CA Interview at FiringSquad.com

[Barkhorn1x]

Here is the link;
http://www.firingsquad.com/games/rome_total_war_interview/

There is some good information here. And something that confused me;

Quote[/b] ]FiringSquad: Is the turn system still synchronous, or have you switched to "I go, you go"?

I go you go. Most people find it easier, but both systems have their pros and cons.


Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t BOTH S:TW and M:TW “I go/You go” – you went first and the AI reacted. Anyone have a clue here?

Barkhorn.

[The_Emperor]

yes it did.

Anyway i like this bit...


Quote[/b] ]We're aiming to include a variety of historical battles that can be played multiplayer, giving players a quick route in to a well balanced, pre-configured battle. We also open up the creation of these battles to the players, so no doubt the community will add to the variety shipped with the game. They have the added advantage that the players can practice on single player, trying out new tactics before embarrassing themselves on line.


Multiplayer Historical battles?? SWEET http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasaryes.gif

[Puzz3D]

STW was marketed as having simultaneous turns, but it wasn't true. MTW promotion didn't mention this issue at all to my recollection. I think this has lead to many people believing that Total War uses simultaneous turns, but it was recently stated over at the official forum by the developer that it's a baton passing system. It's always been a baton passing turn system with the AI getting a limited peek at the player's move. At one time, there was a list of what the AI is allowed to peek at in MTW posted here at the org, but I can't find it.

[Orda Khan]

I suppose the turns will remain annual instead of STW's superior seasonal turns?

......Orda

[econ21]

The MTW system is ok, IMO - the AI needs a little edge to remain competitive. I suspect it got more of a "peek" in STW, as I found the strategic level in that game much more annoying - it seemed clearly sequential rather than simultaneous. One thing I like in MTW is that you can do "Pearl Harbour" type attacks - the turn you declare war, the AI does not seem to react so much to your moves (i.e. does not launch immediate counter-invasions).

But like the original poster, I am still unclear how RTW will differ from STW and MTW. If you moved, then fought battles, and then the AI moved and fought battles, that would be different (and arguably worse). But I seem to recall from some of the videos released that you move, the AI moves and then battles are resolved - which is what we have now.

[Blodrast]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ July 06 2004,11:43)]STW was marketed as having simultaneous turns, but it wasn't true. MTW promotion didn't mention this issue at all to my recollection. I think this has lead to many people beliveing that Total War uses simultaneous turns, but it was recently stated over at the official forum by the developer that it's a baton passing system. It's always been a baton passing turn system with the AI getting a limited peek at the player's move. At one time, there was a list of what the AI is allowed to peek at in MTW posted here at the org, but I can't find it.
Puzz3D, I couldn't find it either. I did find something, however:

I have listed the cheats on the other thread, like money, knowing where your king is all the time, it needs to know where the player has move in order to send in help as allies. Otherwise it plays by pretty much the same rules as the player. It does not build ships in one turn, it's agents do not move to border fort automatically when
targetted by your assassins. Even on cheat cash, it gets only up to 60% increase of its farm income. I'd like to see what other games can say about their level of cheating.

This is from eat cold steel, one of the devs.
Unfortunately, I did not find "the other thread" that he's mentioning.

[Steppe Merc]

I didn't understand the whole thing with the units in the army. So do they fight sepratly, or are they reinforcments? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[econ21]

Quote[/b] (Steppe Merc @ July 06 2004,11:08)]I didn't understand the whole thing with the units in the army. So do they fight sepratly, or are they reinforcments? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Sounds like additional armies fight separately (under AI control) if headed by a family member; like reinforcements if not.

Kinda wierd, actually - I would expect the reverse: that the player, representing a family, could control what his people lead but if they are led by vanilla generals, he gets less control.

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ July 06 2004,11:20)]
Quote[/b] (Steppe Merc @ July 06 2004,11:08)]I didn't understand the whole thing with the units in the army. So do they fight sepratly, or are they reinforcments? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Sounds like additional armies fight separately (under AI control) if headed by a family member; like reinforcements if not.

Kinda wierd, actually - I would expect the reverse: that the player, representing a family, could control what his people lead but if they are led by vanilla generals, he gets less control.
The way I understand this is that a family member allows you to - in effect - employ 2 armies (w/ 1 controlled by the AI) instead of getting reinforced by dribs and drabs.

I kind of like this approach as it gives you an advantage for good management of forces and makes those family memebers more important than "just another Royal Knight" unit in M:TW.

Of course, if your family member happens to be a no-talent bum then...

Barkhorn.

[Blodrast]

uhm, but just to make it clear, the troops _you_ are controlling will be reinforced just as they are right now in MTW. I don't know about the AI controlled troops though. Will they be able to get reinforcements ?
I also think it's a bit counter-intuitive that _your_ family members are managed by the AI, but the regular troops are managed by yourself. Oh well, maybe there's just not enough info around to make it clear enough.

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (Blodrast @ July 06 2004,11:54)]I also think it's a bit counter-intuitive that _your_ family members are managed by the AI, but the regular troops are managed by yourself. Oh well, maybe there's just not enough info around to make it clear enough.
Yea, but it is better to get a whole army up front (albeit AI controlled) instead of relying on the wonderful M:TW like reinforcement system.

Barkhorn.

[Blodrast]

Quote[/b] (Barkhorn1x @ July 06 2004,13:09)]Yea, but it is better to get a whole army up front (albeit AI controlled) instead of relying on the wonderful M:TW like reinforcement system.

Barkhorn.
It depends I guess. For instance, I agree that it would be great to have your 1k army plus several 1k AI-controlled armies at the same time on the battlefield.
However, if the AI-controlled troops still count against the same troop limit (960 men or 16 units), then I am afraid I can't agree with you, it won't be better.
I don't think this was specified too clearly, so we can probably only speculate which is the case.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Maybe the idea is that you represent a family member (the patriarch?) of one of the Roman houses, but you can't just boss around other family members, only non-family members??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif YOu command every unit except for the pack led by good ole Uncle Louie, who's a:

Poor attacker
Poor defender
Loser
Poor anything with soldiers
Inbred twice
Did I mention loser?
No stars

That is, if the royals are as bad as in MTW. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-help.gif

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Quote[/b] (Orda Khan @ July 06 2004,10:56)]I suppose the turns will remain annual instead of STW's superior seasonal turns?

......Orda
Two turns per year.





"The attacker can still choose the day of attack but can now also deploy.



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

[Basileus]

dunno about you guys but my royals used to rock heh http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

nice new info though.

[Spino]

The fact that we can have an additional army on the field in addition to whatever our allies bring to the field is very good news http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

However, having the AI exert sole control over one of my armies makes me very nervous. The tactical AI in Medieval was damn good but its weaknesses were huge. Rare was the occasion where the tactical AI learned to sit on good defensible ground and STAY THERE Too many times the AI would march and countermarch its armies all over the map, leaving its forces vulnerable as it spread its units over a large area. Not to mention failing to keep its battle line intact and prevent individual units from doing their own thing. So essentially I hope this feature is OPTIONAL

I was really hoping that CA was going to implement some very basic commands for armies commanded by one of our family members/generals. At least that way we could formulate a basic plan and not worry about the tactical AI doing something insanely stupid.


Quote[/b] ]uhm, but just to make it clear, the troops _you_ are controlling will be reinforced just as they are right now in MTW. I don't know about the AI controlled troops though. Will they be able to get reinforcements ?
I also think it's a bit counter-intuitive that _your_ family members are managed by the AI, but the regular troops are managed by yourself. Oh well, maybe there's just not enough info around to make it clear enough.

Logically your family member's AI controlled army should have its own reinforcement queue that it uses at its own discretion. It would look really odd if your second army entered the map from a different direction and your army got to use its reinforcements

[Omegamann]

On turn sequence:
As I would see it turns in STW and MTW were simultaniouly resolved at least.
Though you made all your moves in your turn, the AI made its planning somewhat ahead.
After you then ended your turn ALL moves where resolved as battles were fought, strategic pieces resolved there actions, and buildings were constructed.

From what I have seen in the movies, your actions are now resolved imediately.
You move your army up to the enemy press attack and the battle is fought, before the AI had any chance to react.
I am not sure I like thus development (which definately wont be modable) but it will depend upon the camp map AI how much the player will be able to exploit this.

I would have prefered a simultanious resolved term, preferably even in realtime, so that armys will move and then meet on the march, not one army marching up to a static enemy.

[Chimpyang]

Check the PC Format interview with Ian Roxburg on their DVD, this and more is explained, e.g. they explain how cities are to be won and lost and how regions are captured (sorry if these ahve already been said)

[Steppe Merc]

Real time would be horrible. You would no time to slowly prepare, and think before you finish, and it would be rushed. I would rather "I go you go" than "We all go at once but I don't have enough time to think everything through". That's just my feelings.

[econ21]

Quote[/b] (Omegamann @ July 06 2004,13:43)]On turn sequence:
As I would see it turns in STW and MTW were simultaniouly resolved at least.
Though you made all your moves in your turn, the AI made its planning somewhat ahead.
After you then ended your turn ALL moves where resolved as battles were fought, strategic pieces resolved there actions, and buildings were constructed.

From what I have seen in the movies, your actions are now resolved imediately.
You move your army up to the enemy press attack and the battle is fought, before the AI had any chance to react.
I am not sure I like thus development (which definately wont be modable) but it will depend upon the camp map AI how much the player will be able to exploit this.
I just watched the Italian movie again where Mike Simpson talks through the game and I am confused. It shows 2 battles.

In the first, Caesar moves to attack a Gaul army and immediately the game jumps into the battle. So this is IGO-UGO - the AI does not have a chance to react.

However, Mike Simpson then ends that battle (prematurely - leading to a defeat) and initiates a castle assault. This is NOT resolved immediately, but Mike ends his turn - clicks the hour glass icon. The game cycles through the AI turns, which include a marriage offering to Caesar's side, before launching into the assault battle.

I don't know what to make of this. The only interpretation I can come up with is that field battles are IGO-UGO, but storming cities can only happen at the end of a turn. The latter may be better than nothing, allowing more scope for relieving a siege.

Incidentally, if the game has basically switched to IGO-UGO - which seems likely - it makes sense of the innovation that nearby armies can join a battle. Since you and the computer can't react, automatically marching to the sound of the guns, so to speak, will try to limit the inherent lack of realism and gaminess of IGO-UGO.

[HalfDone]

Quote[/b] ]There are three gods allotted to each playable faction, each one covering a different aspect of life. It is up to the player to decide which god is worshipped in each of their settlements - and of course there are particular game effects attributed to each one.

Sounds a bit like age of mythology

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] ]"However, Mike Simpson then ends that battle (prematurely - leading to a defeat) and initiates a castle assault. This is NOT resolved immediately, but Mike ends his turn - clicks the hour glass icon. The game cycles through the AI turns, which include a marriage offering to Caesar's side, before launching into the assault battle."

I think you are right and I think the reason is to allow time for the ladders/siege towers/etc. to be built. The GameStar preview of Sparta vs. Corinth seems to indicate that further delay is possible as well - simulating investiture I guess.

It is damn hard to make out those little icon buttons on the poor quality vids we've seen to date.

Barkhorn.

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] (Steppe Merc @ July 06 2004,23:54)]Real time would be horrible. You would no time to slowly prepare, and think before you finish, and it would be rushed. I would rather "I go you go" than "We all go at once but I don't have enough time to think everything through". That's just my feelings.
This isn't necessarily so. There could be a speed indicator which will show you how quickly time passes in the game (e.g.: "x game-days per minute") and will give you the choice to change this speed at will, lowering it down even to "real time" (meaning 1 game-minute per minute).

In such a low speed you'll be able to take all the decisions you want without haste and get your moves going (like building a fort or moving an army). When you'll have everything you want on the move, you'll speed up the game again and wait to see what happens and what the AI's moves are. If you see something going wrong or there is some adjustment you want to make on your moves, you can low-down again.

The 3D-map will be constantly changing in order to display the constant flow of events, including climate-changes (snow appearing at winter etc.), city-growth and army-movement.
Army-movement can be constant and "movement-points" will not be necessary but different armies will still have different moving-speeds.

As you can see, a real-time campaign map that will implement all this will be probably much more realistic (and therefore better in my opinion) than the current "i go, you go" end-turn system and will minimize any need for hasty planning, especially if a pause button is included in the campaign map.
The only drawback of such a system that i can think of is that it may be needing too many parameters and, thus, using too many system resources. It could be used perhaps in future TW games.

[hoom]

I get the impression that they were referring to the early rumors that the whole turnbased part of Rome was out the door & it would be all simultaneous (semi-realtime) turns.
Then the question could be rephrased as:
"Is Rome still using semi-realtime turns as an early rumor suggested, or have you gone back to the tried & true turn-based style of M & S?"

[Omegamann]

In the video with the siege, they say that they could have attacked immediately, but had to wait as they wanted to prepare siege engines.
With simultanious turns I didnt mean real time flow, but the MTW System of you planning all your moves in your turn while the AI is simultanious planing its actions, and then after end turn is pressed, all actions are resolved simultaniously.
As now the armies move about the map, and dont just step into another province, a battle would take place when two armies meet on the camp map.
That would allow a fast advancing army to retreat before a slower pursuing army, thereby luring the pursuers into disadvantegous terrain or an ambush with a second army waiting further back.
In Ceasars De Belli XXXs a very important aspect of Roman Warfare was the manouvering of armies before a battle takes place. I fear with the new IGO-UGO system a good comanders AI should always try to be just out of reach of an enemys armie stack, only giving battle when the conditions would be advantegous, or retreat is not an option.

[econ21]

Interesting, Omegamann, I agree we could see the AI evading a lot. It was a feature of Homm3, which had pretty smart AI that tried to keep out of your way if you were a real threat.

It could fit in with CAs stated aim of having fewer, but more decisive battles. An outnumbered AI army retreating into its hinterland until run to ground (or finding the best possible terrain) would not be a bad thing.

But if executed poorly, the system could be frustrating and implausible - the AI might just run around your territory, as you chase it. Ideally, there should be some logistical issues that make it costly to keep retreating into unfriendly territory (supply, attrition etc).

I'd also like to see some armies, eg Romans, have a speed advantage on the strategic map over some less well organised ones.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Steppe Merc @ July 06 2004,21:54)]Real time would be horrible. You would no time to slowly prepare, and think before you finish, and it would be rushed. I would rather "I go you go" than "We all go at once but I don't have enough time to think everything through". That's just my feelings.
If they are able to pull the same thing off in the EU series, CK, Vicky, and Hearts of Iron, why wouldn't it work for the Total War series?

It would make it a lot more interesting, and a lot more realistic (although this is good too).



~Wiz

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ July 07 2004,05:48)]
Quote[/b] (Steppe Merc @ July 06 2004,21:54)]Real time would be horrible. You would no time to slowly prepare, and think before you finish, and it would be rushed. I would rather "I go you go" than "We all go at once but I don't have enough time to think everything through". That's just my feelings.
If they are able to pull the same thing off in the EU series, CK, Vicky, and Hearts of Iron, why wouldn't it work for the Total War series?

It would make it a lot more interesting, and a lot more realistic (although this is good too).



~Wiz
May I wholehartly second that? The simpliest Paradox game (that would be Crusader Kings) is at least 10X more complicated than MTW... yet, it survives with a RT model... In multiplayer campaign it could be an issue (it is in Paradox games http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) but singleplayer wouldn't be compromised by any way due to this.

Of course, since I am a TBS fan, I really don't mind either. What I DO mind are the pigz, dogz, womenz, pink flamingoz, schweinbraten, head hurlers, schwanzhurlers, Uruk Hai and the rest of the circus... but you probably know that already http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Sjakihata]

rosa, I have it completely diffrent. I think a good strategy frame is the most essential part of the game. The units can always be modded away, however, the strategic engine needs to resemble realism, as it cannot as easily be modded.

[Nelson]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ July 07 2004,06:28)]I'd also like to see some armies, eg Romans, have a speed advantage on the strategic map over some less well organised ones.
So would I, although I would link army speed a command rating somehow. Caesar moved very quickly but not every Roman general did. Some were, shall we say, McClellanesque.

I prefer to think in terms of simultaneous movement on the map rather than “real time” (vs turns). "Real time" in battles actually approximates real time where as "real time" on the map simulates weeks of activity in a few moments. Unlike tactical decisions in combat, generals did not have to make strategic choices whithin minutes or seconds. They could take hours, days or even weeks to mull things over. While I never pause in a battle I would be pausing real time map movement constantly. It looks like it’s going to be turns in any event.

[shingenmitch2]

Nelson,

I agree with your points. Interesting thought about linking army speed to command (at leas partially).

For the strategic end it almost has to be turn based. I agree though there should be simultaneous resolution to the plotted turn -- this was handled quite nicely in even as simple a game as the old Atomic World at War "Stalingrad" game. A similar treatment would benefit RTW.

[shingenmitch2]

I had to laugh at CA's comments in the interview as the developer waxed philosphical about the historical interest of the time period they selected, noting all the historical empires, events and possibilites...

yes, that's right play up the history as a... selling... point... hmmm... we're on to something here.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] (Nelson @ July 07 2004,21:58)]I prefer to think in terms of simultaneous movement on the map rather than “real time” (vs turns). "Real time" in battles actually approximates real time where as "real time" on the map simulates weeks of activity in a few moments. Unlike tactical decisions in combat, generals did not have to make strategic choices whithin minutes or seconds. They could take hours, days or even weeks to mull things over. While I never pause in a battle I would be pausing real time map movement constantly. It looks like it’s going to be turns in any event.
Have you read my post in the first page of this thread? There could be a pause button in a "real-time" campaign map but most importantly, you could be able to slow down the game as much as you want so as to take your decisions and design your strategy with no haste.
Such features will make the game more realistic, therefore, in my opinion, more interesting.

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ July 07 2004,23:51)]I had to laugh at CA's comments in the interview as the developer waxed philosphical about the historical interest of the time period they selected, noting all the historical empires, events and possibilites...

yes, that's right play up the history as a... selling... point... hmmm... we're on to something here.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
You're quite right here...
If that isn't an oxymoron, what is then?
CA keeps entertaining us http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif