and started to become bored as I had learned the game and the comp was too inefficient once you knew the game. Only reason I kept playing was I have'nt seen all the in game videos, even though they were brief they were quite entertaining.

Well I did enjoy Shogun and looked into the next game of the series and tried MTW. It was enjoyable but also had the problem that Shogun did too many loser troops to face. Although I was dismayed at the fact the ingame videos were missing in MTW

I have to say when it came to atmosphere Shogun outdid MTW by miles. Now that they CA has noted that they are putting ingame videos back into the game that is a big bonus.

The # 1 thing you have to look at is that Creative assembly have already made a name for themselves. I'd have to say that is about # 1 thing for a business to do

#2 it seems like there engine and graphics are near state of the art do they really want to release this game when people laugh at the graphics

#3 this game was playable last fall and are spending a full year or more tweaking the game so it is enjoyable to everyone possible(how many complaints do I hear that MTW is only playable on expert mode). Do you really want be facing tons of peasant mobs again getting laughs at slaughtering peasants, sure your first time massacring the enemy is funny but after that you ask the comp can you train something else other than peasants. I've only played the Wesmod out of possible mods. Now just think of all the time Wes spent on trying to balance the game and still there are glitches. It takes a lot of tweaking although Wes's mod does improve the game its not near perfect. There are limitaions to tweaking the game engine for 1 the game code is not there and also there are liabilities for doing so.

As for me I want a game that wo'nt be collecting dust after a month of buying it. There are very few games I have payed full price on but seeing that RTW will be welll supported after its release(I hope) and seems to have a good replayability I will be in full support of RTW on its release date. If you do'nt like it learn software programming use your historical knowledge and outdo CA.

I wo'nt mention any games or companies on poor sftware but I will say I was just completely appauled by the one game I have as they never even bothered making a patch for it even thought I enjoyed the game theres not a chance I will buy its sequal for 49.95, I'll wait unitl it drops to 20 bucks or less and if they greatly improved its stablitity in that game I'd consider buying the next one at the price of its release date

[PSYCHO]

Just look at EU.

It sold over 1/4 + million copies despite having graphics that looked about as stunning as those in Solitaire. A visual dinosaur, it did well due to a depth in historical accuracy.

[andrewt]

Sure, the people who consider historical accuracy a deal-breaker are in the minority. However, are the people who consider having Pharaonic Egyptians a deal-breaker not a minority, too? I think the mass market could care less. People will look at the battles, the sieges and the elephants. The elephants alone could probably sell this game to each and every mass market gamer who would potentially buy it. I think the people who wouldn't buy because the Egyptians are Hellenistic are even fewer than the ones who wouldn't buy if they are Pharaonic. I don't think mass market people care enough about them.

[Nomad]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif For Me,
The selling point is, that its just as mod-able as MTW. So no matter how much they F**K it up, someone with a bit of animation skill is going to be able to put it all right. So I guess actually I'm buying it for the engine. Particularly masses of troops defending ramparts and walls, siege towers, and scaling ladders (been waiting along time for it). Guess the Pharonics will end up in a "Late Kingdom" mod or the something like it. I'm probably more interested in what Total war's next project will be. Hmmmmm, A 16th/17th century Total War would be Totaly amazing.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Seven.the.Hun]

hmm...best marketing b.s.
oh definetly..."it cooks you breakfast in the morning"
now how many copies of that whatever would be sold???

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

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

[Zawath]

The thing is that 90% of the gamers will think RTW as a perfectly realistic game. They aren't history experts so they can't tell whether some unit is historically accurate or not. As long as units use swords and shields the game is realistic enough for the public. The game becomes unrealistic for the masses when there are legionnaries that have rocket launchers instead of pila

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Zawath @ June 09 2004,06:46)]The thing is that 90% of the gamers will think RTW as a perfectly realistic game. They aren't history experts so they can't tell whether some unit is historically accurate or not. As long as units use swords and shields the game is realistic enough for the public. The game becomes unrealistic for the masses when there are legionnaries that have rocket launchers instead of pila
Shhh... stop giving ideas to CAs Frankesteian Worshop of the Freaks... they might actually read this... imagine legionaries with rocket lanuchers in RTW? Ain't that distant of a possibility, in the current state of things http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

[The Wizard]

RTW's USP is the battles, combined with the constant for USP's: the gameplay.

Not only are we saddled up with historical innacuracy, something that really shouldn't have to be there, we also have such fun gameplay decisions such as "unlock factions". Which absolute idiot thought that up? Why the hell does RTW have "unlock factions" while both it's predecessors don't?



~Wiz

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ June 09 2004,07:04)]
Quote[/b] (Zawath @ June 09 2004,06:46)]The thing is that 90% of the gamers will think RTW as a perfectly realistic game. They aren't history experts so they can't tell whether some unit is historically accurate or not. As long as units use swords and shields the game is realistic enough for the public. The game becomes unrealistic for the masses when there are legionnaries that have rocket launchers instead of pila
Shhh... stop giving ideas to CAs Frankesteian Worshop of the Freaks... they might actually read this... imagine legionaries with rocket lanuchers in RTW? Ain't that distant of a possibility, in the current state of things http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif They wouldn't dare... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif ..would they? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-help.gif

[A.Saturnus]

Quote[/b] ]
I find this thought revealing. The way they have added inaccurate units in now, peeps can't wait to mod the thing. Hmmm. If they did it 100% accurate, how many would clamor to mod in fantasy units? I think virtually none at all because they don't exist. No one will say... oh they forgot this or that fantasy unit...

This might actually be an answer. If they make all factions wrong, people will be encouraged to mod the game. If that happens CA can advertize "lots of mods exist for the game". A good modding community is nowadays an important issue for many games and developers hope that their product gets modded. Maybe CA is giving the modders a reason.

[ah_dut]

why does A. Satarnus get everything before i do? i second that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[RisingSun]

That is a unique view, but it seems kind of like "screwing your sister" if you ask me.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ June 09 2004,14:26)]That is a unique view, but it seems kind of like "screwing your sister" if you ask me.
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (PSYCHO @ June 09 2004,02:17)]Just look at EU.

It sold over 1/4 + million copies despite having graphics that looked about as stunning as those in Solitaire. A visual dinosaur, it did well due to a depth in historical accuracy.
Yes... look at EU....


And now tell me again that STW and MTW strong point is historical accuracy. It's not. It has never been. Look at EU, and you realize how inaccurate the MTW setting and campaign is.

Psycho, you are right to show an example of a game with some respect to history can be good. But TW has not followed that path before and done good too.

So, when I read this....


Quote[/b] ]Indeed they have already proven themselves in the marketplace with two games that have both been hugely successful... It has been a winning formula for them for years, so why change it?

They do have the killer game engine with the great graphics and awesome battles and that in itself will drive this game forward.
There is no reason as I see that changing an already hugely successful formula to include more sterotypical units, is going going to help things. Especially if it may drive out already dedicated fans.



...I am sorry, but it makes me smile... MTW is already unhistorical, stereotypical and inaccurate. And I don't think it has driven the fanbase out.

By keeping it the same way for RTW, CA IS KEEPING THE SAME WINNING FORMULA.

Honestly, anyone claiming to be an history expert AND thinking that MTW is historically accurate is shooting himself in the foot.

So far, I can't tell if RTW is going to lower the standard of historical accuracy compared to MTW... I doubt it, because we start pretty low.... But if it has not bothered you with MTW, I think you'll do OK with RTW.

Louis,

[RisingSun]

Sacrifices to historical accuracy were in no short supply in MTW or STW, this is true. And we would occasionally complain, but we could live with it.

And now they are takign it to a whole new level. Not in a positive way. They made inaccurate units, but never an entire faction.

And there were things like kensai in STW but never were there ultra-katana wielding units that were unstoppable except by arrows. *cough*elephants*cough*

It is fine that they change things, but when they lie about an entire faction that has been butchered beyond recognition, that crosses the line with me.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Rising Sun...


If you could live with the whole concept of playing a NON EXISTING faction in MTW, such as Italy (and you can argue about a few other... HRE? Spain?), then you can live with non accurate egyptian faction.

Louis,

[andrewt]

Disagree. The units of the Italians, HRE, Spanish are still pretty accurate for the most part and have some basis in history. The reason they were grouped by culture is because it is impossible for all the Italian city-states to be a single faction.

There's a very big gulf between RTW and MTW's accuracy. This isn't black and white but between shades of gray. I'm not an expert in history. I'm just somebody who's a little more informed than your average person. I don't care about 100% historical accuracy, just around 50% is fine with me. There's a very clear distinction between MTW and RTW's accuracy to me.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

There were no such political entity as Italy to start with....

You can make the same case with Spain, or HRE, or even France...

If a culture approximation as Italy is good enough for you to be historically accurate, I really don't understand why Egypt is such a big deal...

Unit accuracy is a VERY SMALL PART of overall historical accuracy.

Louis,

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ June 10 2004,13:13)]Unit accuracy is a VERY SMALL PART of overall historical accuracy.
Says you...

[The Wizard]

Unit accuracy is a very large part of historical accuracy, at least in RTW.

You know why?

It is the only historical constant in the entire game, therefore it is the part which must be right.

All the others are present only at the beginning: the start positions, the first rulers, their names, their ages, the army sizes at the start date, etc. All of those will change as we set out to conquer the world.

However, units will not and therefore must be conform to the historical period in which we battle, conquer and conspire.

And even in that position, it's still relatively easy to get right, when compared to such things as gameplay, balancing, the tactical system, the graphics, etc.

So the question is: why don't they get it down right? Is the engine that good or something?

And Louis,

Italy unrealistic? Amen, but a strong ruler from a powerful state like Milan, Venice, Genova or Florence could have conquered and subjugated all the others. That is one; two is the fact that it would have simply been too complicated and too time-consuming for a game like MTW to get everything down right. This is a not only a stragetical game like CK, it is also a tactical battle game. Sacrifices must be made, and for the sake of gameplay, the Italians were made one, the HRE was made politically more stable than it really was, the Turks were made one, and so were the Russians.



~Wiz

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 10 2004,15:18)]
Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ June 10 2004,13:13)]Unit accuracy is a VERY SMALL PART of overall historical accuracy.
Says you...
Well, so do you actually.

You seem to like the STW units a lot. Not a single unit was correct at all.
In cosmetics they were far too wellequipped, too many had armour and such.
In terms of the men themselves as opposed to the units, well then not a single unit existed besides the Arqs and Musks. Samurais were notoriously independant. Each lord had retainers, that had retainers, that had retainers and so on. Eventually we had a retainer that had his men. Most often it was him and possibly a brother or son mounted with about 10 infantrymen attached to them. They were a single unit. In that unit there might have been 2 archers and 3 yari armed soldiers (this might come as a surprise but the yari was actually often employed in single combat) and the rest had naginatas.

No-Dachis were basically non-existant in this time, though they made a comeback just before Tokugawa took over.

While this sounds highly uncoordinated the men could form up in infantry, archers and cavalry, but not in specific groups.

If STW had been accurate it would haev been blob armies we would have controlled, a mix of everything beating up and down the battlefield. We would have several units but they would be of uneven size as depending on our retainers lands and recruiting capacity. We would have 100man units and 15man units mixed with 62man units and so on.

Correct that game has a great feel to it, but it was far from historically correct like is demanded now, even to its units. And it is the feel that is important, not the historical accuracy itself (well of course not when we take it to sad lengths). As long as the units are plausible they need not be entirely correct.

[shingenmitch2]

Louis http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
"If a culture approximation as Italy is good enough for you to be historically accurate, I really don't understand why Egypt is such a big deal..."

Simple answer: because no one really cares about the middle ages as much as they do the Classical era.

Did I bitch about MTW when it came out?.. a little, but not much... it was spilt milk by then. Is that acceptance?... I guess. I played the game that they produced... and I'll do the same with RTW. But does that mean I liked the inaccuracy? I lived with it... but I live with a lot of other things out of my control, doesn't mean they're okay.

BTW I'm willing to accept a level of inaccuracy if it is cruciall for game balance/play -- obviously for game purposes you can't have huge disparities between the factions.

We bitch about RTW now because we see the absolutely fantastic potential of what RTW could be. Many of us, certainly I have, long dreamed of a game that allowed me to command the armies of the classical world, to be Caesar, Phyrus, Hannibal. From that dream, to what we see this game becoming (an arcade game little better Civ 2) is frustrating... We also delude ourselves that because the game is not out yet, we still might have some small chance at influencing the decisions made.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Wizard,

I'll answer your post, at least you gave some logic behind your position, so that can make for a good discussion...

1/ I'd argue that there are other elements, strategic ones, that are also constant in the entire game. Building is also a major one. We talk about Egypt... Well just picture the same setting with pyramids now and you'll see my point I guess. That would also be an historical mistake. Just like units.
I don't know what the economy system is going to be, but the worth of each map position is also something to consider as possibly historically wrong. I would think that if CA design Egypt as mainly trading Furs&Snow and being dirty poor, that would also be historically incorrect, and that's also a part of the game which is constant throught the game.


I also think that some metagame mechanism would influence the historical feel to the game.

Think about tech tree... That can make units come too late or too early, whether those units are accurate or not...

I already talked in another topic about army composition being another possible problem for historical accuracy. This requires that, not only units are somehow accurate, but also that bunch of units are put together as likely armies.
Why do we care if principes are good and historically accurate, if roman armies ends up being made of ballista and auxilaries cavalery?

I still think that unit accuracy is a very small part of historical accuracy. I agree that it wold be better if it were right, but that's a very small part of the picture.

2/ Italy and alternative history.

Well, we're going into alternative history now; I would argue that if you think that a strong ruler could have united Italy in the Middle ages, then an old Egypt style dynasty could have made it to the Roman Era without Greek conquest or influence. That's also alternative history. And that's probably as likely as a medieval ruler conquering Italy.

3/ Italy and sacrifice for the sake of gameplay.

Yes, sacrifice must be made. I say; let's sacrifice the units
For example, I'd rather have midly accurate units making up armies that looks vaguely roman, (or greek,) that accurate units making up the wrong army composition. See above; why do we care if principes are good and historically accurate, if roman armies ends up being made of ballista and auxilaries cavalery?

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Damn Mitch is posting while I'm writing

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

Am going to play tonight.. see you online http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Ahumm... back on topic

I'd argue I care more about Medieval era than about Classical era... But I guess you are a phalanx fetichist http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
That's a judgement of taste (probably inacurate translation). I don't agree with it, but it's a disagreement we can live with, and I guess that if CA got another point of view, that's life.


Mitch, I think for the game to get an historical feeling is important.
I don't think that accurate units is really what matter to get the feel. See Kraxis example for STW.

An example; bitching about elephants.... Was there elephant back then? Yes Is the elephant units accurate... Well maybe. I personnally don't know.
But what really matters is that the game got the mechanism to avoid the all-elephant-army tm. Both in SP, and in MP.

What would destroy your historical immersion experience more?
That Triarii got the wrong helmet?
That AI or player roman army got no Triarii whatsoever and that legion are made of elephants, catapults and slinger?

Louis,

[shingenmitch2]

Louis,

I can't disagree. Game play is huge. Making sure factions are balanced and "uber" units are minimized is crucial.

But I think unit look/descriptions and a faction's army composition adds immeasurably to the "feel" of game.
otherwise you could have green men running around as long as they play correct and have good stats? Nah wouldn't work. So unit visuals are important. Also the Kind of unit that a faction has will determine how that faction is played. If the Egyptian don't have ptolemaic phalanx, then you can't use the Egyptians they way they were.

Two thoughts about why I bitch about units:

1. Getting the units right (visually and by TYPE) seems like one of the easiest things in the world for the developers to do.

2. If CA can't get the little "easy" things correct, it makes me nervous that they not get the more difficult things correct. (if the units are like arcade game, what are the chances that the game mechanics play like arcade also? I have strong suspicion that the 2 things are proportionally related.)

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

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ June 10 2004,15:36)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 10 2004,15:18)]
Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ June 10 2004,13:13)]Unit accuracy is a VERY SMALL PART of overall historical accuracy.
Says you...
Well, so do you actually.

You seem to like the STW units a lot. Not a single unit was correct at all.
In cosmetics they were far too wellequipped, too many had armour and such.
You seem to forget one important aspect: The game engine couldn't make different soldiers within the same unit, because each soldier is a copy of a single BIF. Therefore, that sort of detail is out of question for any game. Only recently has Rome added different gestures (animations) to make random behaviour within a single unit, but they can't afford system resources to be wasted making different 3d men within the same unit (that would imply different geometry and textures for each different soldier within the unit - consequently that would take double, triple, etc memory space). So, effectivelly, with that ammount of limitations, STW was far more accurate than RTW is now, even if using average expected equipment and unit size.



Quote[/b] ]In terms of the men themselves as opposed to the units, well then not a single unit existed besides the Arqs and Musks. Samurais were notoriously independant. Each lord had retainers, that had retainers, that had retainers and so on. Eventually we had a retainer that had his men. Most often it was him and possibly a brother or son mounted with about 10 infantrymen attached to them. They were a single unit. In that unit there might have been 2 archers and 3 yari armed soldiers (this might come as a surprise but the yari was actually often employed in single combat) and the rest had naginatas.

No-Dachis were basically non-existant in this time, though they made a comeback just before Tokugawa took over.

While this sounds highly uncoordinated the men could form up in infantry, archers and cavalry, but not in specific groups.

If STW had been accurate it would haev been blob armies we would have controlled, a mix of everything beating up and down the battlefield. We would have several units but they would be of uneven size as depending on our retainers lands and recruiting capacity. We would have 100man units and 15man units mixed with 62man units and so on.
Then try to represent that in STW's engine... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

It was accurate enough to allow gameplay. A measure I agree upon. Nothing like Rome's retard program, though...



Quote[/b] ]Correct that game has a great feel to it, but it was far from historically correct like is demanded now, even to its units. And it is the feel that is important, not the historical accuracy itself (well of course not when we take it to sad lengths). As long as the units are plausible they need not be entirely correct.
No. You're wrong. The units used weapons and equipment available in that period of Japan. The Egyptians never used scythed three men chariots in Pharaonic times, let alone Ptolomaic times...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 10 2004,16:01)]We also delude ourselves that because the game is not out yet, we still might have some small chance at influencing the decisions made.
This is the only thing you say, in this post, that I agree upon.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ June 10 2004,16:18)]1/ I'd argue that there are other elements, strategic ones, that are also constant in the entire game. Building is also a major one. We talk about Egypt... Well just picture the same setting with pyramids now and you'll see my point I guess. That would also be an historical mistake. Just like units.
Could you explain why would the pyramids be wrong in RTW's setting? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif



Quote[/b] ]I already talked in another topic about army composition being another possible problem for historical accuracy. This requires that, not only units are somehow accurate, but also that bunch of units are put together as likely armies.
Why do we care if principes are good and historically accurate, if roman armies ends up being made of ballista and auxilaries cavalery?

I still think that unit accuracy is a very small part of historical accuracy.
I don't...



Quote[/b] ]Well, we're going into alternative history now; I would argue that if you think that a strong ruler could have united Italy in the Middle ages, then an old Egypt style dynasty could have made it to the Roman Era without Greek conquest or influence. That's also alternative history. And that's probably as likely as a medieval ruler conquering Italy.
You could have a point here, but no. It's that kind of mistake we're trying to avoid too.



Quote[/b] ]Yes, sacrifice must be made. I say; let's sacrifice the units
Too bad many people disagree, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif



Quote[/b] ]For example, I'd rather have midly accurate units making up armies that looks vaguely roman, (or greek,) that accurate units making up the wrong army composition. See above; why do we care if principes are good and historically accurate, if roman armies ends up being made of ballista and auxilaries cavalery?
Because it's not only your choises and options that counts.

And if they have spend so much time thinking about inventing units and creating them (far more difficult to invent that to recreate), why would a Historically correct unit rooster would be bad? They would spend more time balancing the game and improving gameplay factors. But no, dumb "coolness" is far better... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 11 2004,08:44)]But I think unit look/descriptions and a faction's army composition adds immeasurably to the "feel" of game.
otherwise you could have green men running around as long as they play correct and have good stats? Nah wouldn't work. So unit visuals are important. Also the Kind of unit that a faction has will determine how that faction is played. If the Egyptian don't have ptolemaic phalanx, then you can't use the Egyptians they way they were.
Very correct. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif



Quote[/b] ]Two thoughts about why I bitch about units:

1. Getting the units right (visually and by TYPE) seems like one of the easiest things in the world for the developers to do.
Preciselly. Why waste more time inventing fantasy units, when that time could be used for gamepay improvement and balance?



Quote[/b] ]2. If CA can't get the little "easy" things correct, it makes me nervous that they not get the more difficult things correct. (if the units are like arcade game, what are the chances that the game mechanics play like arcade also? I have strong suspicion that the 2 things are proportionally related.)
Unfortunatelly, me too. That the game units are going the "arcade" way it's no longer in doubt, but if that happens with a small but important aspect of the game, then it means that CA is going all-out to "arcade-style" gameplay. I'm every time more certain that the battles will be very unrealistic in stats wise and balance, just fo the sake of visual flare (elephants making soldiers fly, flamming pigs and arrows with massive visual looks, nuclear-blast catapults, etc...).

We're lost in the sea of mediocrity... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-help.gif

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 11 2004,09:44)]Louis,

I can't disagree. Game play is huge. Making sure factions are balanced and "uber" units are minimized is crucial.

But I think unit look/descriptions and a faction's army composition adds immeasurably to the "feel" of game.
otherwise you could have green men running around as long as they play correct and have good stats? Nah wouldn't work. So unit visuals are important. Also the Kind of unit that a faction has will determine how that faction is played. If the Egyptian don't have ptolemaic phalanx, then you can't use the Egyptians they way they were.

Two thoughts about why I bitch about units:

1. Getting the units right (visually and by TYPE) seems like one of the easiest things in the world for the developers to do.

2. If CA can't get the little "easy" things correct, it makes me nervous that they not get the more difficult things correct. (if the units are like arcade game, what are the chances that the game mechanics play like arcade also? I have strong suspicion that the 2 things are proportionally related.)

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

I am not talking about gameplay... I am not talking about balanced faction... I am not talking about uber units...

I am talking about historical accuracy.

CA can have all the units right... and still not get the good historical feeling that go with it.

When I mention an all elephant army, what got me worried is not the uberness of it, it's that it did not exist.
How the suspension of disbilief necessary to get into the game will survive the 1st time you'll meet an elephant and ballista army? Compare that to the 1st time you'll face a bull warrior... Personnaly, I know what will get me to stop playing RTW campaign first...

All the right units can be in the game; but if the AI can't build them right, and if armies are the same kind of ragtag melting pot we got in MTW campaign, those armies are not going to look like a classic era army, EVEN IF ALL THE UNITS ARE RIGHT.


Furthermore, Kraxis made the point that STW units were NOT historically accurate; there were no such things as No Dachi units, and personnaly, I'd add monks to the list too. Still STW got the historical feeling right.
There is much more to historical accuracy than units accuracy.

I care about historical accuracy, because it's a big part of the immersion in the game.
But I really don't think unit accuracy is such a major part in it. Get good army composition (I hope everyone is aware that this is different from units)... Get nice atmosphere short movies. See STW.
That might make for historical immersion than the wrong helmet on an iberian warrior.

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 11 2004,10:03)]
Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ June 10 2004,15:36)]
Well, so do you actually.

You seem to like the STW units a lot. Not a single unit was correct at all.
In cosmetics they were far too wellequipped, too many had armour and such.
You seem to forget one important aspect: The game engine couldn't make different soldiers within the same unit, because each soldier is a copy of a single BIF. Therefore, that sort of detail is out of question for any game. Only recently has Rome added different gestures (animations) to make random behaviour within a single unit, but they can't afford system resources to be wasted making different 3d men within the same unit (that would imply different geometry and textures for each different soldier within the unit - consequently that would take double, triple, etc memory space). So, effectivelly, with that ammount of limitations, STW was far more accurate than RTW is now, even if using average expected equipment and unit size.



Quote[/b] ]In terms of the men themselves as opposed to the units, well then not a single unit existed besides the Arqs and Musks. Samurais were notoriously independant. Each lord had retainers, that had retainers, that had retainers and so on. Eventually we had a retainer that had his men. Most often it was him and possibly a brother or son mounted with about 10 infantrymen attached to them. They were a single unit. In that unit there might have been 2 archers and 3 yari armed soldiers (this might come as a surprise but the yari was actually often employed in single combat) and the rest had naginatas.

No-Dachis were basically non-existant in this time, though they made a comeback just before Tokugawa took over.

While this sounds highly uncoordinated the men could form up in infantry, archers and cavalry, but not in specific groups.

If STW had been accurate it would haev been blob armies we would have controlled, a mix of everything beating up and down the battlefield. We would have several units but they would be of uneven size as depending on our retainers lands and recruiting capacity. We would have 100man units and 15man units mixed with 62man units and so on.
Then try to represent that in STW's engine... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

It was accurate enough to allow gameplay. A measure I agree upon. Nothing like Rome's retard program, though...



Quote[/b] ]Correct that game has a great feel to it, but it was far from historically correct like is demanded now, even to its units. And it is the feel that is important, not the historical accuracy itself (well of course not when we take it to sad lengths). As long as the units are plausible they need not be entirely correct.
No. You're wrong. The units used weapons and equipment available in that period of Japan. The Egyptians never used scythed three men chariots in Pharaonic times, let alone Ptolomaic times...
*sigh*

I completly fail to see what your point about unit animation got to do with the fact that STW got the units very wrong to start with.

Kraxis post basically says;
- STW units are overarmoured and overequiped
- No Dachi units did not exist

And I'll add that monks are also somehow doubtful...

As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with soldier specific animation.

If STW (and MTW) were accurate enough... well, RTW is also accurate enough... Both STW and MTW were plain wrong as far as historical accuracy were concerned, and it worked just fine. Why the fuss now?

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 11 2004,10:16)]

Quote[/b] ]
1/ I'd argue that there are other elements, strategic ones, that are also constant in the entire game. Building is also a major one. We talk about Egypt... Well just picture the same setting with pyramids now and you'll see my point I guess. That would also be an historical mistake. Just like units.
Could you explain why would the pyramids be wrong in RTW's setting? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

So if I can build pyramis (or the Sphynx, while I think about it, building the Sphynx, that would be cool), in ptolemaic Egypt, it's fine by you?


Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]I already talked in another topic about army composition being another possible problem for historical accuracy. This requires that, not only units are somehow accurate, but also that bunch of units are put together as likely armies.
Why do we care if principes are good and historically accurate, if roman armies ends up being made of ballista and auxilaries cavalery?

I still think that unit accuracy is a very small part of historical accuracy.
I don't...



I am not going to bother answering if you don't explain your point and give arguments.

I explain why I think units accuracy is minor. I expect you explain your position too.


Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Well, we're going into alternative history now; I would argue that if you think that a strong ruler could have united Italy in the Middle ages, then an old Egypt style dynasty could have made it to the Roman Era without Greek conquest or influence. That's also alternative history. And that's probably as likely as a medieval ruler conquering Italy.
You could have a point here, but no. It's that kind of mistake we're trying to avoid too.


What kind of answer is that? Who is 'we'? How am I supposed to answer a post with no argument?

Are you aware of what is the argument here? You know what my point is or not?

My point is that the creation of Italy is a huge historical blunder in MTW, and that for me it destroys historical accuracy even faster than any mistakes in MTW units (and there are some too).
I see the campaign map, I see Italy, and then I just shut the game off.

The Wizard (a Europa Barbarorum guy) was making the point that, well, Italy was a possibility back then, so it's ok.
If Italy is ok, then, I don't see why Old style egypt is not...

So why are you answering me on this. And not the Wizard?

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

I'd like you to recognize that RTW is overall in line with the standart set by STW and MTW; it's really bad in terms of accuracy, but good enough to give a feel for the period, so it's ok.


Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Yes, sacrifice must be made. I say; let's sacrifice the units
Too bad many people disagree, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

I am not making an easthetical judgement. I give some logic and reasoning to back up what I say.

I'd appreciate you do the same.


Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]For example, I'd rather have midly accurate units making up armies that looks vaguely roman, (or greek,) that accurate units making up the wrong army composition. See above; why do we care if principes are good and historically accurate, if roman armies ends up being made of ballista and auxilaries cavalery?
Because it's not only your choises and options that counts.

And if they have spend so much time thinking about inventing units and creating them (far more difficult to invent that to recreate), why would a Historically correct unit rooster would be bad? They would spend more time balancing the game and improving gameplay factors. But no, dumb "coolness" is far better... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

What do you mean by 'it's not only my choice and option that counts'?

If you mean that it is my choice to build all elephant army, or ballista and cavalery legions, I'd agree; it is my choice.
But that's really not my concern. My concern is what will the AI be doing.
If I build accurate greek armies, that's good, but if I face ragtag melting pot a bit of everything legions, that's not going to be very helpfull form an accuracy standpoint.

I am certainly not saying that an historical rooster would be bad.

I am saying that an historical rooster do very little to create an historical feeling to the game.
STW had an unhistorical rooster, and gave a great feeling.
MTW had a semi historical rooster, but an unhistorical campaign setting and game mechanism, and IMO, the feeling was not great.
I'd argue that even with an historical rooster, MTW historical feeling would not be good... Because of stupid things like Italy... HRE... Turks being one... Russian being one nation... Feudal government not being modeled at all (no vassal relationship)... All that. And maybe also, simple things. Like movies.

Compared to those factors, units accuracy contributes little to the overall historical feeling of the game.

Louis,

[RisingSun]

Quote[/b] ]Kraxis post basically says;
- STW units are overarmoured and overequiped
- No Dachi units did not exist

And I'll add that monks are also somehow doubtful...


Oh really? Well guess what-
-The 3 wheeled scythed chariots were never even used
(except by Hittites)
-The Bull Warriors didn't exist
-Egyptians as we know them in RTW did not exist, and even if they did it would have been 1000 years before RTW.

That last point counts as about 8-9, since I don't want to pain myself by looking at the Egyptian units again to remember their names. You still think STW is worse?

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ June 11 2004,11:24)]
Quote[/b] ]Kraxis post basically says;
- STW units are overarmoured and overequiped
- No Dachi units did not exist

And I'll add that monks are also somehow doubtful...


Oh really? Well guess what-
-The 3 wheeled scythed chariots were never even used
(except by Hittites)
-The Bull Warriors didn't exist
-Egyptians as we know them in RTW did not exist, and even if they did it would have been 1000 years before RTW.

That last point counts as about 8-9, since I don't want to pain myself by looking at the Egyptian units again to remember their names. You still think STW is worse?
2 out of 10 for STW is pretty bad for non existing units, and all units were overequipped, so you can make a case that they are all wrong... For RTW, that's 2 out of ???

That does not make RTW good... It makes it as bad ar STW and MTW are. And that as bad has been good enough so far...

Can they do better? I sure hope so. But the whole fuss I see on this board is way out of proportion when considering how blatantly inaccurate STW and MTW are, and how games are praised.

Also, I seriously doubt that those units + a wrong egyptian faction are going to be enough to destroy the historical immersion feeling... See post above.

Louis,

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ June 11 2004,09:46)]I completly fail to see what your point about unit animation got to do with the fact that STW got the units very wrong to start with.
I'll try to explain better:

I was giving an example of random behaviour within a unit. Each different movement is computed by the CPU. In STW, all of them were instances of each other, because there was no computing power available and graphics engine for that. They choosed to make the units that way (unit size and equipment) because they had no choise.

If they wanted to represent an accurate Medieval Japanese army, then the size of units would vary according to the number of men recruited by the different feudal lords. Different men within a unit would have different equipment according to their own possessions, etc...

That kind of detail couldn't be achieved with STW's engine. It was a technical barrier. Therefore, their economical aproach (fixed unit size and all warriors wearing the same gear) was essential and a good compromisse.



Quote[/b] ]Kraxis post basically says;
- STW units are overarmoured and overequiped
- No Dachi units did not exist

And I'll add that monks are also somehow doubtful...

I've replyed to the first one (technical limitation).

As for the second one: there were no No-Dachi units, but there were several Samurai weilding the No-Dachi sword, just like in Europe there weren't fixed units of Gothic Foot Knights ALL weilding double-handed swords, but there were some Knights in Gothic Armour, some using double-handed swords, others maces, etc... and commanding small groups of men recruited from their feudal domains like militia men, crossbowmen, peasents.

IMHO, CA's approach in STW and MTW is acceptable because it is based (mostly) in existing equipment and facts. RTW's approach on the other hand, uses dream equipment like Isis horns on a warrrior that never had contacted Egyptian culture, sickles as instruments of war of a Briton, when they were used as farming mechanisms exclusivelly, scythed chariots that were never used by Egyptians, etc...

As for the monks, they are what CA had to do to get them in the game, make them like the other units (fixed size, equipment, etc...) for the sake of playability. I have no problem with that, because they existed. Maybe not exactly in units or organized like that, but they did exist.

This is what I was saying.



Quote[/b] ]As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with soldier specific animation.
As I said before, I was giving an example to convey my reasons about the technical limitations of STW's engine.



Quote[/b] ]If STW (and MTW) were accurate enough... well, RTW is also accurate enough...
Sorry, but no. I've expained it already.



Quote[/b] ]Both STW and MTW were plain wrong as far as historical accuracy were concerned, and it worked just fine.
No, they weren't. At least, not that much.



Quote[/b] ]Why the fuss now?
Because we want RTW to be the best it can be...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ June 11 2004,10:20)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 11 2004,10:16)]

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ June 10 2004,16:18)]1/ I'd argue that there are other elements, strategic ones, that are also constant in the entire game. Building is also a major one. We talk about Egypt... Well just picture the same setting with pyramids now and you'll see my point I guess. That would also be an historical mistake. Just like units.
Could you explain why would the pyramids be wrong in RTW's setting? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif
So if I can build pyramis (or the Sphynx, while I think about it, building the Sphynx, that would be cool), in ptolemaic Egypt, it's fine by you?
Of course not. The Ptolomies could keep those wonders of the world, but never be able to build them.



Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]I already talked in another topic about army composition being another possible problem for historical accuracy. This requires that, not only units are somehow accurate, but also that bunch of units are put together as likely armies.
Why do we care if principes are good and historically accurate, if roman armies ends up being made of ballista and auxilaries cavalery?

I still think that unit accuracy is a very small part of historical accuracy.
I don't...
I am not going to bother answering if you don't explain your point and give arguments.

I explain why I think units accuracy is minor. I expect you explain your position too.
Of course. Your phrase...


Quote[/b] ]Still STW got the historical feeling right.
There is much more to historical accuracy than units accuracy.
...defines it all. I agree that getting the Historical feeling right is the most important aspect, not counting gameplay balance. But unit accuracy, as well as army composition, are paramount to that part of the formula. I'm not saying: "make them EXACTLY as it was", but with the best aproximation possible. It adds to the feeling of the game. Fantasy units detract from that.



Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Well, we're going into alternative history now; I would argue that if you think that a strong ruler could have united Italy in the Middle ages, then an old Egypt style dynasty could have made it to the Roman Era without Greek conquest or influence. That's also alternative history. And that's probably as likely as a medieval ruler conquering Italy.
You could have a point here, but no. It's that kind of mistake we're trying to avoid too.
What kind of answer is that? Who is 'we'? How am I supposed to answer a post with no argument?
We = the forum members concerned with historical accuracy.

What I meant was that, although MTW had Italy because CA had to reach a compromisse of gameplay vs Historical accuracy, that doesn't mean that I liked it. This also means that RTW could still avoid the same mistake of MTW. As the game starts in 300BC, the starting point should the most faithfull to that Historical period as possible, not an "alternative" history.



Quote[/b] ]Are you aware of what is the argument here? You know what my point is or not?
Yes and yes.



Quote[/b] ]My point is that the creation of Italy is a huge historical blunder in MTW, and that for me it destroys historical accuracy even faster than any mistakes in MTW units (and there are some too).
I see the campaign map, I see Italy, and then I just shut the game off.
I agree, although I never shut the game off. I use BKB's MOD... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif



Quote[/b] ]The Wizard (a Europa Barbarorum guy) was making the point that, well, Italy was a possibility back then, so it's ok.
If Italy is ok, then, I don't see why Old style egypt is not...

So why are you answering me on this. And not the Wizard?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Because I want to discuss this with you... ...and because I'm a pain in the a** too... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif



Quote[/b] ]I'd like you to recognize that RTW is overall in line with the standart set by STW and MTW; it's really bad in terms of accuracy, but good enough to give a feel for the period, so it's ok.
Sorry, but no.

Shogun > Medieval > Rome



Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Yes, sacrifice must be made. I say; let's sacrifice the units
Too bad many people disagree, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

I am not making an easthetical judgement. I give some logic and reasoning to back up what I say.

I'd appreciate you do the same.
Sure. Because of the Historical feel that you've mentioned. As I've mentioned before, unit accuracy and army composition are necessary to that also.



Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]For example, I'd rather have midly accurate units making up armies that looks vaguely roman, (or greek,) that accurate units making up the wrong army composition. See above; why do we care if principes are good and historically accurate, if roman armies ends up being made of ballista and auxilaries cavalery?
Because it's not only your choises and options that counts.

And if they have spend so much time thinking about inventing units and creating them (far more difficult to invent that to recreate), why would a Historically correct unit rooster would be bad? They would spend more time balancing the game and improving gameplay factors. But no, dumb "coolness" is far better... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif
What do you mean by 'it's not only my choice and option that counts'?
Because we are ALL discussing these matters, and each of us as a different viewpoint and personal preference.



Quote[/b] ]If you mean that it is my choice to build all elephant army, or ballista and cavalery legions, I'd agree; it is my choice.
But that's really not my concern. My concern is what will the AI be doing.
If I build accurate greek armies, that's good, but if I face ragtag melting pot a bit of everything legions, that's not going to be very helpfull form an accuracy standpoint.

I am certainly not saying that an historical rooster would be bad.

I am saying that an historical rooster do very little to create an historical feeling to the game.
Correct. I agree. As you've said, and I confirmed, the army composition is also very important to the feel. IMHO, they are hand-in-hand with each other. That needs to be accounted for by the AI to work correctly. How will CA do it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif



Quote[/b] ]STW had an unhistorical rooster, and gave a great feeling.
MTW had a semi historical rooster, but an unhistorical campaign setting and game mechanism, and IMO, the feeling was not great.
As I've said before, I do not agree. To each one it's own oppinion.



Quote[/b] ]I'd argue that even with an historical rooster, MTW historical feeling would not be good... Because of stupid things like Italy... HRE... Turks being one... Russian being one nation... Feudal government not being modeled at all (no vassal relationship)... All that. And maybe also, simple things. Like movies.

Compared to those factors, units accuracy contributes little to the overall historical feeling of the game.
Yes, I agree. But, I think that you're not getting big improvements in RTW's strategical side to be able to reproduce comparable fenomenons to the feudal system of MTW. I don't think that the stategical part has evolved that far to be able to simulate something like that. Accordingly, if we can't get that, anything well made (like accurate units and army composition) will be a bonus...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ June 11 2004,10:37)]
Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ June 11 2004,11:24)]
Quote[/b] ]Kraxis post basically says;
- STW units are overarmoured and overequiped
- No Dachi units did not exist

And I'll add that monks are also somehow doubtful...


Oh really? Well guess what-
-The 3 wheeled scythed chariots were never even used
(except by Hittites)
-The Bull Warriors didn't exist
-Egyptians as we know them in RTW did not exist, and even if they did it would have been 1000 years before RTW.

That last point counts as about 8-9, since I don't want to pain myself by looking at the Egyptian units again to remember their names. You still think STW is worse?
2 out of 10 for STW is pretty bad for non existing units, and all units were overequipped, so you can make a case that they are all wrong... For RTW, that's 2 out of ???

That does not make RTW good... It makes it as bad ar STW and MTW are. And that as bad has been good enough so far...

Can they do better? I sure hope so. But the whole fuss I see on this board is way out of proportion when considering how blatantly inaccurate STW and MTW are, and how games are praised.

Also, I seriously doubt that those units + a wrong egyptian faction are going to be enough to destroy the historical immersion feeling... See post above.

Louis,
It seems more like 3 (No-Dachi, Warrior Monks, Kensai) out of 14.

STW:

Yari Samurai
Yari Ashigaru
Archers
Naginata
Warrior Monks
Arquebusiers
Musketeers
Cavalry Archers
Yari Cavalry
Heavy Cavalry

MI:

Ashigaru Crossbowmen
Battlefield Ninja
Kensai
Naginata Cavalry


As for RTW, out of 20:

-Iberian Bull Warrior
-Scythian Axemen
-Thracian Mercenaires
-British Druids

And the Egyptian ones.

[andrewt]

You could say that units in STW are overarmored and overequipped. However, that still means that the armor and equipment they are wearing are still partially correct. No-dachi may not have existed as a 60-man unit but no-dachis were still used in Japan. Monks may not be accurate in terms of unit size and composition but they still fought in Japan during that period.

Contrast that with Egyptians. They never used those chariots. The equipment they are using were never used during those times and some may not even be used ever. The base of the units themselves never existed during those times.

The main problem I have with the Egyptian units is that they aren't even partially correct. If CA had Meiji Restoration conscripts and no samurai in STW, I would've complained, too. Imagine MTW where the Muslims were worshipping their old gods instead of being Muslims. That's how bad the Egyptians are. The entire core of the faction is wrong, not just little bits and pieces of the units.

Why is Italy one faction in MTW? Because it would be a nightmare for CA to code in all those separate Italian factions. That and they would be too weak for normal gameplay. There's a reason there's only 4 Roman factions in RTW. Do you really want CA to put in all the patrician families in the game as separate factions? There's a difference for me, between historical inaccuracies that are wrong because they can't be programmed accurately and historical in accuracies that can be programmed accurately. If you can do it, do it. If you can't, then the inaccuracy isn't as bad.

[Duke John]

Quote[/b] ]IMHO, CA's approach in STW and MTW is acceptable because it is based (mostly) in existing equipment and facts.
This is not true. I don't know why you think MTW was so historical compared to RTW, but the unigraphics were for 90% wrong. First of all the striped football shirts are utter nonsense. Loads of other small things. And this is displayed on allunits. Then there are handgunners who use their handgun in a way that only started to be used around 1500.

M:TW is not historical correct and in that sense R:TW continues the way CA has going on for years. You feel cheated because CA screws the armylists and even an entire faction. Well, I happen to know a few things about M:TW, and M:TW was equally screwed and I have the same feeling about M:TW as you do about R:TW. I am spending months trying to make the game more accurate, so please stop referring to M:TW as being even slightly historical.

Yes, R:TW could be alot more historical, but when you look back at the other TW games, you will notice that it isn't that much more/less historical.

[Rosacrux]

MTW had huge disrepancies and compromises, to be actually viable (and playble). Some Mods (especially WesWs mod) have rendered it more historically accurate, actually as historically accurate as would be possibly practical for gameplay purposes.

STW had very FEW such disrepancies and unhistorical crap.

Now, let's see RTW...

...screaming women as a unit...
...shishkebab... sorry, flaming pigs as a unit...
...rabid dogs as a unit...
...druids (druids, ferchristsake) as a unit...
...Bullshite warriors...
...(insert random completely madeup weird made by CAs Frankenstein Workshop of the Weirdos unit here)...
...and a whole bloody faction completely twisted and screwed up, not only unit-wise but completely, fundamentally and without no mercy...

AND we are still months away from release, and have seen practically only two factions and only 20 out of many dozens units

Geez, folks, knock it off. Defending CA on this is so dubious, that I wouldn't do it even if I was on their payroll. Sheesh http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Sjakihata]

Are you joking, screaming women and druids?

[Sulla]

You can't critise the game cause you haven't played it yet.
So what if there are few units that are historicly inaccurate. It will at least save us from endless rome vs rome battles.

Sulla

[andrewt]

We haven't played it yet but we've already seen a lot of the units. And it isn't that a few of them are inaccurate? Egypt's units are all inaccurate. Not some, not few, not even most, but ALL. That's the problem right there. Even if it was many, people wouldn't be complaining as much as they are right now. There's a big difference to me between all the factions having inaccurate units vs. having a single faction have all of its units as inaccurate.

As much as you can say that MTW's units are wrong, at least the Catholics are still Catholics and the Muslims are still Muslims. RTW's Egypt is like making factions like Hungary and Poland Christian Orthodox or Muslim just because there are too many Catholic factions and CA wants to add variety. That's how wrong it is.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Duke John @ June 12 2004,02:57)]
Quote[/b] ]IMHO, CA's approach in STW and MTW is acceptable because it is based (mostly) in existing equipment and facts.
This is not true. I don't know why you think MTW was so historical compared to RTW, but the unigraphics were for 90% wrong. First of all the striped football shirts are utter nonsense. Loads of other small things. And this is displayed on allunits. Then there are handgunners who use their handgun in a way that only started to be used around 1500.

M:TW is not historical correct and in that sense R:TW continues the way CA has going on for years. You feel cheated because CA screws the armylists and even an entire faction. Well, I happen to know a few things about M:TW, and M:TW was equally screwed and I have the same feeling about M:TW as you do about R:TW. I am spending months trying to make the game more accurate, so please stop referring to M:TW as being even slightly historical.

Yes, R:TW could be alot more historical, but when you look back at the other TW games, you will notice that it isn't that much more/less historical.
Sorry, DJ MTW might be far worse than STW, but is far better than RTW.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ June 12 2004,05:28)]MTW had huge disrepancies and compromises, to be actually viable (and playble). Some Mods (especially WesWs mod) have rendered it more historically accurate, actually as historically accurate as would be possibly practical for gameplay purposes.

STW had very FEW such disrepancies and unhistorical crap.

Now, let's see RTW...

...screaming women as a unit...
...shishkebab... sorry, flaming pigs as a unit...
...rabid dogs as a unit...
...druids (druids, ferchristsake) as a unit...
...Bullshite warriors...
...(insert random completely madeup weird made by CAs Frankenstein Workshop of the Weirdos unit here)...
...and a whole bloody faction completely twisted and screwed up, not only unit-wise but completely, fundamentally and without no mercy...

AND we are still months away from release, and have seen practically only two factions and only 20 out of many dozens units
No argument. Very correct. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif



Quote[/b] ]Geez, folks, knock it off. Defending CA on this is so dubious, that I wouldn't do it even if I was on their payroll. Sheesh http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Preciselly. Why this fanaticism? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif Let's be honest about it. When things are BAD, it's not logical to try to hide them... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[shingenmitch2]

Hi Louis,

See, i think you're putting the horse before the cart. You're worried about building an all elephant army and the manner in which the armies are created.

Fine. I totally agree.

But that is step #2 in the game development design.
Step #1 is get the units correct, then worry about how you choose and build the armies.

I'm bitching about the units, because if you don't get step #1 right, then forget about step #2 ever being worthwhile.

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

About STW. It is correct that the Japanese never created UNITS in the manner that STW had them, but at least all the soldiers that were in the units actually existed in feudal japan at the time.

MI started the trend of greater inaccuracy for "kiddie" arcade units with the Kensai introduction... a unit that was universally despised by the on-line community. I can only assume that most peeps that played only the campaign felt similarly.

[RisingSun]

Quote[/b] ]Are you joking, screaming women and druids?

You mean you haven't seen those units? The druids are up on the profile, the women have been mentioned in several previews. No wonder you've been defending CA

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

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

I think that even is step 1 is not done great to the last detail you can get step 2 right with a good historical feel to it.

I do worry about step 2 mainly because step 2 is a game mechanism, not a unit file. Step 2 is NOT going to be moddable, or as easily moddadble as step 1 is.

If the campaign can't get step 2 right, and I really think it won't, I am not going to bother with the campaign at all, even if they got all the units right.

Also,


Quote[/b] ]Why is Italy one faction in MTW? Because it would be a nightmare for CA to code in all those separate Italian factions. That and they would be too weak for normal gameplay. There's a reason there's only 4 Roman factions in RTW. Do you really want CA to put in all the patrician families in the game as separate factions? There's a difference for me, between historical inaccuracies that are wrong because they can't be programmed accurately and historical in accuracies that can be programmed accurately. If you can do it, do it. If you can't, then the inaccuracy isn't as bad.

Historical inaccuracies like having one big chunk of Italy can of course be programmed accuratly. Other games do a much better job than MTW simulating medieval Europe, so I guess it's doable. It has been done, so CA CAN do it.

Just like step 2; big political blob, dumb tech tree, or even a buying system to get troops, all those game mechanism, if present (and unfortunately, we can bet they are present) are going to get me out of the campaign game really fast. And an helmet on an iberian is not going to cut a hell lot of difference in that decision.

I stopped playing MTW SP campaign because of those inaccuracies, I won't play RTW SP campaign if it got the same kind of approximation. Unfortunately, it's very likely.
In that case, RTW MP better be really good.

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] ]We = the forum members concerned with historical accuracy.



Well, Aymar, I am concerned by historical accuracy, probably more than what you think, and you certainly do not represent me.

I stopped playing SP campaign because, when compared to other games, MTW was so blatantly inaccurate I could not take it anymore. Non existing countries. CA has not even tried to simulate a feudal system. The economy is a joke; if you can name one country with a a taxation system/ financial system even remotly close to MTW system, I would be really interested.
Those approximations just killed the historical immersion for me. That was so bad, I stopped playing.
If I want to play in an historical conttext, I turn to other game, TW does not cut it. So for me RTW won't be a big difference. If we got the same kind of approximation, I'll just not play it.
But those approximation are not related to units.

I turned to MP... In MP, we just play battles, the historic context of battles do not matter, it's all about the thrill and tactics. Not really about units being accurate.



Now regarding how inaccurate STW, MTW and RTW are when talking about units accuracy, I guess I stand with Duke John. If you can swallow MTW and STW units, I am confident you'll be fine with RTW. Sorry, I fail too how much worse those units are compared to the pretty bad existing one.

It's very likely I'll play RTW. For all its flaw, TW got a great battle engine, battles are challenging, tactically witty and fun.
If on top of that, RTW can be more accurate fine, but I'll ask for the campaign part of the game to be revised 1st; that's where lack of historical perspective is the more lacking.

Louis,

[lonewolf371]

Just a side note, if it's already been mentioned sorry because I didn't read the entire thread (many of the posts were excruciatingly long). However Despite the fact that the Italian faction by many might have been better created as a few rebel provinces, the Italian city-states of Northern Italy did unite on several occasions to fight back incursions by the Holy Roman Empire. In addition, in reference to their interaction in other affairs around Europe, the capture of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade was almost entirely done at the bidding of the Italian Doge and merchants. But Egypt... screaming women... and flaming pigs... I'm not too sure. But I think that despite what many of us think, we can probably agree on something: it's going to be damn funny to see an entire Roman Legion get decimated by a horde of suicide flaming pigs.

[Dark_Magician]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ June 08 2004,07:14)]As for your question... CA (and prolly Activision) believe they do have THE killer engine. That is why they are going down to the lowest common denominator and market their product:
You so correctly described the nature of typical pig-face capitalists we were teached about back in the USSR. I amost had to cry.

But if they only screw it so much as incorrect egypitans it will be a relief for me. I remeber reading somewhere that CA decided to "make it easier" for "mainstream gamer". This was a real shock.

Screaming women? Naked, no?

[Duke John]

Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ June 14 2004,22:57)]I stopped playing SP campaign because, when compared to other games, MTW was so blatantly inaccurate I could not take it anymore. Non existing countries. CA has not even tried to simulate a feudal system. [...] Those approximations just killed the historical immersion for me. That was so bad, I stopped playing.
[...]
Now regarding how inaccurate STW, MTW and RTW are when talking about units accuracy, I guess I stand with Duke John. If you can swallow MTW and STW units, I am confident you'll be fine with RTW. Sorry, I fail too how much worse those units are compared to the pretty bad existing one.
It's good to see some more people who think that historical inaccuracy isn't developed specifically for RTW. M:TW was horribly inaccurate but somehow some people think that they get a special "screw-you" because they know more about ancient times than they do about medieval times.

[SHAMLESS PLUG]
You should check out the Two Crowns mod which I am currently making with ShadesWolf. We will strive to get as close as possible with the (bastard) feudal system and it will get historical looking units
[/SHAMLESS PLUG]

You say that you get alot of inaccurate units. The Bullwarrior has a funny helmet, but loads of M:TW units also have inaccurate helmets. The flaming pig was used against elephants. Ok, so perhaps only 1 time, but does that make it a blashemy? Egypt? Nothing different compared to the inaccuracy in M:TW.

All this talk about some units, but how many have raised their voice against the horribly unrealistic techtree concept?

[Dark_Magician]

Quote[/b] (lonewolf371 @ June 15 2004,00:03)]In addition, in reference to their interaction in other affairs around Europe, the capture of Constantinople by the Third Crusade was almost entirely done at the bidding of the Italian Doge and merchants.
Wasnt it 4th?

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (lonewolf371 @ June 15 2004,00:03)]But I think that despite what many of us think, we can probably agree on something: it's going to be damn funny to see an entire Roman Legion get decimated by a horde of suicide flaming pigs.
Yeah, kewl http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[shingenmitch2]

Duke--
How does the logic "M:TW was inaccurate, so guys stop whining about R:TW" work? Like one has anything to do with the other. Yep M:TW was badly inaccurate, so we're supposed to accept a continuation -- check that, an acceleration -- of the inaccuracy? "Guys u took it up the shoot once and didn't complain enough, relax and enjoy it this time... lol"

Part of the reason for the intensity about Rome, is that we know CA is doing a full redesign for this game. M:TW was a small tweak, thus we couldn't expect much difference from earlier versions. I think for Rome there is higher expectations because there has been a soup-to-nuts rework of the game and peeps feel that the mistakes of the past should be rectified now.

--------
Louis
I can accept more inaccuracy in the campaign (tech tree, etc.) because that has always been secondary to the actual battles. The battles hinge on 1. getting the morale system fixed 2. good Paper/scissor/rocks 3. accurately modeled units (how they fight, attack/def stats). The look of the battle hinges on 1. proper animations 2. proper unit rendering.

The tech tree? It sure could use a serious retooling.

As for the factions themselves there will always be some inaccuracy because they are trying to balance them to make them all playable. I can live with that. Game balance has always been very important to me. This kind of goes to the difference between resetting historical battles and re-fighting them, and producing alternate history where say the Gauls take over Mediterranean.

[shingenmitch2]

Dark Magician ---

hehe, yep piggy capitalists (when influenced by evil marketing people) dumb down for the $... But, alas, were it up to communists there wouldn't even be a game to dumb down. Now stand in line for bread

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

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

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

I think Duke is trying to answer a few other poster claiming that STW and MTW were great, and RTW is a let down... Not so, they pretty much all got the same level of inaccuracy.

Would I like some improvement? Sure.... But that's not the point some posters here tried to make. There were no golden age of historical accuracy in the TW serie...



Back to the discussion about inaccuracy in battle or in campaign...

As you mentionned, battles are the prime part of the game, and good enjoyable battles require, I quote you;


Quote[/b] ]1. getting the morale system fixed 2. good Paper/scissor/rocks 3. accurately modeled units (how they fight, attack/def stats). The look of the battle hinges on 1. proper animations 2. proper unit rendering.


First, notice that historical accuracy is not in top position http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

In my opinion, what really matters in battle is that hoplite fight like hoplite and behave like hoplite. That a cavalry archer fight and behave like a cavalry archer. If CA got that right, battles will look good, and the historical feeling will be 'good enough'
Then, if you want 20 different kinds of hoplite, with different stats depending on how good they were in different factions, and different shield designs, etc, honestly, it matters little for me. STW had very few units, one of each type. After that it's fake diversity, and redundancy building.
And if faction got the wrong kind of hoplite, or a hoplite kind of unit called under the wrong name, I am not going to care much as far as the battles are concerned.
Hell We fly over the battlefield at a 100 yards above ground, I never look at my units in such a detailed way as the screenshot are I fly as high as I can, and from up there, all those details are lost anyway


For campaign, well, if it's not improving, and not better that what it used to be for MTW, I'll just not play them. That's just a joke of a simulation. I guess we got to disagree.
Battles are about tactic and thrill, and from an historical standpoint, my expectation in battles is that units will more or less behave like they did, so that the tactic part of the game is 'believable'.
Campaign is about immersion. Immersion can be helped by game mechanisms mimicking historical mechanism, for example, in the way one get money (tax system), one spend it (army raising, province improvement), diplomacy (non existent in MTW, seems better in RTW) or one improves technology (silly techtree). From that standpoint, MTW was a failure. RTW got some improvement, but we'll see. I like what I hear about diplomacy, I wonder how influential the Senate will be. That can set the tone right, if done right. I am still very concerned by the whole economy system / buying troops sillyness. And the Techtree. But AFAIK, we don't quite know how those would be featured.
Immersion can also be helped by simple items, like small movies a la STW, court room...


The scope of historical accuracy, and what makes for an historical 'immersive' game is much larger than iberian helmet, or even egyptian undead.

Louis,

[shingenmitch2]

hi Louis,

In many ways we are saying the same thing.

Absolutely I want the units behaving like history -- and more than just the animation. Heck I have bitched many times that the hoplites aren't using overhand thrusts. I would like to see the formation stay properly in line. Too often I watch as spearmen run forward out of the formation to stab -- defeats the whole point of the hoplite phalanx... in fact in a true phalanx that COULD NEVER happen. And keeping the formation should provide the soldiers a HUGE defensive bonus. But, alas, I don't think this will be modeled correctly.

The Mac Pikemen I see have their shields turn sideways when they thrust w/sarissa What is that? Defeats the purpose of the formation.

I can tell already that they haven't made the Mac phalanx work all that accurately. Here's one simple thing that I would want to know if it work right: will the upraised pikes in the formation help in missile defense like they really did?

So I agree -- helmet , this or helmet that isn't as big a deal as "how the unit fights." I will say tho, if a unit has the wrong weapon it almost has to affect the unit fighting properly.

And you are absolutely correct -- there are only a limited amount of units and the rest become redundant. This is ESPECIALLY true if the only variant for the unit are simple "attack, def, charge, move" stat. differences. Where real difference COULD occur is in unit behavior in terms of how they fight -- Celts as loose swordsman looking for single combat and break off as individuals; Hoplites as a tight hoplite phalanx where individuals have to stay in perfect line at the front; romans who stay in a formation, but individually can spin and turn; the Macedonian phalanx as a nearly invulnerable unit from the front, but one that can't spin or turn quick; Thracian rhomphia troops with vicious chopping tactics,etc... etc...

---------

Also, if that was the intention of Duke's post, then I misinterpreted what was being said.

No, there was no golden age of accuracy. But for all its flaws, what we had in the first STW was still more accurate than what I've been seeing for RTW and that is not a good direction to be heading in.

[Sir Moody]

Gents CA has continued the Trend for one simple reason - MTW was completely inaccurate - its a total Hit - therefore Rome doesnt need to be accurate to be a hit and so they are free to take liberties with the units... accept it and move on either buy the game or dont but what ever you chose cut the mud fight out these all too common topics are draging this forum down a muddy slope... i actually prefer the Tavern to here while the Righties Shoot me down (or try to) its far less hostile than here

[Duke John]

Quote[/b] ]How does the logic "M:TW was inaccurate, so guys stop whining about R:TW" work? Like one has anything to do with the other.
I am not saying that you should accept the inaccuracy of R:TW because M:TW was inaccurate too. I am saying that there are too many posts here which are slinging mud to CA only because they think that R:TW is a disgrace since M:TW was so "accurate".
The inaccuracies seems to come as a shock to many people, but if people looked closely to M:TW then they would know that it is nothing new, and that would have saved us hundreds of posts that only give a bad atmosphere in the Colusseum.

And what do I care about inaccurate factions or units. These are the things that can be modded. I do care about the gameplay features such as army recruitment and diplomacy. But few people realize that these things are not moddable and will thus have a much greater impact on the inaccuracy of R:TW.
Some may say that it's of no use talking about stuff you haven't seen in detail, but I think that it's of no use whining for months about stuff that can be modded in a few weeks.

[Barkhorn1x]

Waddaya mean that M:TW was inaccurate???

There were Kings in "medieval times" (hope that isn't a TM infringment http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ), weren't there? And guys called knights, and peasants and the Pope, right?

Well, ALL of them were in M:TW too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

Same with R:TW - there WERE Driuds in ancient times and flaming pigs (used exactly once, but no matter), and screaming women (present in every era, BTW) - so what's "inaccurate" about that??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasaryes.gif

Seriously, since the "unveiling" of the (Pharonic) Egyptian faction there has not been ONE dev. post here or at the .COM. Can you say "duck and cover"? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

Methinks that the CA guys who used to post here really don't have good answers for the reasons behind certain...err..."design" decisions.

I REALLY hope that this product is truly as moddable as is rumored. I would hate to think that I, as an SP only player, will be trying to select/build historically accurate units (both of them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ), only to come up against huge uber Elephant/war dog/Bull warrior hordes.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Barkhorn.

[Duke John]

Quote[/b] ]Methinks that the CA guys who used to post here really don't have good answers for the reasons behind certain...err..."design" decisions.

Or perhaps they have put in alot of time into this game upon which they have great hopes that it give their company loads of fame. The awards they have received so far might be a hint.
But when they come to the Org (I don't visit the Com, so I won't talk about it) the forum is filled with complaining about their child. The Colusseum is turning into a hostile place and only because there are things in the game that can be easily modded out. I think we can spend our time at better things.

And if the regular complainers really hate the game so much, then perhaps it's time for them to move on.

[Rufus]

To Louis: I think the fundamental issue here is the following: Most people complaining about RTW were used to certain kinds of historical inaccuracies/oversimplifications in STW and MTW. But at least all the factions seemed to fit within a reasonable degree in the context of the times, and you still got a historical feel (although your standards for accuracy are higher, which is fine, just a matter of personal preference).

The key phrase I used is "context of the times." Although there was no Kingdom of Northern Italy, at least the "Italians" in the game don't look thousands of years out of place. They don't wear Roman garb, etc.

The reason Egypt is more egregious to a lot of people is it violates the "context of the times" principle that MTW more or less respected. With this Egyptian faction, RTW is not fully a game about the rise of the Roman Empire; it's 80 or so percent that, and about 20 percent a game about Egypt in the time of the Pharaohs.

Your standards are different, but that's fine. Personally I'm able to overlook the inaccuracies because I haven't found another medieval game out there that comes as close to MTW in terms of being fun and giving a historical feel. So I'm curious - what is the other game you mentioned you play?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ June 14 2004,15:57)]Now regarding how inaccurate STW, MTW and RTW are when talking about units accuracy, I guess I stand with Duke John. If you can swallow MTW and STW units, I am confident you'll be fine with RTW.
Nope. I won't be happy with RTW's units. As I've mentioned before:

STW > MTW > RTW

We seem to have quite a diferent interpretation of events... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Duke John @ June 15 2004,03:50)]Egypt? Nothing different compared to the inaccuracy in M:TW.
You got to be joking, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

I think that the fact that you know a lot about Medieval times and care about them, is making you skip any atention to detail with RTW.

If you think that Middle Kingdom Egypt is accurate in 300 BC and later, then to make a comparable blunder in MTW, you would need to have a Roman faction with late legions (5th century AD) fighting in the 14th century against Gothic Knigths http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

[A.Saturnus]

Quote[/b] ]In my opinion, what really matters in battle is that hoplite fight like hoplite and behave like hoplite. That a cavalry archer fight and behave like a cavalry archer. If CA got that right, battles will look good, and the historical feeling will be 'good enough'

I think that´s the point. Even when historically inaccurate, battles at least should feel right. In MTW there were a lot troops that didn´t exist in that form, but that´s not that bad since they still were appropriate concerning the feel of the battle. In RTW, what worries me most is not the Egyptian faction. One faction messed up, I can live with that. What worries me more are units like flaming pigs. They may have been used once, but if they show up regularly, that would destroy the feeling of the battle. It wouldn´t feel like a ancient battle but like a fantasy battle. If I play a game called "Rome", I expect that the battles resemble something at least faintly in the direction of what I´m imagining, And flaming pigs definitely aren´t.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Duke John @ June 15 2004,13:04)]Or perhaps they have put in alot of time into this game upon which they have great hopes that it give their company loads of fame. The awards they have received so far might be a hint.
This option is more probable one; I believe that there will have an own triumph arch built by all those PC gaming magazines when they release R:TW. And it will be one that is well deserved, imho.


Quote[/b] ]But when they come to the Org (I don't visit the Com, so I won't talk about it) the forum is filled with complaining about their child. The Colusseum is turning into a hostile place and only because there are things in the game that can be easily modded out. I think we can spend our time at better things.


Indeed, Colloseum is becoming more and more hostile towards CA, which truly baffles me. Therefore I have mainly given up on commenting new CA info and reactions from the Org members to it, I'll hold fast for three more months and play the game myself, proving its worth first hand.


Quote[/b] ]And if the regular complainers really hate the game so much, then perhaps it's time for them to move on.

Now, this one I second wholeheartedly I don't hang in UT2K4 forums telling them how I dislike that game, and if it would actually happen that I come to find R:TW disappointing, I wouldn't be here, proclaiming how it sucks to all who want and don’t want to hear it. With S:TW and M:TW "used up", no longer having anything new to discover (and by now, we have discovered almost anything about those games there is to discover), what would hold me here? Settling quarrels in the Tavern? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 15 2004,07:44)]How does the logic "M:TW was inaccurate, so guys stop whining about R:TW" work? Like one has anything to do with the other. Yep M:TW was badly inaccurate, so we're supposed to accept a continuation -- check that, an acceleration -- of the inaccuracy? "Guys u took it up the shoot once and didn't complain enough, relax and enjoy it this time... lol"
Preciselly. They should seek an improvement, not a worse product.



Quote[/b] ]Part of the reason for the intensity about Rome, is that we know CA is doing a full redesign for this game. M:TW was a small tweak, thus we couldn't expect much difference from earlier versions. I think for Rome there is higher expectations because there has been a soup-to-nuts rework of the game and peeps feel that the mistakes of the past should be rectified now.
Yes. There are higher expectations because the game was made from scratch, unlike MTW, which is only an improvement over STW's engine and programming.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 15 2004,10:34)]No, there was no golden age of accuracy. But for all its flaws, what we had in the first STW was still more accurate than what I've been seeing for RTW and that is not a good direction to be heading in.
Precisely. But STW outshines MTW in accuracy. Specialy without MI.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Duke John @ June 15 2004,12:16)]
Quote[/b] ]How does the logic "M:TW was inaccurate, so guys stop whining about R:TW" work? Like one has anything to do with the other.
I am not saying that you should accept the inaccuracy of R:TW because M:TW was inaccurate too. I am saying that there are too many posts here which are slinging mud to CA only because they think that R:TW is a disgrace since M:TW was so "accurate".
In reality, MTW outshines RTW, from what we've seen so far... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flat.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rufus @ June 15 2004,14:06)]To Louis: I think the fundamental issue here is the following: Most people complaining about RTW were used to certain kinds of historical inaccuracies/oversimplifications in STW and MTW. But at least all the factions seemed to fit within a reasonable degree in the context of the times, and you still got a historical feel (although your standards for accuracy are higher, which is fine, just a matter of personal preference).

The key phrase I used is "context of the times." Although there was no Kingdom of Northern Italy, at least the "Italians" in the game don't look thousands of years out of place. They don't wear Roman garb, etc.

The reason Egypt is more egregious to a lot of people is it violates the "context of the times" principle that MTW more or less respected. With this Egyptian faction, RTW is not fully a game about the rise of the Roman Empire; it's 80 or so percent that, and about 20 percent a game about Egypt in the time of the Pharaohs.
Finally someone accuratelly points out the disaster that a lot of persons don't seem to perceive. Great post, Master Rufus http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Duke John @ June 15 2004,13:04)]And if the regular complainers really hate the game so much, then perhaps it's time for them to move on.
Hope is the last one to die. I'll have to wait until I'm sure it's crap, not before. Meanwhile, all of you and CA will just have to keep up with me and the others... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-tongue3.gif

[Sir Moody]

I actually dont see what everyone is Complaining about - The Egyption Faction seems ok to me

read the Descriptions carefully - There are 3 Pike Phlanax Infantry Units - there is A Greek Like Heavy Cav - the Core of a Successor State, the Faction may have a few Fanatsy Units and may have a Physical appearences wrong but the Core units are there - Pike and horse

[shingenmitch2]

Voigt,
Yet another "enjoy the _ _ _ _ or don't bend over post."
I'm sorry if you'll be happy with any arcade game CA puts out as long as TW is attached to it. I won't. And after the $$$ I've spent toward the TW franchise I have every right to complain if I think they're headed in the wrong direction. I give CA plenty of praise when they deserve it, but no, I won't kiss their butts.

The reason I post is because I care. I've raved about the TW game in the past and can see great possibilities for its future. A lot of people along with myself have waited a long time for a game about Rome like what RTW could be. We don't want to be disappointed with an arcade game when the series was founded on strategy based off trying to accurately simulate medieval Japanese combat. It is pointless to make a game that accurately simulates morale, fatigue, hill effects, rain effects, arrow arcs, etc. and then dumb down the rest of the game.

Personally, I hope I'm wrong about every single thing negative I've posted, but the more I see the more I fear I'm correct. I bitch now, because the game isn't out and hope that the concerns I've raised may be addressed.

BTW. Duke, you might be a modder, I'm not. I'd prefer to be able to enjoy the game without building a new one myself.

[andrewt]

Ever heard of the straw that broke the camel's back?

Fact is, CA's games have become less and less historically accurate. STW was the most accurate and RTW is looking to be more inaccurate than MTW by a long shot. The point is, people have breaking points on how much historical accuracy they want and how much they can stomach. CA is getting closer and closer to the breaking point for a lot of people with RTW.

No matter how inaccurate MTW is, it didn't have anything that is a off by a whole millenium. Imagine a medieval spear formation going up against a panzer or m1 abrams battalion.

[lonewolf371]

Kudos to Dark Magician for correcting me Sorry about that. \ http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
You know what? They need to make a new smilie that is a flaming pig head smiling... It basically demonstrates the emotion that the topic is going completely in the wrong direction or that the person you're talking to is incredibly stupid. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Shingenmitch,

heh, well, to each his own, I'd say. And please, don't feel sorry if I enjoy that "arcade" crap the CA will bring out, because I certainly will. If you feel that the people that don't mind historical inaccuracies or, as I do, don't see it as a relevant fact to spit on R:TW and CA, are actually kissing their butts, then I would have had something to tell you, only if I weren't as polite and a nice fellow as I am http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

But I welcome anyone to drop the R:TW arcade nonsense and go after the real and historically accurate strategy games like Diablo


Quote[/b] ]It is pointless to make a game that accurately simulates morale, fatigue, hill effects, rain effects, arrow arcs, etc. and then dumb down the rest of the game.



Huh, with "dumbing" down the rest of the game you probably refer to the Bull warrior or flaming pigs or Egyptians? So, basically, the CA can make a revolutionary 3D engine, design the game to seriously own and you will object and won't buy it because it has a unit with bull horns attached to its helmet? Good, as I said, to each his own, I respect that and I don't constantly bull down those who say so, which could not be told from the other party involved.

[Dark_Magician]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 16 2004,01:18)]I don't constantly bull down those who say so, which could not be told from the other party involved.
Yep, we are for historical accuracy. We should catch all these who make or support contaminating our holy Egyptian values and set them on fire - enjoyng them screaming like flaming women. As heretics, you know.

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Dark_Magician @ June 16 2004,03:26)]
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 16 2004,01:18)]I don't constantly bull down those who say so, which could not be told from the other party involved.
Yep, we are for historical accuracy. We should catch all these who make or support contaminating our holy Egyptian values and set them on fire - enjoyng them screaming like flaming women. As heretics, you know.
One has to be careful with posts like this. CA guys might be (secretly) still read those boards. If they see the flaming pigs & screaming women hybrid idea (flaming women) they might just add it in the barbarian factions for flavor.

[rasoforos]

Of course the transformation of the Ptolemaic Empire into a 5.000 year old Pharaonic kingdom will have some positive effects for our country Rosa. It might reduce the number of tourists ( mostly american , you guys must be killing geography at schools ) who visit Greece and keep wondering where the hell are the Pyramids :D

[shingenmitch2]

"If you feel that the people that don't mind historical inaccuracies or, as I do, don't see it as a relevant fact to spit on R:TW "

If you don't think historical accuracy has any place in what is essentially a war sim, I don't even know where to begin to respond to that.

"I don't constantly bull down those who say so, which could not be told from the other party involved."

Right, and your first post to any who care about accuracy being a thinly veiled, "Idiots, shut up and stop your whining" was... um... very diplomatic. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ June 16 2004,04:25)]Of course the transformation of the Ptolemaic Empire into a 5.000 year old Pharaonic kingdom will have some positive effects for our country Rosa. It might reduce the number of tourists ( mostly american , you guys must be killing geography at schools ) who visit Greece and keep wondering where the hell are the Pyramids :D
Now, I think we could view as a positive side-effect, even though since they don't know where Egypt is anyway, they'll still ask "which way to the pyramids" or "where can I rent a camel"? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[shingenmitch2]

"So, basically, the CA can make a revolutionary 3D engine..."

"Woah baby We've designed this revolutionary new car... its got 350 hp, twin turbo, gets 65 mpg, got cruise control, air, satellite navigation, abs, active suspension..."

"... um but the wheels are square..."

"...who gives a spit about that? BTW did u see the styling... it LOOKS so damn cool"

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

[Kraxis]

Mitch, you are taking it too far.

You make a comparison of square wheels and RTW as it seems to be going now. I would say it was more along the lines of ugly colours and bad interior, but the car is essentially still a revolutionary and effective car.

A war-sim doesn't need to be historical accurate, it needs to be combat accurate. As long as the results of a fight is plausible and expectable, then the involved units can be anything, from spearmen fighting the good old tanks (to use another comparison used here) to egyptian chariots fighting roman legionaries. A war-sim is about the combat, not how it looks or how accurate the men are.

[Puzz3D]

The total war series has an historical flavor, but not high historical accuracy. I remember one of the programmers posting that statement here at the org. The programmer who does the strategic ai posted that no one sits down and plays out a campaign to see how all the strategic factors interact. And, we have another statement from the programmer who does the tactical side of the game that he thinks a 25% balance in the units is adequate. These are the reasons that players have been able to improve on the game in all of these areas by modding the game. There is a certain level to which CA is willing to work before diminishing returns triggers the management to say, "that's it let's move on to the next phase of development". Of course patrons here can voice their disapproval of where CA sets that point, but I doubt that it will cause CA to change it.

Hopefully, RTW will be sufficiently modable so that the player community can improve the historical accuracy and the gameplay just as we did in WE/MI and MTW/VI. STW was not modable, but we asked for modding capabilty, and we got it in WE/MI and MTW/VI. I belive that's the path that has to be followed to take the game close to its full potential. I doubt it's achievable in less than a year after intial release of RTW.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I have read some comments about Italy not being too much out of context. Need I to remind you of the date of Italian unification? Isn't that centuries away from MTW timeframe?

(BTW, Rufus, a game I have in mind is Crusader King from Paradox)

That Italians units are not looking too much out of context is not making it any better when I am on the campaign map. In campaign mode, it's just heart breaking. Pretty much like all the features of the campaign by the way. Oddly enough, noone seems to complain about the historical inaccuracy of the campaign, or about unhistorical game mechanism of the campaign in MTW...

And when I am playing battles... Well, I like some kind of historical accuracy.
I like to face and play armies that are accurate; ie of accurate composition. Does that mean I need perfectly accurate units?
Probably not; an accuracy a la STW is probably good enough. An accurate army composition would be by generic type. I don't really care if the spears are Italian infantry or Chivalric seargeant. As long as they are spears. For that, we don't need 250 units. Maybe 20.
The other part of historical accuracy that matters is that those units behave in an accurate way. I'd go along with Kraxis a bit.
To make it historically immersive, we need units to behave somehow historically. If hoplites break line in 30 second when charged frontally, it'll be a problem. If elephants failed to charge in their own line from time to time, that would be disappointing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
If cavalry can't run throught slingers and kill them all, it'll also dispel historical immersion.
That's really what I am looking for as far as historical accuracy is concerend when it comes to the battles.
Let me tell you; the helmet of the iberian warrior is really a minor problem if we don't get the tactical engine to reflect the tactics of the time.

Given that MTW somehow failed to give an accurate tactical engine (as anyone who has played MP a bit will tell you), I really think that the priority is there. MTW gave a great engine with plenty of good elements to make a great game. But details like pavese units stopping cavalry charge, or spears being useless are really big historical accuracy breaker.

And that is not related to units being accurate or not. But that's a major part of the historical flavor as a whole.

If RTW gives like 20 broadly non accurate / generic units, which are close enough to look like right and that behaves just like units of that time would behave, then for me battles will be historically good enough.
And if there a chariot... Well, if that chariot behaves right, like an antic chariot (ok, from a slightly different era), and can be used tactically like an antic chariot, then I guess I won't mind it too much.

Louis,

[Puzz3D]

Louis,

It's posts like your last one which makes me puzzled at your rejection of the mtw/vi community mod because that stuff is fixed in the mod. Pavs break under cav charge, spears work, archers are dangerous and cav beats swords. The Turks and all muslim factions are better in the mod. Once RTW is released, MTW/VI will be a ghost town. Why spend the remaining time of MTW/VI playing the inferior regular game? The Community mod is more historically accurate, more balanced in gameplay and allows using a greater variety of units. I'm willing to bet that the MTW/VI Community Mod will offer better gameplay than RTW.

[shingenmitch2]

" The programmer who does the strategic ai posted that no one sits down and plays out a campaign to see how all the strategic factors interact."

That is a frightening statement. How the heck do they know what produced? Theory and guess work only get you so far...

------

Louis,
Actually, I couldn't agree with you more. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif
If this game had only 1 Macedonian phalanx unit that all factions that had pikemen shared, or 1 hoplite phalanx unit that all factions that used that unit shared, I'd be perfectly happy -- provided that the unit behaved as realistically as is reasonably possible.

I critique the current units look, because as long as CA has dedicated an artist's time to render it, they might as well do it correctly -- it takes as much time to make an inaccurate looking unit as it does an accurate one.

--------

Hi Yuuk,
I enjoy the CBR's mod. I like that pav. lines run and that spears are now a needed unit. I still would like to see a +1 or 2 morale boost to the front line fighting troops, but that's just a quibble on my part http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

---------
Krax,
Yah, I pushed the point to make a joke.

"a combat sim need not be historically accurate, just combat accurate."

I agree... sort of. Having units be historically accurate will go a long way toward making the combat accuarate. e.x. a WW2 game models all effects of cannon fire 100% accurately, and then sticks a 88mm gun on a Mark I tank because they either don't know better or think louder bangs are cool -- what does that do to combat accuracy?

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I'm sure you historical accuracy boys would be bothered if CA said tomorrow that they have stopped work on Rome and are binning the idea. I would be gutted, as would countless others. I want to see this engine in all its glory , the epic battles, loads of options in campaign now open to us, the modding increase available to us.

I personally can't wait http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 15 2004,19:46)]Yet another "enjoy the _ _ _ _ or don't bend over post."
I'm sorry if you'll be happy with any arcade game CA puts out as long as TW is attached to it. I won't. And after the $$$ I've spent toward the TW franchise I have every right to complain if I think they're headed in the wrong direction. I give CA plenty of praise when they deserve it, but no, I won't kiss their butts.

The reason I post is because I care. I've raved about the TW game in the past and can see great possibilities for its future. A lot of people along with myself have waited a long time for a game about Rome like what RTW could be. We don't want to be disappointed with an arcade game when the series was founded on strategy based off trying to accurately simulate medieval Japanese combat. It is pointless to make a game that accurately simulates morale, fatigue, hill effects, rain effects, arrow arcs, etc. and then dumb down the rest of the game.

Personally, I hope I'm wrong about every single thing negative I've posted, but the more I see the more I fear I'm correct. I bitch now, because the game isn't out and hope that the concerns I've raised may be addressed.
I totally agree with you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif


Quote[/b] ]BTW. Duke, you might be a modder, I'm not. I'd prefer to be able to enjoy the game without building a new one myself.
The less work the better, even for a modder...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (andrewt @ June 15 2004,21:41)]Ever heard of the straw that broke the camel's back?

Fact is, CA's games have become less and less historically accurate. STW was the most accurate and RTW is looking to be more inaccurate than MTW by a long shot. The point is, people have breaking points on how much historical accuracy they want and how much they can stomach. CA is getting closer and closer to the breaking point for a lot of people with RTW.

No matter how inaccurate MTW is, it didn't have anything that is a off by a whole millenium. Imagine a medieval spear formation going up against a panzer or m1 abrams battalion.
Preciselly Well put... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[ah_dut]

I agree, as said, before I agree with Aymar

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 16 2004,07:53)]
Quote[/b] ]"If you feel that the people that don't mind historical inaccuracies or, as I do, don't see it as a relevant fact to spit on R:TW "
If you don't think historical accuracy has any place in what is essentially a war sim, I don't even know where to begin to respond to that.
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


Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]"I don't constantly bull down those who say so, which could not be told from the other party involved."
Right, and your first post to any who care about accuracy being a thinly veiled, "Idiots, shut up and stop your whining" was... um... very diplomatic. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Those rules only seem to really matter to the opposite view. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 16 2004,08:08)]"So, basically, the CA can make a revolutionary 3D engine..."

"Woah baby We've designed this revolutionary new car... its got 350 hp, twin turbo, gets 65 mpg, got cruise control, air, satellite navigation, abs, active suspension..."

"... um but the wheels are square..."

"...who gives a spit about that? BTW did u see the styling... it LOOKS so damn cool"

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

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 16 2004,12:35)]
Quote[/b] ]"The programmer who does the strategic ai posted that no one sits down and plays out a campaign to see how all the strategic factors interact."
That is a frightening statement. How the heck do they know what produced? Theory and guess work only get you so far...
It can't be like that. Not even a mediocre game company could afford that kind of approach let alone CA.



Quote[/b] ]I critique the current units look, because as long as CA has dedicated an artist's time to render it, they might as well do it correctly -- it takes as much time to make an inaccurate looking unit as it does an accurate one.
Preciselly. I've been posting that and nobody listens...

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 16 2004,12:35)]and then sticks a 88mm gun on a Mark I tank because they either don't know better or think louder bangs are cool -- what does that do to combat accuracy?
It does nothing really. Well besides the point that such a vehicle is impossible, it wouldn't change anything.

That tank sould be able to kill other tanks and be killed itself within the parameters of its penetration capabilities and the thinkness of its armour.

Just because the tank would be historically inaccurate like a computer in Rome, doesn't make it less of an equal factor in a war-sim. It would only need to behave acording to its characteristics, nothing more, nothing less.

Combat inaccuracy would be the Mk I/88 facing a T-34/128 and have the 128mm shell bounce off at 200m. Not the vehicle itself, or its opponent itself. That is how fantasy combat can be simulated (like space sims). We have no 'accuracy' there, but the crafts and weapons still have to behave in a correct way.

[andrewt]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ June 16 2004,07:28)]The total war series has an historical flavor, but not high historical accuracy. I remember one of the programmers posting that statement here at the org. The programmer who does the strategic ai posted that no one sits down and plays out a campaign to see how all the strategic factors interact. And, we have another statement from the programmer who does the tactical side of the game that he thinks a 25% balance in the units is adequate. These are the reasons that players have been able to improve on the game in all of these areas by modding the game. There is a certain level to which CA is willing to work before diminishing returns triggers the management to say, "that's it let's move on to the next phase of development". Of course patrons here can voice their disapproval of where CA sets that point, but I doubt that it will cause CA to change it.

Hopefully, RTW will be sufficiently modable so that the player community can improve the historical accuracy and the gameplay just as we did in WE/MI and MTW/VI. STW was not modable, but we asked for modding capabilty, and we got it in WE/MI and MTW/VI. I belive that's the path that has to be followed to take the game close to its full potential. I doubt it's achievable in less than a year after intial release of RTW.
That's the reason CA's sales don't approach Blizzard's and Bioware's numbers. It's not that historical accuracy is uncool and that their units lack variety or whatever. It's the fact that their games lack the polish of a Warcraft3 or a Star Wars: KOTOR. They have a great concept but the execution is nowhere near close to Bioware's and Blizzard's quality.

This Egypt thing is seriously going at it the wrong way.

[shingenmitch2]

Hi Krax,

I didn't mean that the Mark 1 just was illustrated with the 88 -- but that because it was illustrated w/the 88, they also gave it the 88's stats. Thus effectively you play 1940 with "Tiger" Mark 1's. And even if the unit works within its fantasy parameters, if you have fictitious units in a game about 1940 tank fighting, have you really accurately simulated that warfare?

Sometimes the way something is rendered also affects the stats they decide to give it. If a game designer illustrates a Pikeman with an axe, they might not have it fight as pikeman, but instead as an axeman.

If it they had the pikeman w/axe fight and given the stats of a pikeman, then we get what you're saying "looks wrong, fights correctly..." which, you are correct, is a lesser evil http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

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

I guess this whole thing comes down to goals.

If the goal is to simulate WW2 East Front combat, then the modern weapon effects need to be modeled properly, but just as importantly the proper units need to populate the game.

If the goal is just to have a game that plays like modern warfare, well then I guess any old unit is acceptable as long as the weapon effects are correct.

TWR proposes to be about classical warfare in the period of ancient Rome. That was a purported goal.

My criticisms have ranged from the lack of accurate modeling of combat/weapon effects (which seems to be the bare minimum for any type of game about swords and spears by Kraxis' criteria) as well as an increased (over previous TW versions) lack of accuracy of the units populating the game -- which is a basic criteria of a game that attempts to sim a historical era.

They are both valid criticisms and that is why I bristle at those who would so easily dismiss them as mindless whining. My apologies for any of my posts becoming rude.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 16 2004,07:53)]"I don't constantly bull down those who say so, which could not be told from the other party involved."

Right, and your first post to any who care about accuracy being a thinly veiled, "Idiots, shut up and stop your whining" was... um... very diplomatic. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Oh, my dear, aren't we eloquent? For all other that are not ignorant per choice, be advised, these words were not mine , but shingemitch's; I never said anything near the "diplomatic level" he seems to dwell upon… I'd be grateful if you would actually take resort to exact quoting.


Quote[/b] ]"So, basically, the CA can make a revolutionary 3D engine..."

"Woah baby We've designed this revolutionary new car... its got 350 hp, twin turbo, gets 65 mpg, got cruise control, air, satellite navigation, abs, active suspension..."

"... um but the wheels are square..."

"...who gives a spit about that? BTW did u see the styling... it LOOKS so damn cool"

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

"But the wheels are square"? Well, if I were to go down to this level of discussion, I would need a shovel. With your smug remarks you would want to portrait me as a seven year old boy screaming of joy because of fancy graphics, establishing yourself as a quite an opposite, well-educated, historically correct player with fine taste… I'm most impressed. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[The Wizard]

Oh joy, this is careening past fair and square discussion between critics and counter-critics, and those in between, into a mud-throwing contest so extraordinary even the usually neutral voigt has joined

Stop it fellows.



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsdown.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ June 17 2004,14:00)]Oh joy, this is careening past fair and square discussion between critics and counter-critics, and those in between, into a mud-throwing contest so extraordinary even the usually neutral voigt has joined

Stop it fellows.



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsdown.gif
Hehe, that would probably be like ordering water to flow uphill

But you are so very right; you are either out of this or in this, up to your throat in mud. My posts in this thread have reminded me why I have avoided commenting this issue so far, but I was rather fed up with all those "burn CA" posts.

And now I'm ready to once more turn my back on this topic, thanks for additional motivation, Wizzy

[Kraxis]

voigt, I actually took mitch up on the 'square wheels' and he agreed it was not the best representation.

[Puzz3D]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 16 2004,15:49)]
Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 16 2004,12:35)]
Quote[/b] ]"The programmer who does the strategic ai posted that no one sits down and plays out a campaign to see how all the strategic factors interact."
That is a frightening statement. How the heck do they know what produced? Theory and guess work only get you so far...
It can't be like that. Not even a mediocre game company could afford that kind of approach let alone CA.
Aymar de Bois Mauri,

Well, unless things have changed at CA they don't have people playing out the campaign and evaluating how the ai performs. The post I was refering to is no longer here at the org, but I saved it and here is the unedited text of it:


WesW

Man at Arms
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Nov. 2002
Florence, Al., USA Posted: Mar. 05 2003,03:35

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if you guys have any input on the AI side of things, but we (and by "we", I think I include everyone who plays the game) would greatly appreciate it if you pass along the following exerpt from a post I made recently, which has been confirmed by others. Thank you.

"After computing defense, the AI then goes into its offensive evaluations, comparing provincial attractiveness, enemy forces, its own troops and whatever political modifiers (though these last are set way too low I think we would all agree).
And here is where the programmers really dropped the ball, imo. If a neighboring province passes the initial tests for attacking it, the AI *should* run the defensive routine again, to see if it will have enough troops left in or moving into its province to defend it from the remaining border provinces' troops. If it doesn't, it should not attack, but in MTW it does attack, even if it means leaving no troops to garrison its base. I think we have all seen this time and again, and, coupled with the current setup of buildings being destroyed without the castle being taken, is the number one remaining reason, with the current improvements made to finances, that the AI doesn't develop into a worthy opponent over the course of an era. This is what causes the merry-go-round of desertification that everyone complains about. And this stuff should be basic "ones and zeroes", to borrow a sports term, for a strategy programmer. I mean, I am just a lay person really, and if I know this, then anyone with a degree and a little experience should have learned it a long time ago.
(ECS, if you are out there, I would really like this pointed out to the AI coders.)"

This next section is not absolutely necessary to pass along, but it does illustrate the effects of the flaw.

"If you want a really cheesy strategy to try sometime, just send at least one unit into every enemy province that you can reach every turn. You will probably ride into an empty town once every couple of turns.

I know that every development house has its guys to "plat-test" the game, but normally these guys are looking for bugs, and in MTW's case fighting pitched battles, and not sitting back and observing how the AI is performing strategically.
CA made some big improvements and tweaks to the tactical AI in the patch, but their not seeing the giant hole in the AI described above even by the time the patch came out spells out in black and white as to what all their emphasis was on. And they did a great job with the tactics, I think we will all agree. I have played the game since September, and I am still learning things from the AI in almost every battle. It's just too bad that the strategic shortcomings don't allow the great tactical AI a chance to show its stuff like it should."

--------------
The Medieval Mod IV for Total War v1.71: For God and Country zip file and Readme.
Now available at my Apolyton-hosted webpage.
Back to top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



eat cold steel

Programmer
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Aug. 2002
CA, UK Posted: Mar. 05 2003,05:05

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ECS, if you are out there, I would really like this pointed out to the AI coders

That coder would be me...

> comparing provincial attractiveness, enemy forces, its own troops
That include forces needed to defend already, the strength of the invading force does not include the force needed for defence, unless the region you are attacking is much more attactive then it will abandant the previous region. I've however "upped" the size of the defender for VI.

> and not sitting back and observing how the AI is performing strategically
Very true, this has been rased many time in our team meeting, hopfully we'll get a much bigger focus group for future projects.

[Puzz3D]

Quote[/b] (andrewt @ June 16 2004,18:07)]That's the reason CA's sales don't approach Blizzard's and Bioware's numbers. It's not that historical accuracy is uncool and that their units lack variety or whatever. It's the fact that their games lack the polish of a Warcraft3 or a Star Wars: KOTOR. They have a great concept but the execution is nowhere near close to Bioware's and Blizzard's quality.

This Egypt thing is seriously going at it the wrong way.
Well, RTW is more polished than MTW/VI. That should generate more sales, but what some of the posters here are worried about is deterioration of the historical and tactical aspects of the game. I'll bet it's the same people at CA who put horns on the viking helmets who put chariots in the Egyptian faction. I doubt it's the guy who is doing the historical research who did these things, and I would expect that he argued against things like that, but they are there in the game anyway.

I think the only way you'll change one of these decisions is if you can present the argument for greater historical accuracy or better tactical gameplay in terms of increasing the sales of the game or cutting costs. One of the cleverest negotiating techniques is to make the manager think the change was his own idea. You also have to convince the manager that there is minimal risk if the change is made. Just saying something isn't historically accurate or isn't tactically optimal doesn't cause any change of direction because they already know it isn't accurate or optimal.

[andrewt]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ June 17 2004,19:36)]
Quote[/b] (andrewt @ June 16 2004,18:07)]That's the reason CA's sales don't approach Blizzard's and Bioware's numbers. It's not that historical accuracy is uncool and that their units lack variety or whatever. It's the fact that their games lack the polish of a Warcraft3 or a Star Wars: KOTOR. They have a great concept but the execution is nowhere near close to Bioware's and Blizzard's quality.

This Egypt thing is seriously going at it the wrong way.
Well, RTW is more polished than MTW/VI. That should generate more sales, but what some of the posters here are worried about is deterioration of the historical and tactical aspects of the game. I'll bet it's the same people at CA who put horns on the viking helmets who put chariots in the Egyptian faction. I doubt it's the guy who is doing the historical research who did these things, and I would expect that he argued against things like that, but they are there in the game anyway.

I think the only way you'll change one of these decisions is if you can present the argument for greater historical accuracy or better tactical gameplay in terms of increasing the sales of the game or cutting costs. One of the cleverest negotiating techniques is to make the manager think the change was his own idea. You also have to convince the manager that there is minimal risk if the change is made. Just saying something isn't historically accurate or isn't tactically optimal doesn't cause any change of direction because they already know it isn't accurate or optimal.
Well, the thing is, Blizzard and Bioware have a passion to do things right. They have a very strong professional pride in their work and they would delay their products just to make it better. I know that money is the motivation of all companies. However, there is a difference between companies where money is the only motivation versus companies that have other, additional motivations.

I just don't see either of those two companies changing a core aspect of their game purely for marketing purposes. Blizzard has a reputation for games that are popular with casual gamers but they have never dumbed down a game to appeal more to casual fans. In fact, they made a lot of changes in the Warcraft3 and Frozen Throne betas in response to the wishes of their more hardcore gamers. Many of those changes made it effectively harder for newbies to win against more experienced gamers.

In fact, David Gaider of Bioware released a few mods for Baldur's Gate 2 that added some powers to the main character and made some of the battles harder. He did it on his spare. Some bored Bioware guy actually added the entire Wild Mage class just on his spare time. Many Blizzard employees actually play games with their most vocal complainers just to better balance the game.

RTW seems to be too dumbed down from MTW and STW. Even current Hollywood movies are more accurate. As much as people criticize Hollywood, its movies are more accurate right now than they were in the past. They're now better researched compared to those in the 60s or 70s or even 80s. If you've seen an old TV show or movie dealing with the legal system, you'll know how laughable those old films and shows are. I just find it odd that Hollywood is moving forward while CA is moving backward.

There's a film coming out later this year called Alexander. Why am I thinking that it might actually be more accurate than CA's game?

[shingenmitch2]

Andrew
Sounds like Bioware knows where their bread is buttered and why their games sold in the first place. Their strategy appears to be to satisfy their core customer and perhaps add polish to grow their base.

-----------

Vogt,
mud slinging? I guess you missed my apology.
The fact is when someone has laid out a legitimate, thought-out argument behind their criticism of anything (in this case, what we have seen so far of RTW), it is rude on your part to simply dismiss that criticism as whining and not offer reasons why our arguments are so off-base. Instead, all we got was what amounts to a slap, and then you wonder why I'd take it so poorly...


"Quote: And if the regular complainers really hate the game so much, then perhaps it's time for them to move on."

"Now, this one I second wholeheartedly I don't hang in UT2K4 forums telling them how I dislike that game, and if it would actually happen that I come to find R:TW disappointing, I wouldn't be here, proclaiming how it sucks to all who want and don’t want to hear it."

So my was my understanding of what you said that far off? If you didn't mean this message to be, "hey whiners, shut up." What was your intent?



"If you love it so much you'll shout like me... YEAH"
-- Special Ed. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Shingenmitch,

should I or should I not? I hate arguing, I sincerely do; what a waste of time, truly. But let us bring this to a somewhat civilized conclusion, shell we?

First of all, you shouldn’t have flamed me at the first place; I never directly addressed you, now have I? And if this is your apology


Quote[/b] ]Krax,
Yah, I pushed the point to make a joke.

then it was a masterly concealed one. After all, you implied that I used very disrespectful words towards the other members, which I haven't, and that was well beneath the appropriate standards. It was rude and impolite, to say the least, not to forget untruthful. And what should I do? I responded in the similar manner, yet I have at least used exact quotes and took resort in somewhat moderate cynic manner, one not to be mistaken and set on the same level with your blunt attempt to present me as a half-idiot seduced by flashy colors R:TW will provide.

I have not dismissed any criticism as whining; you again take resort to slander. My posts, as well as yours, are there to see, unedited and clear, and those that have eyes may see. I said, over and over again, that I don't like certain issues with this game, but I am far more annoyed by the fact that we won't be able to have tactical sea combat situations where we could take control over the fleets and conduct attacks/defenses to our own design (M:TW had a dreadful sea abstract battle system) then I am annoyed over the Iberian Bull warrior & co. I have addressed this issue in a thread some while ago, it was Captain Fishpants (back in those days, they still made their appearances here) I believe who said no, sorry, naval battles remain abstract. I wasn't pleased, but they spoke their stand and I accepted it. I had the choice to go and flame them, but I still considered the game to be worth buying, as I still do. Don't forget, with a better naval battles system we could have create much better mods as well, or I'm I silly for putting this issue above historical accuracy?


Quote[/b] ]"Quote: And if the regular complainers really hate the game so much, then perhaps it's time for them to move on."

"Now, this one I second wholeheartedly I don't hang in UT2K4 forums telling them how I dislike that game, and if it would actually happen that I come to find R:TW disappointing, I wouldn't be here, proclaiming how it sucks to all who want and don’t want to hear it."

So my was my understanding of what you said that far off? If you didn't mean this message to be, "hey whiners, shut up." What was your intent?

So, you failed to interpret my post? Well, I honestly believed it was far too direct and have considered of making it "milder" yet; I was trying to avoid a pointless flame war, but, alas, a futile attempt was that. But it is still easy to interpret it; it doesn't mean "shut up, you whiners", as you have so eloquently put it, it means something like "if you don't like it, feel free to drop it" I say that openly, if you don't like it, what are you still doing here? Drop it and move to something new, some other strategy game that will fulfill your desires. I have stated my objections, they said "no way", and I accepted it. You stated yours, they said absolutely nothing, and repeating it for dozen and dozen times won't make it any more effective, it will only help in creating a negative atmosphere here.

If you want to motivate the makers of the game to change these features you don't like, I advise you to do it over at the .Com, where your posts will have larger and more immediate impact; also, send mails of complaints and suggestions, write letters, gather petitions, or even organize a protest march in front of the CA building. That is how you influence game development, not by flaming me.

So tell me, what is the point when unsatisfied members repeatedly flame this game and CA because of the Bull warrior? What will you accomplish here, instead of creating a hostile environment?


PS: Oh, well, after rereading this, I hardly believe that there will be any civilized conclusion to this issue…

[shingenmitch2]

Nope, this was the apology:
"They [my arguments about the game] are both valid criticisms and that is why I bristle at those who would so easily dismiss them as mindless whining. My apologies for any of my posts becoming rude."

You talk about flaming, but it was your very next post that ripped right into it again.

------------
"But it is still easy to interpret it; it doesn't mean "shut up, you whiners", as you have so eloquently put it, it means something like "if you don't like it, feel free to drop it" I say that openly, if you don't like it, what are you still doing here?"

Your joking now, yes? Your arguing the nuance of the message not the content? So it was a more subtle and nice way of saying "shut up and leave" to all of the critics ... well thanks. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-blush.gif


I say that openly, if you don't like it, what are you still doing here?"

Um... is that a subtle and nuanced way shaking hands with me to bring to a happy conclusion? I think I miss interpret that also.

[Lil' Timmy]

lol @ voigt and shingen http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-heart.gif

it might be a flame-war (doesn't this board have PMs?) but it sure is funny to read http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 18 2004,10:23)]Nope, this was the apology:
"They [my arguments about the game] are both valid criticisms and that is why I bristle at those who would so easily dismiss them as mindless whining. My apologies for any of my posts becoming rude."
Hmm, when you name me and direct some comments at me, as well as bend my statements and imply I called anyone "idiotic whiners", you should apologize directly to me, shouldn't you?


Quote[/b] ]
You talk about flaming, but it was your very next post that ripped right into it again.

------------
"But it is still easy to interpret it; it doesn't mean "shut up, you whiners", as you have so eloquently put it, it means something like "if you don't like it, feel free to drop it" I say that openly, if you don't like it, what are you still doing here?"

Your joking now, yes? Your arguing the nuance of the message not the content? So it was a more subtle and nice way of saying "shut up and leave" to all of the critics ... well thanks. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-blush.gif


I say that openly, if you don't like it, what are you still doing here?"

Um... is that a subtle and nuanced way shaking hands with me to bring to a happy conclusion? I think I miss interpret that also.

Now, where is the flaming in that? That was a legitimate question, and it was formulated in a perfectly well-mannered fashion There is a grave difference between politeness and rudeness, and it should be obvious and appreciated that I keep being polite and adequate; you shouldn't just wave it sarcastically off as mere "eloquence"; eloquence is a great and important partl of communication. If you don't like the R:TW, why are you here? No, I am not trying to shake hands, nor am I trying to flame you, I just wonder the purpose; why do the people that dislike R:TW keep staying here? I would move, honestly; why bother?

[Puzz3D]

andrewt,

Did you know that the MTW/VI v2.01 patch was done by the programmers on their own time? However, the reason approval was given to do the patch was the kings all dying at 56 years old, and possibly the frequent crashing when someone exited a multiplayer game. The programmers took the opportunity to improve the gameplay in both single player and multiplayer while fixing those two major bugs. So, I would say the programmers at CA do want to put out the highest quality product they can.

Remember how the text on the box of the original STW suggested that there was a multiplayer campaign included, but there wasn't. That tells me something about who's in charge of the final product at CA. It isn't the programmers. Programmers are more like engineers in the sense that they tell it like it is since they are the people who have to make it work, and are well aware of what the product can't do.

Look at the loss of STW's seasonal turns, a feature that worked beautifully and was tactically and strategically important, to MTW's yearly turns with weather that just basically cycles through the same sequence for every battle. CA took a lot of heat for that here at the org, but that didn't get it changed back to seasonal. Who would have ever thought a great feature like seasonal turns would be trashed? You could have had three full length campaigns in early, high and late era, and an additional grand campaign covering all three eras. By the time yearly turns were revealed to the public, it was too late to change it. This seems to be an ongoing pattern of revealing stuff after it's too late to make changes. You can post here all you want, but realize that there is no two-way street between the community and CA on these forums. If the programmers show up and ask for suggestions, it's because they have a window of opportunity (usually just prior to a patch or game expanding add-on) to make some changes. This window doesn't seem to exist during initial game developement.

[ah_dut]

@voightkampf, I believe that the CA people will reply to PM's *nudge*

[Rufus]

I may have thought of another way to look at the historical accuracy issue that may clarify why lots of folks have big problems with the Egyptians.

In MTW, the very premise of the game was more or less ahistorical. No one between Charlemagne and Napoleon was in any position historically to conquer all or even most of Europe. So, given that, people were willing to overlook some macro-level political anachronisms, like an Italian faction, or a stable HRE faction, etc., given the fact that the whole premise was ahistorical. But on the micro level, they provided a pretty sufficient medieval look and feel to the game and none (or few) of the units, buildings, technologies, etc. seemed too much out of place. No Romans fighting guys with muskets, etc.

Now, in RTW, we have a game with a very historical premise, as the goal is to become Emperor of Rome, something that actually happened. I don't think anyone has complained too much about the macro-level components - which factions are included, goals, role of the Senate, etc. Here the problem is on the micro-level - Egyptian units and buildings that are completely out of place. It's as if they dropped the historical look and feel of the other games and tried to package it in an ostensibly "more accurately premised" game concept. And it's something that could've very easily been fixed, and whose marketing value is questionable (especially, as someone noted, since the Alexander movie is coming out this fall and will show the masses what direction Egypt was headed in after Alexander).

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (Rufus @ June 18 2004,20:01)]I may have thought of another way to look at the historical accuracy issue that may clarify why lots of folks have big problems with the Egyptians.

In MTW, the very premise of the game was more or less ahistorical. No one between Charlemagne and Napoleon was in any position historically to conquer all or even most of Europe. So, given that, people were willing to overlook some macro-level political anachronisms, like an Italian faction, or a stable HRE faction, etc., given the fact that the whole premise was ahistorical. But on the micro level, they provided a pretty sufficient medieval look and feel to the game and none (or few) of the units, buildings, technologies, etc. seemed too much out of place. No Romans fighting guys with muskets, etc.

Now, in RTW, we have a game with a very historical premise, as the goal is to become Emperor of Rome, something that actually happened. I don't think anyone has complained too much about the macro-level components - which factions are included, goals, role of the Senate, etc. Here the problem is on the micro-level - Egyptian units and buildings that are completely out of place. It's as if they dropped the historical look and feel of the other games and tried to package it in an ostensibly "more accurately premised" game concept. And it's something that could've very easily been fixed, and whose marketing value is questionable (especially, as someone noted, since the Alexander movie is coming out this fall and will show the masses what direction Egypt was headed in after Alexander).
I think the problem is atmosphere Rufus not really historival accuracy as i've said in the past, and the fact CA trat us like s***

[shingenmitch2]

"I just wonder the purpose; why do the people that dislike R:TW keep staying here? I would move, honestly; why bother?"

I thought I explained "why" pretty clearly.

"The reason I post is because I care. I've raved about the TW game in the past and can see great possibilities for its future... Personally, I hope I'm wrong about every single thing negative I've posted..."

I do not hate CA, I don't dislike the TW brand and I had an exceedingly high level of enthusiasm for RTW. I post because I'm dismayed at the directions they seem to be taking as various "features" of the game have been belatedly shown to us. I will be buying the game, but have legitimate concerns that it will be just "okay." By that I mean, the graphics will be fantastic, but I'll get bored playing it after a few weeks because it lacks any real strategic or tactical depth to the campaign... it'll be as arcade deep as the units that populate it.

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

Yuuk,
I think you're absolutely correct, that the culprit here aren't the programmers, as LongJohn et. al. have been very nice to the TW community. Programmers are like designers and engineers (read that as people who actually DO work) and, unfortunately, usually have to answer to some idiot in marketing (read that as people who either make more work those who do it or f'up good work that's been done). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[andrewt]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ June 18 2004,08:15)]andrewt,

Did you know that the MTW/VI v2.01 patch was done by the programmers on their own time? However, the reason approval was given to do the patch was the kings all dying at 56 years old, and possibly the frequent crashing when someone exited a multiplayer game. The programmers took the opportunity to improve the gameplay in both single player and multiplayer while fixing those two major bugs. So, I would say the programmers at CA do want to put out the highest quality product they can.

Remember how the text on the box of the original STW suggested that there was a multiplayer campaign included, but there wasn't. That tells me something about who's in charge of the final product at CA. It isn't the programmers. Programmers are more like engineers in the sense that they tell it like it is since they are the people who have to make it work, and are well aware of what the product can't do.

Look at the loss of STW's seasonal turns, a feature that worked beautifully and was tactically and strategically important, to MTW's yearly turns with weather that just basically cycles through the same sequence for every battle. CA took a lot of heat for that here at the org, but that didn't get it changed back to seasonal. Who would have ever thought a great feature like seasonal turns would be trashed? You could have had three full length campaigns in early, high and late era, and an additional grand campaign covering all three eras. By the time yearly turns were revealed to the public, it was too late to change it. This seems to be an ongoing pattern of revealing stuff after it's too late to make changes. You can post here all you want, but realize that there is no two-way street between the community and CA on these forums. If the programmers show up and ask for suggestions, it's because they have a window of opportunity (usually just prior to a patch or game expanding add-on) to make some changes. This window doesn't seem to exist during initial game developement.
That doesn't change anything, except for the fact that it means management is 100% to blame. Sure, the programmers may want to make the best game possible but if management isn't willing to do it, it's not going to get done.

There's a reason, I think, that Activision is competing fiercely against EA in the console segment while having only a very small presence in the PC segment. They don't have a clue on who PC gamers are and what they want. They just assume that it's the exact same demographic as console gamers. One of the reasons CA left EA and went to Activision is because they said that Activision would support the game more. With programmers having to create a patch in their own time and Activision only agreeing to release one after being dragged screaming and kicking, it seems to me that the TW series was better off with EA.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 18 2004,16:16)]I will be buying the game, but have legitimate concerns that it will be just "okay." By that I mean, the graphics will be fantastic, but I'll get bored playing it after a few weeks because it lacks any real strategic or tactical depth to the campaign... it'll be as arcade deep as the units that populate it.

------------
This is truly the most awkward thing anyone ever said about the upcoming R:TW game. Based on what is seen so far, TC episodes, the trailers, the screenshots and tons of other materials, you are, at this very moment, already saying that it will be only mediocre game and that it will lack strategic/tactical depth? Compared to what? There is nothing out there on the market or in preparation that will resemble R:TW when it comes out, as there is nothing as nearly addictive and good as the current M:TW, even with its awful diplomacy or, to be more precise, the lack of the same.

Finally, here is the true point where we disagree; we both seem to like R:TW, I like it more, apparently, but you protest because you want to see it better? But do you see the permanent side stabbing coming from some members here actually provide anything positive in this development? Do you think that if I would take resort to exclaim at the end of my every post "And besides, I believe that naval battles must not be abstract" it would do me any good?

I am not concerned about complaints, that are only natural, but there is a good share of people that seem to complain because they simply like to. I am growing sick and tired of it, and would advise them to take some measures concerning this issue. Write petitions, e-mail the developers, do something constructive. Personally, I find it, as I said often before, not having the ability to fight out the sea battles or the ability to dig trenches and put spikes in the ground far more disturbing then having some guy with bull horns attached to his helmet; how come no one complains about this missing features, which would be a far more lucrative issue and a great addition to gameplay?

[Puzz3D]

Mitch,

I wasn't implying that managers or marketers are idiots. They are usually very intelligent people who have demonstrated skill in their field. I suppose you could have a manager who mismanages, but he will eventually loose his position unless the boss is protecting him. I would just say someone at the management level tends to have a different view of things than someone at the programmer/engineer level, and they tend to be better dealing with people and getting their ideas adopted. That's probably how they got to be managers.

Here is an example from MTW of a feature that was put in by the programmer and removed by the manager or someone higher up in the chain of command. The programmer put a feature in MTW where the age of every man in the game is tracked. The idea was for every man to age and eventually die just like in real life. Well the idea was shot down because it was felt that most players wouldn't like having the troops and even generals they had cultivated to a high level of valor die off. So the game was released with only kings aging and dying, although the underlying engine still tracks the age of every man in the game.

I hope that RTW is as historically accurate as possible because I think you can have that and still have excellent gameplay. The game then becomes a good history lesson as well as being a strategy game. The hoplites using spears overhand, Egyptians having only light chariots, etc would be really nice to see, and I think players should keep pointing this stuff out, and maybe it will have some influence on the final result. However, it is CA's game, and the decisions on what goes into it is theirs. When I buy the game, I don't own it. All I've purchased is a license to play their game. If I make a suggestion and it doesn't get incorporated into the game, that's ok.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ June 17 2004,21:26)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 16 2004,15:49)]
Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 16 2004,12:35)]
Quote[/b] ]"The programmer who does the strategic ai posted that no one sits down and plays out a campaign to see how all the strategic factors interact."
That is a frightening statement. How the heck do they know what produced? Theory and guess work only get you so far...
It can't be like that. Not even a mediocre game company could afford that kind of approach let alone CA.
Aymar de Bois Mauri,

Well, unless things have changed at CA they don't have people playing out the campaign and evaluating how the ai performs. The post I was refering to is no longer here at the org, but I saved it and here is the unedited text of it:


WesW

Man at Arms
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Nov. 2002
Florence, Al., USA Posted: Mar. 05 2003,03:35

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if you guys have any input on the AI side of things, but we (and by "we", I think I include everyone who plays the game) would greatly appreciate it if you pass along the following exerpt from a post I made recently, which has been confirmed by others. Thank you.

"After computing defense, the AI then goes into its offensive evaluations, comparing provincial attractiveness, enemy forces, its own troops and whatever political modifiers (though these last are set way too low I think we would all agree).
And here is where the programmers really dropped the ball, imo. If a neighboring province passes the initial tests for attacking it, the AI *should* run the defensive routine again, to see if it will have enough troops left in or moving into its province to defend it from the remaining border provinces' troops. If it doesn't, it should not attack, but in MTW it does attack, even if it means leaving no troops to garrison its base. I think we have all seen this time and again, and, coupled with the current setup of buildings being destroyed without the castle being taken, is the number one remaining reason, with the current improvements made to finances, that the AI doesn't develop into a worthy opponent over the course of an era. This is what causes the merry-go-round of desertification that everyone complains about. And this stuff should be basic "ones and zeroes", to borrow a sports term, for a strategy programmer. I mean, I am just a lay person really, and if I know this, then anyone with a degree and a little experience should have learned it a long time ago.
(ECS, if you are out there, I would really like this pointed out to the AI coders.)"

This next section is not absolutely necessary to pass along, but it does illustrate the effects of the flaw.

"If you want a really cheesy strategy to try sometime, just send at least one unit into every enemy province that you can reach every turn. You will probably ride into an empty town once every couple of turns.

I know that every development house has its guys to "plat-test" the game, but normally these guys are looking for bugs, and in MTW's case fighting pitched battles, and not sitting back and observing how the AI is performing strategically.
CA made some big improvements and tweaks to the tactical AI in the patch, but their not seeing the giant hole in the AI described above even by the time the patch came out spells out in black and white as to what all their emphasis was on. And they did a great job with the tactics, I think we will all agree. I have played the game since September, and I am still learning things from the AI in almost every battle. It's just too bad that the strategic shortcomings don't allow the great tactical AI a chance to show its stuff like it should."

--------------
The Medieval Mod IV for Total War v1.71: For God and Country zip file and Readme.
Now available at my Apolyton-hosted webpage.
Back to top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



eat cold steel

Programmer
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Aug. 2002
CA, UK Posted: Mar. 05 2003,05:05

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ECS, if you are out there, I would really like this pointed out to the AI coders

That coder would be me...

> comparing provincial attractiveness, enemy forces, its own troops
That include forces needed to defend already, the strength of the invading force does not include the force needed for defence, unless the region you are attacking is much more attactive then it will abandant the previous region. I've however "upped" the size of the defender for VI.

> and not sitting back and observing how the AI is performing strategically
Very true, this has been rased many time in our team meeting, hopfully we'll get a much bigger focus group for future projects.
Well, seems they don't have enought ime for an in-depth AI test. CA's test procedure is worst than I thought, all due to deadlines and lack of time.

Thank you for posting that thread information, Puzz 3d http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ June 17 2004,22:36)]I think the only way you'll change one of these decisions is if you can present the argument for greater historical accuracy or better tactical gameplay in terms of increasing the sales of the game or cutting costs. One of the cleverest negotiating techniques is to make the manager think the change was his own idea. You also have to convince the manager that there is minimal risk if the change is made. Just saying something isn't historically accurate or isn't tactically optimal doesn't cause any change of direction because they already know it isn't accurate or optimal.
But that is preciselly what many people have spoken of and posted about. It is going to be up to CA to understand that (If they don't already know it).

I believe the core of CA has no fault in this dumb approach, I believe Activision pressure is responsible for it. But then again, CA did bend to the "enlightned" marketing strategists, haven't they? They should know better.

A much easier solution to please anyone would have been to release a Fantasy: Total War with this 3d engine to please Activision sales department. And at the same time or after, an "out-of-pressure" Historical accurate (Shogun feel) Rome: Total War. Which one would be more successefull?

It's up to you to say...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (andrewt @ June 18 2004,00:36)]
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ June 17 2004,19:36)]
Quote[/b] (andrewt @ June 16 2004,18:07)]That's the reason CA's sales don't approach Blizzard's and Bioware's numbers. It's not that historical accuracy is uncool and that their units lack variety or whatever. It's the fact that their games lack the polish of a Warcraft3 or a Star Wars: KOTOR. They have a great concept but the execution is nowhere near close to Bioware's and Blizzard's quality.

This Egypt thing is seriously going at it the wrong way.
Well, RTW is more polished than MTW/VI. That should generate more sales, but what some of the posters here are worried about is deterioration of the historical and tactical aspects of the game. I'll bet it's the same people at CA who put horns on the viking helmets who put chariots in the Egyptian faction. I doubt it's the guy who is doing the historical research who did these things, and I would expect that he argued against things like that, but they are there in the game anyway.

I think the only way you'll change one of these decisions is if you can present the argument for greater historical accuracy or better tactical gameplay in terms of increasing the sales of the game or cutting costs. One of the cleverest negotiating techniques is to make the manager think the change was his own idea. You also have to convince the manager that there is minimal risk if the change is made. Just saying something isn't historically accurate or isn't tactically optimal doesn't cause any change of direction because they already know it isn't accurate or optimal.
Well, the thing is, Blizzard and Bioware have a passion to do things right. They have a very strong professional pride in their work and they would delay their products just to make it better. I know that money is the motivation of all companies. However, there is a difference between companies where money is the only motivation versus companies that have other, additional motivations.

I just don't see either of those two companies changing a core aspect of their game purely for marketing purposes. Blizzard has a reputation for games that are popular with casual gamers but they have never dumbed down a game to appeal more to casual fans. In fact, they made a lot of changes in the Warcraft3 and Frozen Throne betas in response to the wishes of their more hardcore gamers. Many of those changes made it effectively harder for newbies to win against more experienced gamers.

In fact, David Gaider of Bioware released a few mods for Baldur's Gate 2 that added some powers to the main character and made some of the battles harder. He did it on his spare. Some bored Bioware guy actually added the entire Wild Mage class just on his spare time. Many Blizzard employees actually play games with their most vocal complainers just to better balance the game.
Preciselly. This phrase says it all:

However, there is a difference between companies where money is the only motivation versus companies that have other, additional motivations.

I always believed (and still do) that CA is a company motivated by other motives than money making. Although I cannot say that everyone that worked in Shogun, is still at CA, it does show us that it's approach is vastly different from other companies.

But it's preciselly the fact that Blizzard and Bioware are that kind of perfectionistic gaming companies and are still very successeful, that should make CA more concerned when giving in to money-grabbing only companies.

If Blizzard and Bioware are still viewed like that why does not CA try to proceed with that same approach?

Should CA shoud be free to proceed their project the way it wants? Of course. But the way it wants and the way it is now aren't, IMHO, the same thing.



Quote[/b] ]RTW seems to be too dumbed down from MTW and STW. Even current Hollywood movies are more accurate. As much as people criticize Hollywood, its movies are more accurate right now than they were in the past. They're now better researched compared to those in the 60s or 70s or even 80s. If you've seen an old TV show or movie dealing with the legal system, you'll know how laughable those old films and shows are. I just find it odd that Hollywood is moving forward while CA is moving backward.
I believe you are saying something that is of great concern. I hope that is not true. Present day Hollywood films are horrible enough to compare. Will RTW fall on that pit? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-help.gif



Quote[/b] ]There's a film coming out later this year called Alexander. Why am I thinking that it might actually be more accurate than CA's game?
Even so that doesn't mean it's accurate at all. Unfortunatelly... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-cry.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 18 2004,08:13)]Vogt,
mud slinging? I guess you missed my apology.
The fact is when someone has laid out a legitimate, thought-out argument behind their criticism of anything (in this case, what we have seen so far of RTW), it is rude on your part to simply dismiss that criticism as whining and not offer reasons why our arguments are so off-base. Instead, all we got was what amounts to a slap, and then you wonder why I'd take it so poorly...


"Quote: And if the regular complainers really hate the game so much, then perhaps it's time for them to move on."

"Now, this one I second wholeheartedly I don't hang in UT2K4 forums telling them how I dislike that game, and if it would actually happen that I come to find R:TW disappointing, I wouldn't be here, proclaiming how it sucks to all who want and don’t want to hear it."

So my was my understanding of what you said that far off? If you didn't mean this message to be, "hey whiners, shut up." What was your intent?



"If you love it so much you'll shout like me... YEAH"
-- Special Ed. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Great answer, shingenmitch2 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ June 18 2004,11:15)]andrewt,

Did you know that the MTW/VI v2.01 patch was done by the programmers on their own time? However, the reason approval was given to do the patch was the kings all dying at 56 years old, and possibly the frequent crashing when someone exited a multiplayer game. The programmers took the opportunity to improve the gameplay in both single player and multiplayer while fixing those two major bugs. So, I would say the programmers at CA do want to put out the highest quality product they can.
I agree.


Quote[/b] ]Remember how the text on the box of the original STW suggested that there was a multiplayer campaign included, but there wasn't. That tells me something about who's in charge of the final product at CA. It isn't the programmers. Programmers are more like engineers in the sense that they tell it like it is since they are the people who have to make it work, and are well aware of what the product can't do.

Look at the loss of STW's seasonal turns, a feature that worked beautifully and was tactically and strategically important, to MTW's yearly turns with weather that just basically cycles through the same sequence for every battle. CA took a lot of heat for that here at the org, but that didn't get it changed back to seasonal. Who would have ever thought a great feature like seasonal turns would be trashed? You could have had three full length campaigns in early, high and late era, and an additional grand campaign covering all three eras. By the time yearly turns were revealed to the public, it was too late to change it. This seems to be an ongoing pattern of revealing stuff after it's too late to make changes. You can post here all you want, but realize that there is no two-way street between the community and CA on these forums. If the programmers show up and ask for suggestions, it's because they have a window of opportunity (usually just prior to a patch or game expanding add-on) to make some changes. This window doesn't seem to exist during initial game developement.
Very interesting reading. Yes, programmers are just that. They do not rule the roost in planning what the game should be or look like, etc... But, I believe nobody is accusing them. The accusations are directed to the people concerned with the decisions to make certain illogical and ridiculous decisions about the look, feel and behaviour of the game.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rufus @ June 18 2004,12:01)]I may have thought of another way to look at the historical accuracy issue that may clarify why lots of folks have big problems with the Egyptians.

In MTW, the very premise of the game was more or less ahistorical. No one between Charlemagne and Napoleon was in any position historically to conquer all or even most of Europe. So, given that, people were willing to overlook some macro-level political anachronisms, like an Italian faction, or a stable HRE faction, etc., given the fact that the whole premise was ahistorical. But on the micro level, they provided a pretty sufficient medieval look and feel to the game and none (or few) of the units, buildings, technologies, etc. seemed too much out of place. No Romans fighting guys with muskets, etc.
Exactly one of the main problems of the present situation. In the general picture it is preciselly that.



Quote[/b] ]Now, in RTW, we have a game with a very historical premise, as the goal is to become Emperor of Rome, something that actually happened. I don't think anyone has complained too much about the macro-level components - which factions are included, goals, role of the Senate, etc. Here the problem is on the micro-level - Egyptian units and buildings that are completely out of place. It's as if they dropped the historical look and feel of the other games and tried to package it in an ostensibly "more accurately premised" game concept. And it's something that could've very easily been fixed, and whose marketing value is questionable.
I agree completelly.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (andrewt @ June 18 2004,16:23)]
Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ June 18 2004,08:15)]andrewt,

Did you know that the MTW/VI v2.01 patch was done by the programmers on their own time? However, the reason approval was given to do the patch was the kings all dying at 56 years old, and possibly the frequent crashing when someone exited a multiplayer game. The programmers took the opportunity to improve the gameplay in both single player and multiplayer while fixing those two major bugs. So, I would say the programmers at CA do want to put out the highest quality product they can.

Remember how the text on the box of the original STW suggested that there was a multiplayer campaign included, but there wasn't. That tells me something about who's in charge of the final product at CA. It isn't the programmers. Programmers are more like engineers in the sense that they tell it like it is since they are the people who have to make it work, and are well aware of what the product can't do.

Look at the loss of STW's seasonal turns, a feature that worked beautifully and was tactically and strategically important, to MTW's yearly turns with weather that just basically cycles through the same sequence for every battle. CA took a lot of heat for that here at the org, but that didn't get it changed back to seasonal. Who would have ever thought a great feature like seasonal turns would be trashed? You could have had three full length campaigns in early, high and late era, and an additional grand campaign covering all three eras. By the time yearly turns were revealed to the public, it was too late to change it. This seems to be an ongoing pattern of revealing stuff after it's too late to make changes. You can post here all you want, but realize that there is no two-way street between the community and CA on these forums. If the programmers show up and ask for suggestions, it's because they have a window of opportunity (usually just prior to a patch or game expanding add-on) to make some changes. This window doesn't seem to exist during initial game developement.
That doesn't change anything, except for the fact that it means management is 100% to blame. Sure, the programmers may want to make the best game possible but if management isn't willing to do it, it's not going to get done.
True. That is what I think too. Nobody is accusing the programmers, engeniers or designers. The accused are the decision making persons.



Quote[/b] ]There's a reason, I think, that Activision is competing fiercely against EA in the console segment while having only a very small presence in the PC segment. They don't have a clue on who PC gamers are and what they want. They just assume that it's the exact same demographic as console gamers. One of the reasons CA left EA and went to Activision is because they said that Activision would support the game more. With programmers having to create a patch in their own time and Activision only agreeing to release one after being dragged screaming and kicking, it seems to me that the TW series was better off with EA.
Yeap. It seems so. I think you have something here. I might be wrong, but EA's approach seemed to me much more in tune with the PC market. They seemed to let CA do it's job much more freely. EA seems like a distant dream now... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sad.gif

[The_Emperor]

lol, trying to get your Post count up again Aymar... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Anyway don't even go there about CA being better off with EA... Is Westwood Studios better off with EA? (Err, hang on didn't they get dismantled by them?)

[Voigtkampf]

Heh, that mean serial poster is loose again… I'm glad and honored he even bothered to throw a small poison dart, even if indirectly, at my humble person http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif

But now that I'm up and running, I'm still curious about one thing; why is the Iberian Bull warrior greater issue then the missing naval battle system? On your feet, oh you tireless fighters for a better R:TW Speak the word

[Lil' Timmy]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 19 2004,17:40)]why is the Iberian Bull warrior greater issue then the missing naval battle system? On your feet, oh you tireless fighters for a better R:TW Speak the word
i know it's a mistake to interject my opinion in this thread, but knowing is only half the battle (or something..). anyway, one could argue that the abstraction of the naval battles is less offensive than obviously fake/incongruous units. certainly for me, i'd like to see both problems rectified. however, the former seems like a design decision to save time on the project (maybe you know more about why exactly CA has chosen to abstract the navies). the latter invention of fantasy units/factions just doesn't seem to have any good rationale. also, it seems like it should be less difficult to correct the units/factions than fix the naval situation.

i'd like to say, for me, the bull warrior and druid, specifically, are much less troubling than the 'king tut' egyptians. they could leave those two in if they'd fix the egyptians. i'd be happy with that. but again, why are they in there in the first place?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 19 2004,17:11)]lol, trying to get your Post count up again Aymar... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
No. I'm not trying to do that. If I was, I would just post in the one-word story or some similar thread.

Besides, if you pay attention, my first post was Posted: June 19 2004,10:23 and my last post was Posted: June 19 2004,11:24. It's not my fault that nobody posted anything for an entire hour.

I respond like this not to disrupt any conversation as I was accused of doing, but as I read the entire thread I feel complied to give my oppinion on other member's views. Just that.



Quote[/b] ]Anyway don't even go there about CA being better off with EA... Is Westwood Studios better off with EA? (Err, hang on didn't they get dismantled by them?)
It was more of a rethorical claim. I know that EA is just another money-making machine without other motivations. I know they have made horrible decisions like in Westwood Studios case, as well as in others. But compared to what we're seeing today, it almost seemed it was like a dream company distributing and selling CA's products.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 19 2004,17:40)]why is the Iberian Bull warrior greater issue then the missing naval battle system?
That would imply new factors that RTW doesn't take into consideration: wind direction and velocity, sea current speed and direction, sea ondulation, colision detection between ships, new directional control of ships, etc... It would make compulsory for RTW to have a advanced physics engine, thing that clearly does not have.

Therefore, it would take them another year, at best, to incorporate it and probably more to make it functional and efective.

[Duke John]

Quote[/b] ]I respond like this not to disrupt any conversation as I was accused of doing, but as I read the entire thread I feel complied to give my oppinion on other member's views. Just that.

This may be radical thinking, but you could do the same as most of the other members are doing. Read the posts that were entered after your last visit and then respond to all of them at the same time. And only select the crucial lines to quote.

Your manner of multiple posting of quoting entire posts and then a single sentence of "LMAO" or "I agree" is a bit ...over the top?

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

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Duke John @ June 20 2004,11:44)]
Quote[/b] ]I respond like this not to disrupt any conversation as I was accused of doing, but as I read the entire thread I feel complied to give my oppinion on other member's views. Just that.

This may be radical thinking, but you could do the same as most of the other members are doing. Read the posts that were entered after your last visit and then respond to all of them at the same time. And only select the crucial lines to quote.
Then the post would be too extensive and nobody would read it. I used to make posts like that and some people complained about them too. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-speechless.gif


Quote[/b] ]Your manner of multiple posting of quoting entire posts and then a single sentence of "LMAO" or "I agree" is a bit ...over the top?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif
Why? I'm just agreeing to what he said. If I don't have anything to had to his post, does it mean that I can't congratulate him for making such a post? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 20 2004,11:04)]
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 19 2004,17:40)]why is the Iberian Bull warrior greater issue then the missing naval battle system?
That would imply new factors that RTW doesn't take into consideration: wind direction and velocity, sea current speed and direction, sea ondulation, colision detection between ships, new directional control of ships, etc... It would make compulsory for RTW to have a advanced physics engine, thing that clearly does not have.

Therefore, it would take them another year, at best, to incorporate it and probably more to make it functional and efective.
Yes, but why not object about it since we enlisted to the Org, esteemed Lord Aymar? And its not like no one has ever made a sea tactical battle, they could have bought off any engine that would allow them that and tweak around it for few months, and the fans would have been more grateful (since some assume that everybody must go "100% historical accuracy or burst", I'll just go "naval battles or burst" and be grateful for the bliss of ignorance).

Oh, the Bull incident is easier to rectify, and therefore should be addressed with top priority?

To change the Iberian Bull warrior appearance would require me, and this is a careful estimation in regards of supposedly easy-to-mod R:TW engine, less then a day, if I were to really go down to it. It goes down to some minor 3D model reshaping and reskinning, perhaps I could simply swap it with another warrior class. One or two working days, and I will erase all traces of that horrid Egyptian abomination, two or three days more if I decide to do it more properly so it would look as if it was meant to be that way. Flaming pigs, screaming women? Gone the way of the Dodo in a blink of an eye. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

Now tell me, is this still a reason to go to the barricades? Even if you are not a part of the modding community, there are those who are, especially those that have experiences with modding in FPS, and they'll have it done in no time.

So, leave that Bull alone, and pick up "we want accurate, real-time and no abstract sea engagements" signs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-end.gif


Quote[/b] ]Then the post would be too extensive and nobody would read it.

Well, I haven't seen anyone doing anything like that, and there was quite the number of members that did complain about this chain-posting, which is not allowed by the Org regulations btw.

You occupy entire pages, quoting someone and adding merely "I agree" or "ROTFLMAO" or some other short, rather meaningless posts. The same could work easily when you would simply address the person you were so impressed by and say "Member X, I completely agree with you", without necessarily quoting his long posts.

Just imagine everyone was doing the same; how would these threads look like?

Note, if someone would have told me six months ago that I would use this sort of reasoning on you, I would have laughed at him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Hehe... Back to square one....

Regarding historical accuracy, I think many are kind of selective in their view of what shall be historically accurate, and what does not matter. Helmet on an Iberian warrior matters, but a Kingdom of Italy in the Middle Ages is just fine...
This focus on unit equipment is borderline fetichist http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif


To answer the question of the topic, "what is RTW unique selling point?", the only honest answer I can come up with is a very good battle simulation taking into effect morale, battleground feature, flanking, weather, fatigue... etc, hence realistic battle.
Please note the difference betweem realistic battle (because they take into account the above mentionned features), and historically accurate battle.

That has been the strong selling point of TW in the past, and I expect it to remain the same for RTW.

Louis,

[andrewt]

Actually, helmet of an Iberian Bull Warrior doesn't matter to me as long as most of the other Iberian units are historically accurate. What bothered me with Egypt was the whole faction having inaccurate units and very inaccurate ones at that.

[shingenmitch2]

Louis, Louis, Louis...

My esteemed friend, and wizened old smurf http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I agree that the "dressing" of the unit doesn't make the battle. But if the stats and fighting style of the unit reflects the silliness of a unit (we get silly Druid, that because it is a druid, is given "special morale powers" to help other units -- silly look creates silly stats.) then YES the unit starts affecting the battle engine. This is what I fear most in the fantasy units.

You have said you worry about building historically sound armies, but can they be hoped be built when the units are wrong to begin with? Ok, in Medieval an all Cav Knight army is bad, but I find it even worse to have an all Napoleonic Lancer unit from 1000 years later stuck in there too.

Ah, yes back to the beginning with us http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

Next I talk with you it best be on the fields of honor sweeping aside our foes in a swarm of Turks and LBs...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 20 2004,14:36)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 20 2004,11:04)]
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 19 2004,17:40)]why is the Iberian Bull warrior greater issue then the missing naval battle system?
That would imply new factors that RTW doesn't take into consideration: wind direction and velocity, sea current speed and direction, sea ondulation, colision detection between ships, new directional control of ships, etc... It would make compulsory for RTW to have a advanced physics engine, thing that clearly does not have.

Therefore, it would take them another year, at best, to incorporate it and probably more to make it functional and efective.
Yes, but why not object about it since we enlisted to the Org, esteemed Lord Aymar? And its not like no one has ever made a sea tactical battle, they could have bought off any engine that would allow them that and tweak around it for few months, and the fans would have been more grateful (since some assume that everybody must go "100% historical accuracy or burst", I'll just go "naval battles or burst" and be grateful for the bliss of ignorance).

Oh, the Bull incident is easier to rectify, and therefore should be addressed with top priority?

To change the Iberian Bull warrior appearance would require me, and this is a careful estimation in regards of supposedly easy-to-mod R:TW engine, less then a day, if I were to really go down to it. It goes down to some minor 3D model reshaping and reskinning, perhaps I could simply swap it with another warrior class. One or two working days, and I will erase all traces of that horrid Egyptian abomination, two or three days more if I decide to do it more properly so it would look as if it was meant to be that way. Flaming pigs, screaming women? Gone the way of the Dodo in a blink of an eye. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

Now tell me, is this still a reason to go to the barricades? Even if you are not a part of the modding community, there are those who are, especially those that have experiences with modding in FPS, and they'll have it done in no time.

So, leave that Bull alone, and pick up "we want accurate, real-time and no abstract sea engagements" signs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-end.gif
Nope. It's the principle. The game shouldn't need to be fixed in the first place.

As for naval battles, NOT ANY 3d engine would suffice. 3d engines are very specific. ID Software's Quake3 engine did interiors very well, but exteriors very poorly (frame rate drop). Besides, who's the fundamentalist now? 3d Units were already being made for the game, not a naval system. Accordingly, units should be correct. If a naval system was made, I would rally for accurate depiction of period ships, not fantasy powerboats in RTW. Do you understand now? Or do you catter only to your views?

[Voigtkampf]

Hehe… I'll guess I'll cater my views, thx very much

On the other hand, is this issue really worth being constantly squabbled over? I asked myself this and the answer was "my fence needs a new paint job"

Respectfully, too everyone, I bid a fair day, gentlemen http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ June 21 2004,13:11)]Louis, Louis, Louis...

My esteemed friend, and wizened old smurf http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I agree that the "dressing" of the unit doesn't make the battle. But if the stats and fighting style of the unit reflects the silliness of a unit (we get silly Druid, that because it is a druid, is given "special morale powers" to help other units -- silly look creates silly stats.) then YES the unit starts affecting the battle engine. This is what I fear most in the fantasy units.

You have said you worry about building historically sound armies, but can they be hoped be built when the units are wrong to begin with? Ok, in Medieval an all Cav Knight army is bad, but I find it even worse to have an all Napoleonic Lancer unit from 1000 years later stuck in there too.

Ah, yes back to the beginning with us http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

Next I talk with you it best be on the fields of honor sweeping aside our foes in a swarm of Turks and LBs...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Mitch

Dear ol' fetichist,

I understand that one got some fantasy about leather armor, oiled gladiator, naked barabarian and whip, (and I guess you must be disappointed by the absence of adequate whip modeling so far) therefore the wish for those units to be perfectly accurate. Hell I dated the smurfette for some time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
If we put your fantasy aside (not to mention mine), we may agree to say that as long as units behave roughly as expected (i.e. hoplite tough to kill frontally, cavalry able to run down skirmisher, oiled gladiator waiting in the sauna...), their graphic representation matters little. I don’t really care if Egyptian Ptolemeic Hoplites looks like pharaoh, Nubians or what gives. What matters is that Ptoleme Egypt got a hoplite unit. And they got heavy greek like cavalry unit. They can look like mummy, I would not like it, but I am fine with it, as long that as least they behave like heavy greek cavalry.
Sure, if the gladiator look like a mummy, that might be a disappointment when you’ll open the sauna door. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

You make a good point about druid having the potential to disrupt the realism of battles. I think we ought not to judge too quickly; if buying a druid means buying a nearly non combatant unit to grant +2 morale around, well, that might be interesting. It may look like modeling an additional general, or having flag bearer, and then I think it’s an interesting idea. It all depends on how the ‘inspire friendly units’ feature is modeled.

I think we can have realistic armies, and realistic battles without accurate units. A degree of accuracy is required (at least, the right weapon and formation), but it does not go all the way down to shield shape, helmet and being mummy looking.

This realism comes first. CA was not quite successful with that before, so I’d really like them to focus on this. Realistic armies are cruelly missing in the MTW campaign. If on top of realism, we can have perfectly accurate units and make our fetichist friends happy, it’s good I am not the kind of guy standing between another guy and his fantasy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Have a good day, and thanks for kicking my butt yesterday http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Louis,

[shingenmitch2]

Hehe Louis,

Have a beer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/barrel.gif with NO cork Your tongue sticking out so much up there u must be thirsty.

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

[ah_dut]

calm it down lads

[shingenmitch2]

Louis

"We may agree to say that as long as units behave roughly as expected (i.e. hoplite tough to kill frontally, cavalry able to run down skirmisher, oiled gladiator waiting in the sauna...), their graphic representation matters little."

Yes that would be bare minimum good. But will we even get that? My guess is that the phalanx will behave like a bunch of Swiss Pikemen from MTW and not as the Mac phalanx. I fear that the inaccurate animations are symptomatic of the fact that the game engine calculations haven't been modeled correctly.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

Here is your beer monsieur, would you like to sniff the cork? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Puzz3D]

I agree with Mitch that the graphic depictions of the units can indirectly affect the combat, and here is an example from MTW. An artist at CA rendered the Knights Templar without a lance. As a result of that and since other cav knights with lances had a charge of 8 the Templar charge was reduced to 4. Historically there is no basis for making Templars have less charge than say a Hospitaller knight. The reason given for this change was that CA thought players would think it funny that a mounted knight without a lance would have just as high a charge as a mounted knight with a lance. However, what really looks hilarious is the mounted knights with lances fighting with it in close quarter melee. That has to be the funniest thing I've ever seen in a game. The Knights Templar wasn't brought into proper balance with the other cav in multiplayer until the release of the v2.01 patch, and that altered charge was the culprit. This is a clear example of gameplay and historical accuracy both suffering due to the graphical representation of the unit.

Now longjohn has stated that there would be collision problems with the overhand spear grip in a phalanx. Well, wasn't this overhand grip historically used in a phalanx? If so, how did they overcome the collision problem of hitting the man in front or the man behind? Is this known? It would have been nice to see the game rectify a popular misconception about how spears were used instead of catering to that misconception as the statement that it would look funny seems to imply. My impression from longjohn's statement is that CA is now in a phase where relatively easy stuff is being added to a game that is basically finished.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

In fact that was a rather strange, not to say incompreensible, decision by CA. The Knigths Templar were knowned in Medieval times by their fearsome and disciplined lance charge. So, their depiction in MTW is ludicrous. Let's hope that for RTW and future games such decisions aren't made.

As for the knights fighting in close combat with lances, without alternating with swords, I believe this to be more of a graphical limitation due to MTW's bif animations engine more than anything else. Once again I hope RTW won't bring such incorrect visuals.

[shingenmitch2]

Now longjohn has stated that there would be collision problems with the overhand spear grip in a phalanx.

the spear only hits the guy behind if it is stabbing and held level (parallel to the ground). The stab was performed with a downward motion, the spear angled somewhere around 30-45 degrees. Thus the back end of the spear is pointing up above the heads of the guy behind -- but it sounds like CA didn't try to explore this enough. (i.e. get 30 peeps together, give them garbage-can lids for shields and brooms for spears and see how it could work.)

More tricky is actually the Mac Phalanx where the stab with a pike is essentially underhand and level. From their animations it looks like instead of coming up with an accurate solution they have the back of the spear "disappear" into the the guy behind, but it is not so noticeable because this is happening at waist level. They have the shield arms "open up" like a rapier & buckler thrust, instead of just "sliding" back and forth thru the left hand of the shield arm -- the left hand acting only as a stabilizer for the pike and thus keeping the shield stable and facing forward -- protective.

For the Mac Phalanx I'm far more bothered by their having guys leave the phalanx and charge forward to attack enemies as if they were sword fighters or untrained spearmen with regular spears. I bet this lowers their protection (it almost has to affect their protection as they can now be attacked by 2 enemies at once)