TotalWar has gone to the Dark Side [Archive]

Papewaio

08-25-2004, 06:40

Pape's Rant

'Yes father I will join you and kill the Emperor' Luke deciding that losing a hand was enough.

RTS or not an RTS?

'No, its not an RTS its still total war! Total War with super cool graphics!'

Lets skip over the voice acting when clicking on units reminding us of the surly Orc from Warcraft.

Or the glowing green arrows which are reminding us of CnC clones and the undead from Return of the King.

Or the green arching arrows and day-glo postioning of troops looks rather gamey.

Or that things are now special abilites which you used to be able to do to any unit. Such as wedge, loose formation, hold your ground, hold formation and of course stop routing. Because we all know that an army only rallies around the comander and not the NCOs... so rally is now a special ability of the commander. Forget about flexibility, one click is all it takes.

Or that the speed of combat is now more like Starcraft. Physics looks awesome, men flying into the air. Just that the battle is over before you even realise it has begun. Men decked out in armour, full shield and spear hover across the battlefield running like Mercury, they flow like quicksilver sprinting after vanishing foe.

Or that the camera mode is called RTS. Nope not an rts clone it is RTW!

----

I'm not worried despite the history of minimal patch support. CA has a four aces with the modability of the game, help of the designers, fans who can mod and the fact it is after all Rome warfare.

I do think we should call a spade a spade. This is far closer to being a comic style RTS then the atmospheric STW. We now have Rome:RTS.

It is a bit like Hollywood movies and sequels which rely on bigger special effects and less on plot. Lots of pretty sequences and not a lot of immersion. Welcome to Total War III bigger, brighter and so much more unique!

:knight:

Nerouin

08-25-2004, 06:47

I preordered it today.

Shahed

08-25-2004, 11:42

Well written and expressed Pape, I'm in total agreement with you.

However, we still have to see the game itself. Who knows once the strat map is included it may be more immersive and more deep. The two qualitites that all hardcore strategy gamers look for.

Elmo

08-25-2004, 11:55

Pape's Rant

...I'm not worried despite the history of minimal patch support. ...
:knight:

I am. If they plan to make us buy an expansion pack for bug fixes like they did with MTW then they won't get my money.

Papewaio

08-25-2004, 12:00

I still don't have VI...

Sjakihata

08-25-2004, 13:00

I expect at least two official patches, that alters a lot of bugs and fixes / adds different stuff.

If that happens I shall gladly buy Babarian Invasion

ah_dut

08-25-2004, 14:17

agrred i'll say, i'll buy an expansion pack if it fixes annoying bugs. but hey that should be free

1dread1lahll

08-25-2004, 15:35

I too stand in fear of what may come. I can not understand now a successful game which stood as the sole leader in a field which noone else could even hope to follow, suddenly decides to to become a follower of an inferior line of games cranked out in mass, in a attempt to lure a class of people which have in the past never before showed any intrest in the Total War gene. Ive always been proud to say that ive never played any other game on-line, and even more so to say that 'I wouldt play that crap', to those who tried to push AOE stile stuff on me. I hope those people will not have reason to mock my words with RTW'S release.

Steppe Merc

08-25-2004, 15:45

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

08-25-2004, 15:54

Mods are not a solution for MP... and fixes, if that means patch, we'll get a single one, and we'll need a strong consensus on it; that's not going to happen. If that means buying an expansion; well, I got to buy RTW first, and it's not a done deal yet.

I really really hope they screwed up the demo badly with a poor battle and a poor unit selection. I hope they won't screw up the whole game that way.

Louis,

Duke John

08-25-2004, 15:56

They say it will moddable, but the demo is unmoddable because all the data and images are "zipped". Sure you can change some numbers or switch units, but that is nothing more than changing armies. I want to make ME:TW 3D, but
I'm still doubtfull wether units can be given completely different looks and animations. As it stands now the modders are completely dependant on how much CA is going to give toolwise, I don't like that. If the game cannot be modded to at least the same extent as M:TW, then I will leave the 3D graphics for what they are and just stick with M:TW.

And I agree completely with the cursor effects, commands with voice acting and the speed of those heavily armoured troops, they make the game resemble too much like a standard RTS.

But oh boy, if the game is moddable then I'm in heaven :grin:

Thoros of Myr

08-25-2004, 15:59

As of now my sole hope for the game rests on what can/cannot be done with mods & patches and how much of an affect the full campaign will have on the gameplay. Who knows, the strat map may well be watered down as well, or it could be a redeeming factor that helps bring the rest of the game into balance. The future is more uncertain then ever.

Lucius Lucullus

08-25-2004, 16:03

Pape I fear you may be right... they want a bigger crowd so they forget about the old crowd. Case in point: all the newbies at the .com are loving it. Hopefully we will be able to mod and fix most if not all of the stuff.
My thirteen year old brother went like this the other day: "OMG!1!1!!!! Have U cn dat game dat Rome Total War OMG!!1!1!!

My reaction: ~:rolleyes: yes why?

My brother: OMG!1!!!!!! its so kool, did they really have flaming pigs

Me: Yes, at least in one documented battle did the Romans set pigs on fire to scare the elephants, and it was......

My brother OMG!!!!!!11!!1!!!!, that is awsome, that is great that one can play as in history, OMG!!!1!1111!!! Im gonna be Caesar

Me: You seem a bit excited about this game, I didnt know you had an interest in history...

My brother: This is soooo kool, I didnt know history was this exciting, this game will be better then Warcraft OMG!111!!!!1!, and the elephants are just über, they are like tanks, OMG !!!1!!1!

Me: Well they did have a terrifying effect on the horses and.....

Well I hope you get my drift, it really seems as if CA have made a "smart" marketing strategy, by angling for the 10-15 year olds (one of the strongest marketing groups when it comes to computer games) while retaining enough realism to appeal to the "grognards".

Yes hopefully we can mod this game into something that more resembles history.

GFX707

08-25-2004, 16:21

Couldn't they have just included a button in the options for something akin to "arcade mode" called "f*ckwit mode" that makes it gamey and RTSlike for the masses and left it realistic for us oldschool totalwar'ers?

I hope things change in the final release....

Maeda Toshiie

08-25-2004, 16:22

I have been trawling through the RTW demo forum. I fear that what Pape is saying is right. Of course there are some vets (miraculously appeared over there) claiming that things are sweet. However, I dont like the way things are going, not just the speed.

1. Where is the kill ratio display?

2. The controls are dumbed down.

3. There is an arcade mode... (WTF?! just what kind of message are you sending out?)

4. The mini map suck

5. Why are they adopting so many things from other RTS out there?! Even a bottom menu bar like SC/WC/C&CGenerals. I want big fat unit tabs displaying everything clearly.

I am praying hard that CA would have an advanced mode with the old TW functionalities preserved. Else, that piece of kiddy game aint gonna make me fork out my cash to buy.

*edit*

Another point I forgot: Romans speak Latin, not English. If STW had samurai speaking in english I wouldnt have bought the game.

Thoros of Myr

08-25-2004, 16:26

Maeda Toshiie, the kill ratio display is still there, next to the mini-map. It' very small and fuzzy looking now.

Thomas Davie

08-25-2004, 16:28

Pape I fear you may be right... they want a bigger crowd so they forget about the old crowd. Case in point: all the newbies at the .com are loving it. Hopefully we will be able to mod and fix most if not all of the stuff.

I'm not a newbie. I own Shogun (although I never played it; similar with MTW). I just figured I owed support to a company that could crank out products this good. I never played em because I *hated* the subject matter or area of history.

Roman history I love, and so I snapped up the demo. Is it perfect, of course not. But I do think that you are deluding yourself with regard to what the game is (or isn't). The tactical combat, despite what you think, is only half of the game. And you know what? It still takes me a few hours ot play the game (yeah I pause a LOT).

I've got this one pre ordered.

Tom

Maeda Toshiie

08-25-2004, 16:44

Maeda Toshiie, the kill ratio display is still there, next to the mini-map. It' very small and fuzzy looking now.

Thanks, but it is very difficult to see. Plus, it seems to take into account of your allies' kills and deaths. Not good. MTW only takes into account of your army's kill ratio, not your allies. If wanted to, then 2 separate bars please.

"Roman history I love, and so I snapped up the demo. Is it perfect, of course not. But I do think that you are deluding yourself with regard to what the game is (or isn't). The tactical combat, despite what you think, is only half of the game. And you know what? It still takes me a few hours ot play the game (yeah I pause a LOT)."

Believe it or not, it is the battlefield system that makes or breaks the game. The strategy part will always play second fiddle to the battles (thats why STW holds dear to so many). People want to play total war, not total economics or total quartermaster. A strategy side which is as complicated as Civilisation would bore people out completely.

The issue of speed extends out to the multiplayer as well. You cant pause during a multiplayer battle.

Leet Eriksson

08-25-2004, 16:55

to MP players, there is no strategy part so the battle system is what will make or break the MP community.

The Wizard

08-25-2004, 17:01

From what I've seen here in the demo, the all-important atmosphere does not seem to have been preserved.

To me, MTW was slightly less atmospheric than STW, but had more than enough atmosphere nevertheless. I remember playing MTW's demo, and thinking "Hmmm, this game is ok I guess, pretty nice combat and such, but not as immersive as it could've been." Imo, the full version delivered quite nicely on the immersion factor.

Now, with the RTW demo, I don't feel very immersed at all. Beautiful graphics and all that, but very annoying voice-acting and unit responses (which is totally not needed for a TW game; following the road set by STW and MTW in this area would have been more than enough), and combat that is a few notches too fast to be immersive for my liking.

Now, I expect RTW to have a higher degree of immersion than the demo, like MTW did. Still, I'm worried that the combination of not all that spectacular music, bad voice-acting and historical innacuracy will mar the game to such a degree that it'll miss a load of immersion it could've easily had.

Slow the game down to the MTW pace (fast enough for me; it could get confusing at times, especially online against human players... "Huh? I thought those chivalric knights were doing great a few moments ago..."), get some high-quality voice-actors that sound good doing voices for characters in a language that wasn't to be spoken for at least 1500 years, and get the TC music for the Romans and Carthaginians (since we don't know how the other music of the game sounds), for that sounded a lot more epic than what I've heard.

P.S. WarCraft III may not be as deep as a TW game, but at least it managed to keep the atmosphere of its predecessors while introducing a shitload of new features and other stuff, and making the transition to 3D. I wonder if Rome will be able to do so in its switch from pixels to polygons...

~Wiz

Red Harvest

08-25-2004, 17:13

Thoros of Myr

08-25-2004, 17:22

Yep, that's the nature of mass market games Red Harvest. They want something fast, and easy and cheap thrill and then it's on to the next one. No time, skill or effort required, and also no reward.

DemonArchangel

08-25-2004, 17:24

IMO, CA's becoming more RTS like just so that they can sell to the warcraft crowd to pay for the $25 million development cost of RTW

Maeda Toshiie

08-25-2004, 17:32

@DemonArchangel

Are da Naked of .com? If you are, nice to see you!

I think you hit the mark. CA has to sell in order to pay for the dev cost. The RTS crowd will buy the game, play for a few weeks and dump the game. CA keeps the money and be happy. Besides, not so many grumpy old men to overload their multiplayer server.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Gotta get some of this off here. Cant say anything like this at .com

DemonArchangel

08-25-2004, 17:34

Yo dude, I don't have a membership at the .com and i really
LOATHE .com-ers.

Thoros of Myr

08-25-2004, 17:54

Some of the "expert noobs" have actually been banned at the .com becuase they can't hold thier tongue and basicly lack substantiated argument material. funny :) The amount of pissed off poeple over the demo is at a boiling point, there is no way CA can NOT know about many people being dissappointed with the changes.

Satyr

08-25-2004, 18:02

Now I am way bummed. Just because I visit the .com sometimes I am to be hated. ~:mecry:

Sometimes there are better conversations there than here. We aren't all noobs there. And I have been a member here for years too.

Too bad about RTW though. Let's hope it's easily moddable.

Thomas Davie

08-25-2004, 18:12

Believe it or not, it is the battlefield system that makes or breaks the game. The strategy part will always play second fiddle to the battles (thats why STW holds dear to so many). People want to play total war, not total economics or total quartermaster. A strategy side which is as complicated as Civilisation would bore people out completely.

The issue of speed extends out to the multiplayer as well. You cant pause during a multiplayer battle.

The battlefield system is not what makes or breaks the game for me, and I would wager other people as well. To me, 'Total' implies tactical, grand-tactical. operational and strategic, as well as economic; at least it does to me.

The fact that you can't pause during a multiplayer battle is of no concern for me, since I don't play multiplayer gaming other than turn based PBEM. I use the pause function to essentially make the game turn based. It works for me.

Since i never played STW or MTW, the camera angles and controls are a complete no issue for me.

Tom

Thoros of Myr

08-25-2004, 18:15

Since i never played STW or MTW, the camera angles and controls are a complete no issue for me.
Tom

Well Tom, I'm sure you are giving your completly honest opinion and there is nothing wrong with that
~;)

But it's hard to appreciate the past if you've not experianced it.

nightcrawlerblue

08-25-2004, 18:23

I really liked the demo and a lot of those things are small.

Units talking when you select them? Who cares? Sure it might get a little annoying (actually I never noticed them much) but geez it's a VERY VERY tiny portion of battle. I prefer the fast-paced battle kind of because now games won't take as obscenely long times. I always thought that MTW's combat was too slow. I mean, it takes 3 minutes to kill a measly 30 guys! How long do you have to shove a spear at someone before somebody is killed?!

Steppe Merc

08-25-2004, 18:31

SirOsis

08-25-2004, 19:06

I played a little bit with the demo last night. My initial impression was that they've done a good job. It does seem a little fast and hopefully they will add the ability to slow it down.

I'm holding off judgement for when the entire game is out but...

I do think that RTW is heading in the right direction. CA obviously wants to attract more players and that is not necessarily a bad thing. I found MTW to be a great game but I never played much of it. I rarely have the time to sit down and play 1 year with all the things I need to deal with. The tedium keeps me away. I think CA is trying to address that particular issue in RTW. Faster more dynamic play appeals to me. While I'd love to sit and strategize about every move I don't have all day. You can still pause and issue orders if that appeals to you.

I think a lot of the moaning is that it is familiar yet different. It is going to take some time to alter your mindset. Of course I reserve the right to change my mind once the full game is out. ~:)

Steppe Merc

08-25-2004, 19:16

I rarely have the time to sit down and play 1 year with all the things I need to deal with. The tedium keeps me away. I think CA is trying to address that particular issue in RTW. Faster more dynamic play appeals to me. While I'd love to sit and strategize about every move I don't have all day.
This is exactly my point. CA is catering to the people that want fast, fun now. And that's not Total War. Total war isn't fun fast now, it's think, prepare, and strike. Mabye they can have a dumbed down option, but the main game should appeal to the crowd that has played there games for a long time, and will continue to play their games.

Red Harvest

08-25-2004, 20:03

I am not that disappointed with the demo--they've done some good things, but it needs some work to woo the TW players. I am reasonably certain that they should be able to tweak the speed and some aspects of the UI. Fix those and the battle play will be good. You could still set it to ultrafast (like it is now) and keep the wrist flickers happy.

By the way, those that complain about tedium/time in the current series are way off the mark. If you want to avoid the "tedium" and "time" just set everything to "autobuild", "autotax" etc. You are already micro-managing...but that is why you are still playing. If you let the computer do everything you lose interest.

If CA is heading toward RTS, then they are going to lose their core. And the RTS crowd has a short enough attention span that they will be off to a competitor's product a few weeks later. It is a bigger market, but it is one with a lot of competition. Personally, I would rather dominate a niche market and be the gold standard, rather than being a small player in an "unwashed masses" market.

The jury is out, we will have to wait to see the final game before we can reach a conclusion.

A.Saturnus

08-25-2004, 20:35

I must say I´m a bit puzzled at this thread. I always though what makes TW different from RTS is it´s epic setting, it´s large battlefields and the possibility to control thousands of men in large tactical battles. In Warcraft you have maybe 20 guys, you send them to battle and you win if you manage to press TAB fast enough. That´s definitely not what we´re seeing in the demo. If you think it´s similar, you have downloaded a different program, mate.
Not that there weren´t points to address in the demo. The speed is to high. And there are problems with the controls. But things like controls are the most likely to be changed to the final game and the speed can´t really be judged correctly, unless we have seen a more typical battle.
I for one enjoyed the demo largely and I´m prepared not only to be RTW but also a new computer for it.

The Scourge

08-25-2004, 21:31

Gregoshi

08-25-2004, 23:07

People hate change and can get rather testy when they are forced to deal with it. I hear a lot of what the issues are and I can see it too. But, how much of that is real and how much of it is the resistance to change? I can't comment as I've not thought about it enough yet. However, judging by complaints about WE/MI and MTW when they came out, two weeks later most of them were no longer issues and it boiled down to a couple key problems, i.e., we adapted to the change and survived.

When WE/MI came out, the running speed was perceived to be faster than in the orginal STW. Running seemed unnaturally fast, yet we eventually learned to deal with it. The horror of the Hungarian faction being pink(!) before MTW came out disappeared into acceptance. I wonder how much of this RTW demo laundry list of problems will really matter when October rolls around.

Another comment: on one hand, we have been hearing complaints about RTW turning into a RTS "click fest", yet on the other hand we hear complaints that the battles unfold too fast to react to. These two points seem to be at odds with each other, which leds me to think we are hearing an emotional reaction to the demo rather than a rational one. The comments about CA "selling out", "dumbing down" or catering to the pre-teen/teen crowd are just emotional attacks to justify the resistance to change. The true issues will eventually sort themselves out from the rest. Once we all calm down a bit, we can look at the demo a little more rationally. (I want to clarify my point a little more, but alas, I've run out of time)

Question: has anyone from CA replied yet to any of the comments made about the demo? The uproar from the old TW guard has been rather, ahem, loud, I'm wondering what they are thinking about all this?

Armchair Athlete

08-26-2004, 01:46

The problem with all these RTS noobs: THEY ARE FICKLE!!! The RTS crowd is full of people with attention deficit disorder. If CA is banking on them then there is one big problem, the noobs will be interested for a few weeks, then drop it for one of the other 30 RTS titles released each year. By comparison, strategy types stick around and continue to recruit other thinking types to the game for years. I still play STW/MI at times...but while I enjoyed Starcraft, once I played through the different species once each, I was done with it, and that was years ago.

I agree, however I dont think they really care if they only buy the game and play it for a month. They have still bought the game, CA has their money and if the RTS noobs get bored of it thats their problem. They will still probably buy the expansion when it comes out, play for a month and get bored again. CA still makes money of it though. Also it is the 10-13 year old noobs that largely actually buy games rather than pirate them. Its like pop music, how many people does everyone know who loves the teeny bopper music and pirates it? Not many for me. Thats why it sells better than a lot of other genres, not because it is necessarily more popular but becuase more actually buy it. With those who are older into alternative and stuff, its not uncommon to see one person who actually has a real copy and 10-15 others who pirate it/download it. Same with games. The Sims for example, I dont know that many more people who play the Sims than a lot of other games, however due to the nature of the target market not many pirate it. So, love 'em or hate 'em, the 12 year old noobs will be carrying the game market for the foreseeable future.

Cheetah

08-26-2004, 01:56

I agree with Pape. They have decided to seek the favour of the RTS crowd. This is the beginning of the end ...

And no, I am not pessimistic ~:joker:

Cheetah

08-26-2004, 02:05

Ok, so here is a bit more detailed argument why I agree with Pape:

They have introduced a RTS camera mode as default.
They have introduced an RTS like radiocative green highlighting as default.
They got rid of the good old TW icon sytem and introduced an RTS like iconsystem as default.

My impression is that they want to break into the RTS market, leaving behind the old TW fans. (perhaps not a very original observation ~:p but I think it has some truth in it.)

Also my impression is that on the long term they made a strategic mistake with this move.

They had the choice to be the biggest fish in a small pond or to be a small fish in a big pond.

They chose to be the small fish.

Bad choice. To be a small fish is never a good idea.

It is always easier to expand your pond than to eat up the big fish. In fact it is the big fish that will eat you up.

On a more specific level, they have chosen to compete on a ground which is not their own. The real strength of the TW series is the TW engine itself, and the „realism” that can be achieved using this engine. I hope I dont hurt anyone, but the mass market does not gives a d***n about realism. I understand that the developers and the distributors of TW series think that they can win this competition, mainly because the TW engine is the “best”. I don’t want to shatter their dreams but this is the least important thing in this equation. With this move they have chosen to compete on the ground of “eye candy”, “number of soldiers can be fielded on the battlefield”, number of “interesting units”, etc. This is not their ground and they will lose this battle fairly quickly. There are already RTS games in which you can field hundred if not thousands of solders, and there will come a day when the next RTS game will allow you to field more soldiers than that in the latest release of TW series. Many of the exisiting RTS games have more “interesting” unit types than that you can find in Rome. Last but not least, there will come a RTS –if there is no such RTS already- that will beat the last TW release in eye candy.

The next release of the TW series will be just one RTS game out of a dozen, if not Rome already is just one RTS out of a dozen.

And don’t get me wrong, I like RTS games, I played a lot with Warcraft, Starcraft, Age of Empires, etc. However, I love Shogun and Medieval for what they are: different from the rest.

I am sure that the distributors of Rome did their homework and calculated the possible costs and benefits of this move. I am also sure, however, that they have sacrified a long term stable market for short term benefits.

Lehesu

08-26-2004, 02:17

Right now, I do not really like the game. Not because of some detailed analysis of the changes (although that does factor in; especially the speed), but because the demo just wasn't fun. At all. The MTW demo, as tepid as it was, provided much more entertainment. My computer could not run MTW at the time and as soon as I played the demo, I was salivating with want and rushing immediately to get my computer upgraded. RTW doesn't have me rushing to do the same.
I tend to be a very statistical player...always looking for the pivotal point in the fight, etc. As such, I really didn't appreciate the gfx as I was too busy looking for the next tactical move. I do understand that most people aren't like me in this respect, however.

Thoros of Myr

08-26-2004, 02:18

Cheetah you make some good points and yes IF the TW series tried to be a classic RTS it would certainly suffer a horrible fate but I think your judging atleast RTW prematurely. It's just too soon to pass a final judgement on RTW or CA.

But even if the full game is atleast on par with the past games in strategic play and all that we require as fans of realistic wargames I can't help but think how much better other aspects could have been if CA have kept thier focus pure and not spent time on the RTS trimmings.

Going into RTW I had hopes that CA would get it so perfect that they would redefine the popular man's strategy game and cuase the classic RTS to bow down to what we know as realistic strategy. Unfortunatly I think that chance is all but missed but I see no major reason in the RTW demo why they can't atleast still retain what they had with the previous games.

Puzz3D

08-26-2004, 02:22

"Another comment: on one hand, we have been hearing complaints about RTW turning into a RTS "click fest", yet on the other hand we hear complaints that the battles unfold too fast to react to. These two points seem to be at odds with each other, which leds me to think we are hearing an emotional reaction to the demo rather than a rational one."

Gregoshi,

The two points are not at odds with each other. If you could click faster, you would get the control back that you have in MTW. Let's see what am I able to do in the Trebia battle. I can get my two skirmishers back to a more secure position and put them on engage. I can then give orders to the two sacred cav behind the trees. One to move closer, and the other to attack the roman cav unit on that side. Now I go over to the 60 man sacred cav and target either the roman skirmisher or that same roman cav unit. Quickly look to the right and get my two mercenary cav to start moving toward the romans who are 1/2 way up the hill by now and finishing up throwing their pila. Command the right side elephants to move up to the line. There is no time to have them flank. They will have to walk right through my own units and hit the romans head on. Now go back to the left and do the same thing with the elephants on the left side. Quick look back to the two sacred cav to give them roman inf targets one of which is usually the roman gen. Charge the elephants on the right into the romans who are already breaking through on the right. Jump back to the left and do the same with those elephants. Give the mercenary cav a couple of inf targets, and then go get the 60 man sacred cav and see what I can do with it against the roman flank. At that moment my inf center has collapsed, and I continue doing what I can with the 60 man sacred cav until the romans are routed. I never have time to touch my general. The whole time, I'm clicking as fast as I can. This all transpires in about 2 minutes. Once the Romans rout, I have time to go and retrieve my units, but I've lost track of the location of everything except the one or two cav units I am controlling. I don't even know where my gen is. I only have 16 units to control in Tebia, not the full 20. I never experienced anything like this in MTW. In MTW, except on rare occasions I always mentally know the approximate location of all of my units.

This is like playing MTW with all the inf units modded to run at speed = 15. I don't recall anybody saying that infantry in MTW doesn't run fast enough.

nightcrawlerblue

08-26-2004, 02:23

Nightcrawler it does take a while. There are battles going on for hours upon hours, even days. Heck, Thermonoplea (god I can't spell) went on for a days with only 300 Spartans! Frankly, they should start out at a relestic speed (like way slower than now) and people like you that like fast battles can speed it up.

days with only 300 spartans?! What, did they sit down every 2 minutes and have an hour of tea?! :lol:

How long does it take to run near an enemy soldier and stick a sword through his chest?!

Red Harvest

08-26-2004, 02:30

Gregoshi,

With respect to the "click fest" comments, I think what you are missing is the perception that there will be no thought put into the battles, so you will have to be lightning quick to issue enough commands to accomplish anything. That's a trait of wrist flicker RTS games, where the key to winning is clicking really fast, not necessarily coming up with a "good solution." Rock'em Sock'em Robots. It comes down to speed vs. decision making. I have no problem with the game being playable in RTS format, but if that is so I also want the option to continue to have a meaningful strategy and tactical combat game that requires some planning and preparation. Give me a playable game speed. I don't care to issue a handful of commands and then watch the computer quickly resolve the battle like it was some sort of "autoresolve" feature.

At the current game speed the battle aspect is going to be lacking compared to its predecessors. Even in MTW a lot of us used pause more than we would have liked--but in RTW it looks like I might spend most of the time in pause because the actual battle is over 30 seconds after hand-to-hand begins if I don't. I tried to keep pause to a minimum in MTW and issue most commands on the fly except for ones like trying to place/maneuver units in the woods, or initial marching orders when on the attack, or stuff like that. I used "pause" to counter areas where the computer had an unintended advantage (like being able to issue commands to everyone rapidly no matter their location, and knowing where everyone was at, if they were under attack, routing, etc.)

I did some multi-player RTS and quickly got tired of the 5-minute attention span types. If they didn't beat you in the first frenzied rush, they would curse you and drop the connection. Oh what fun. ~:( By comparison I had long challenging games in Civil War Generals II and played often. Most folks there were quite civil (and used their brains.) We historical discussions and I was active in developing historical battles. One of the things I enjoy about the .org is all of the folks who bring different aspects of history to life. I learn a lot here. ~:cheers: Civil War Generals died when Impressions started working on more of an RTS version of the game (CWG 3). They lost their core audience and dropped development thereafter.

Steppe Merc

08-26-2004, 02:47

Nightcrawler, my point is that they didn't just run up and stab them. Battles were long affairs, with most of the casulties a result from the mop up after the army routs.

Aelwyn

08-26-2004, 03:13

OK let me address a few of the issues here, as I agree with some, and disagree with some.

The units are too fast.

I think the infantry is too fast yes. I remember Yuuki mentioning the difference between MTW and the demo. Much faster for RTW infantry. That I don't like. The cavalry seem just about right.

The game is a clickfest

This is going to be a very valid point, as we all know balancing is the biggest issue, especially for us who play almost nothing but MP. While I agree it is to some extent, I must say that I have experimented with different play styles, and some of them were clickfests, and some of them weren't. If I played right, I was routing the Romans before they depleted my front line inf even 1/3 of any unit. If I stand right at the top of that small hill, yeah, they're on you very quickly. Thats why I would leave my skirmishers and archers there and pull back my infantry to wherever else I wanted them. Put them on hold, and they were fine for quite some time. I played a smarter battle for the Carthaginian units, instead of trying to take on the Romans straight on, which is what you don't want to do.

What I haven't tried, and I am going to soon, is all the units in that battle at valour 0. We're playing what someone else might have thought was balanced, but is it a clickfest with all the units at valour 0, or even with all having higher valour? I dunno...

The 'Special Ability' thing

This worries me. If our general (or captian or whatever the hell they're calling it now) dies, we can't rally troops anymore? Hmm, odd. I didn't know sacred band, or other supposed elite units would continue running just because their army leader is dead. But what do I know....

And yes, I don't think the 'wedge' should be a special ability, as the amout of times I have used it seriously could be counted on less than half of a hand.

The Immersion

I think the music throughout the TW games has been great. True, I liked the STW music the best, and the Muslim factions' music...but thats just because I like something a bit different. I don't know about anyone else, but while installing the demo for the first time, I definitely got some sort of 'feel' from it, whether or not it was immersion, doubtful. But it was afterall a demo, and I think it at least set an ok mood. I'll have to wait for the full game.

The camera/control style

As long as they make it so everyone can make it the way they want, I don't care how many RTS type choices they have. If I can have it the way I want it, thats all that matters. If you can map the controls, and the camera style can be manipulated, then I think everyone can be happy.

Papewaio

08-26-2004, 03:27

Nightcrawler it is called combat... the other people duck... its not all movie combat where all 24 bullets of the 16 clip pistol kill the riflemen while their 82,000 rounds completely miss. ~;)

I think you would find it takes more then 3 minutes using spears to wipe out a legion... now as for British Generals and WWI... well the Brits managed to wipe out 100s of 1000s in mere minutes... not so good it was their own men, but hey it was still an achievement.

Red Harvest

08-26-2004, 03:50

days with only 300 spartans?! What, did they sit down every 2 minutes and have an hour of tea?! :lol:

How long does it take to run near an enemy soldier and stick a sword through his chest?!

Quite awhile actually, because he isn't going to yank off his armour, bare his breast and say "stab me." He and his buddies will try to hold you off. It might be very easy to kill one man, now try that versus several hundred thousand. That was what the Greeks faced at Thermopylae. There were several thousand Greeks engaged for a day or so, until the Persians were guided to another pass and 300 Spartans remained behind to delay the Persians while the remaining Greek forces retreated. It is estimated that there were about 20,000 Persian casualties--not much time for tea.

Next time do some reading before making such a silly comment. Many battles took a day or two or were ended by the sunset. Killing men without getting killed yourself can take awhile.

Gregoshi

08-26-2004, 05:22

Puzz3D and Red Harvest, one thing to keep in mind with Trebia is that you are given a setup in which the enemy is already pretty close to you. This is no different that some of the historical battles from STW/WE and MTW - the enemy is on top of you and you need to react immediately. This is what we have with the Trebia battle. How much different would it be if 1) you could place your units where you want them, and 2) the Romans were on the far side of the river at the start of the battle? To counter the bad setup of Trebia, do you issue orders before you unpause the game? I don't pause when I play SP TW, but I'll take advantage of that in this battle given the short reaction time you have. Doing this I have no trouble getting my elephants out to the flanks to then charge down the Roman line.

As for the click-fest issue, in quite a few of my online games with STW and MTW, I can only imagine the speed of the clicking going on with my opponents - they seem to be clicking a lot more than I am and a lot faster than me as well. Maybe it is all relative. Anyway, where the click-fest differs between the demo and an RTS is in two things: 1) the TW units just don't respond as fast to clicks as they do in an RTS, and 2) in an RTS the units fight to the last, obeying their clicks (orders) regardless of what is going on around them, not so in TW.

About the length of battle, I noticed that how you handle your forces determines how quickly the battle is resolved, as Aelwyn pointed out above. For example, in one battle I charged the Poenic(?) infantry down the hill to meet the Romans coming up the hill and the infantry held out for a long time. In another battle, I let them wait at the top of the hill for the Romans (er, actually forgot to order the charge) and the Romans swept over them like they were just blades of grass.

I'm not saying I disagree with the speed concern - heck, I have trouble sometimes keeping up with the speeds in STW/MTW, let alone the demo. My point is that is it a real concern or just something we need to adapt to? The Trebia battle, with its initial setup, is not a good example on which to pass any judgement.

Red Harvest

08-26-2004, 06:00

Gregoshi,

I think we understand each other pretty well on this one. I have also seen the Trebia battle take widely varying amounts of time. The Romans seem to overpower the phalanx a bit rapidly for my tastes without flanking. That sort of fight should take quite awhile but it ends in a minute or two. A phalanx on high open ground should be awfully tough to wear down. I would think it would take at least 30 minutes. Some of it might be the formation. The center and right phalanxes are only 3 or 4 ranks deep and the Romans charge through the spear wall easily on that side. I'm going to investigate with some mods I guess.

I've seen the results of the battle vary quite a bit with only slight differences in the way I've handled it. I even managed to lose once by throwing Hannibal in when my phalanxes collapsed in a few seconds--he died rapidly. On the other hand, I managed to stomp the Romans once on "very hard" without using any of the four ambush cav units I used my skirmishers and elephants devastatingly--and the single sacred band unit with the main body tore in from the rear after routing the cav.

What am I trying to say? I'm having a hard time seeing what makes the battle engine tick. It is too fast to take it in. What I'm finding really wierd is that the triple speed setting doesn't seem all that fast...

I actually think the initial set up for Carthage is pretty decent. Somewhat higher ground, with cav hidden in the rear, archers up high, heavies in the middle, skirmishers in front. If you opposed a river crossing the best reaction would be for the legions to stare you down from just outside archery range--no battle. It would be foolish for the legions to cross with you waiting for them in plain view (Stirling Bridge comes to mind...where William Wallace's pike phalanxes crushed half of a powerful English army as it crossed.)

Maeda Toshiie

08-26-2004, 06:16

The battlefield system is not what makes or breaks the game for me, and I would wager other people as well. To me, 'Total' implies tactical, grand-tactical. operational and strategic, as well as economic; at least it does to me.

The fact that you can't pause during a multiplayer battle is of no concern for me, since I don't play multiplayer gaming other than turn based PBEM. I use the pause function to essentially make the game turn based. It works for me.

Since i never played STW or MTW, the camera angles and controls are a complete no issue for me.

Tom

Sorry, there are a lot of us out there who do care about the multiplayer. The battlefield system is half of the game. In fact more than half the game. The strategic side of things, there are games out there which are more elaborate and complex compared to the TW series, eg Civ series.

For the battlefield side of things, the TW series was meant to be set apart from the run-the-mill types of RTS out there. We want ammo limits, fatigue, morale, weather effects. We want to be able to maneuver troops on the field, flanking, ambushing. We want to pin down the enemy and hit them in the rear, not see the pinning spears bowled over like bowling pins by a 100ton bowling ball.

Pause screws over the flow of the game. I have played my fair share of click-fest since Dune2 came out. Never in any game do I like to pause. Pause spoils it all. I guess you have to play it to know.

STW and MTW attained a very good mix. You dont need to be lightning fast to command, but yet fast enough to keep the adrenaline flowing.

Dimeola

08-26-2004, 06:35

With all due respect and apologies for those I make angry.....and I will not enter into arguement. I am sick and damned tired of hearing everyone who is bitching about a game that hasnt even been released yet. It is a GAME! It is not meant to be a perfect reproduction of military history. Will there be faults? You betcha.....their ideas and wants are not ours. Thats why the wonderfull modders here will present us with a slew of terrific mods just like they have done with MTW. But Geeeeeze, play the game first.
Rant over,
D

spmetla

08-26-2004, 07:31

These people aren't bitching about a game just because they don't have anything better to do, it's not because it isn't a perfect reproduction of history but primarily because us older TW fans are being forgotten. WE are the core of the TW series played it since STW or MTW and a lot of us were attracted on one hand for the large battles and the other hand the realism. Now our opinions being dumped or at least it seems this way in favor of getting a new crowd of gamers that for the most part has completly ignored the TW series.

I understand that the game is there to make money but the reason they made a RTW is because MTW and VI was succesful and those were made because STW and MI were successful. The people that have supported the game and pretty much been the funding for the previous installments are being forgotten.

You speak of all the wonderful mods, those modders wouldn't be there if the game didn't catch them enough to bother spending hours researching editing testing and editing more. I've done modding to MTW and it's no piece of cake especially if you don't have the fan made tools.

CA RESPECT YOUR FANS DAMN IT!!!

I haven't gotten the demo yet because I've lost my interent and can only get access to the net at the fairly strict on downloading library and army computer networks.

And a modding question for those with the actual demo, is it all in actual .zip files or is it someother unique format that only the developers can release a extracter for? Is it a whole bunch of independent .zips or one gigantic file to unzip?

Ellesthyan

08-26-2004, 08:21

Lol! Don't post any lies here, "older TW fans"! You're still going to buy the game anyway.

How many times did a game change because their fans crying a month before the release?

Never. Or the change was so small, so minor it was already implemented earlier.

Have you all ever played a demo of other games? In my experience, they are but a demonstration of a part of the gameplay. Regulary you'll be presented only a little movie, in better cases you're allowed to play a part that has been rushed to get ready in time. Often demos come out after the release, since the game was not yet ready to be played.

CA has decided to bring out a demo, certainly to please their fans, but more to give any newbie a look into a battle.
Trebia therefore is a historical battle they've rushed a bit; the Romans are already over the water and the Carthagenans out-tech them. Only to make the newbie interested they've put in some overpowered cavalry for the spectacular charges, elephants, and phalanx infantry. THAT is the reason they've chosen Trebia, and not another historical battle. It's about Hannibal, elephants, and legions.

The men behind this game aren't exactly stupid. And that's why I think this is "the arcade-game", and if it's not, just a demobattle. Everyone noticed the arcade option on the screenshots?
Once you start a new campaign, you can choose the difficulty of the battles, the difficulty of the campaign, and the option to turn the whole thing "arcade". Now, few is known about this mode, but it's name suggests that it gives a faster, more head-to-head game than usual. And that is exactly what demo-Trebia does! Exactly what the "vets" don't like.

Often a specialized designer-team gives up. They've haven't made enough money to survive, they've taken to many risks to get a proper game out, and they don't have a large company behind them. CA is akin to them. Their game(s) isn't in any popular genres, and it's only known to the gamer with time and brains; a scarce people in gaming-world. CA has only one option if it wants to make the risk of dying as small as possible, and that is by attracting more buyers.
Basically, they've appealed to two groups; one who will play the game, and the one that will buy the game. Both are important. They need a multiplayer community, they need the vets that will give them a solid base of suggestions and back-up. However, they need money as well. To survive, they will have to sell games, and a lot of them. They won't be so foolish as to make the game worse than possible! No, they have decided to split it in two, which will hopefully please the fans and attract the newbies.

Don't be afraid, fellow gamers! Take a look at the past and all those previous mutterings, gather all the info that has been tactically spoiled, and then, only then you are allowed to make a conclusion.

Sociopsychoactive

08-26-2004, 08:39

Now, I havn;t played the demo yet, but from reading what you have all put I am slightly concerned, but also want to say this.

CHILL!

It's not out yet, therefore don't judge it yet. Yes, some games have had briliant demo's (C&C the original had me hooked) but some had awfull demo's, but great games none the less. So, wait untill it is out. Maybe Ellesthyan is right, maybe what the demo is is the 'arcade' option, where your troops run around like conan the barbarian whaking chunks out of the enemy. Maybe the real game, MP included, will actually be far slower, and one of the settings of the arcade mode is that it;s at twice as fast, or even three times as fast. Didn't someone say that hitting three times speed didn't make the game go much fatser at all fro the demo? Doesn't that make you think it's already going fatser than it normally does? If that is true, isn;t that actually a good move by CA, to make money while still having a hardcore tactical stratagy game? Let the 14yr olds buy it and click away, while the vets and modders pick it apart piece by piece for years on end, hell, there are still bits of MTW that come as a shock to me.

I for one am almost certainly going to buy it, even if they have gone RTS, then I will own a new good RTS that yes, I will play for a month and get bored of, but as a long term gamer I have so many of those games that I can play each one for a momnth then get bored and not play the same one for over a year.

Saying that, however, I am not a clickfest fan. That is what worries me. STW and MTW stand alone in the gamind world as a game where you cna use real tactics, where you can fight realistic battles. I originally bought AOE 2 for the historical-ness of it, and was sorely dissapointed. With MTW I still play it most days, and I;ve had it over a year, THATS where this game should stand apart from the other, longevity.

All that aside though, we should all just chill untill the game is actually out. Though if it;s got an arcade mode to appeal to the clickfest crowd, then I migh have to pre-order it to make sure I get one, considering what the sales will be like.

Ah, it;s early and I havn;t slept, if this makes any sense then I'll be surprised.

Red Harvest

08-26-2004, 08:43

Dimeolas,

The demo is a good time to comment on problems. Once the game is out, it's too friggin' late. Too much is already set in stone at that point. It is pretty late by the time the demo is out, but it is the first chance any one really has to comment. A few substantial changes can yet be made so it is get your comments in while you can. Waiting for patches is a risky venture--chances are nothing substantial will change at that point other than glaring bug fixes. That is the reality of software.

I just got through modding to match up three phalanx vs. 1 Hastati, 1 Principe, and 1 Triarii all at the same valour and honor to see how they fare head to head. Unfortunately, the Roman general did a suicide charge into a phalanx and was the first casualty and blew the whole experiment. WTF??? Absolutely brain dead. I hope the AI that is shipped is a bit smarter than that, cav attacking a phalanx head on...sheesh. Good luck leaving that to modders to fix--give the general max hit points and super high defense with lowest possible offense?

a_ver_est

08-26-2004, 09:11

I haven't gotten the demo yet because I've lost my interent and can only get access to the net at the fairly strict on downloading library and army computer networks.

I don't understood you guys, I have played with MTW for a long time, I ended my last game just a week before.

You only have seen a small demo which probably is based in a old build. Well some of you haven't done it yet but they feel free to be angry too. ~:rolleyes:

But more of your concerns are about game interface, in fact the main problem is that is different from the previous game, logical because is a new one. Which I mean is that after a week of playing you will be adapted to the new interface without any problem. Thinks like camera movement, unit selection, right click ... will be done naturally.

I can't understood your concerns about game atmospera, did you see the trebia battle ?, really?. It looks like a real battle not just MTW were you need some imagination to feel that those sprites are soldiers fighting.

Players impresions are fine but IMHO all these fatal comments may wait after a couple of week before the FINAL and FULL game release.

The_Emperor

08-26-2004, 10:22

Lets all just relax guys.

Now in my view the demo seems a little cobbled together to please the fans. I know that the .com-ers have been screaming for a demo for ages and ages, and finally CA have delivered on one.

Did CA even plan for a demo? Maybe they just gave in to pressure for it and got a guy to make one...?

It is a possibility that CA are so busy right now getting RTW finished that they couldn't afford the manpower or time to make the demo the "best ever", but hopefully they are watching and are taking things into account.

Omegamann

08-26-2004, 10:38

I have to admit I too was disappointed with the demo.
I agree that from STW to MTW my main interrest was the spectacular and enjoyable battles and in many of the screenshots that have hyped RTW so far these battles do look even more intense.
Having played the demo on two maschines (1 high end gaming rig and one my Laptop for work) I have to say that it didnt even captivate me enough to spent more than 2 or 3 hours with it at most.
Interrestingly the speed seemed way faster with my Laptop and settings set to a minimum than when I had my gaming rig. This is something that I had experienced with MTW beforehand as it seemed the more CPU and RAM a pc had running MTW the more cautious and cunning the AI became.
I also have the impression that the Demo was deliberately 'dumbed down' so not to scare of potential mass market buyers.
Though Trebia has 800 vs 1500 men on the field the armies dont look so big and epic as they did in MTW, and as you cant adjust the unit size via the options to have bigger units it might be that the scenario was also created performace light deliberatly.
I realy hope that the grand battles depicted in so many screenshots and videos will realy be possible in game.

Rosacrux

08-26-2004, 11:44

Cheetah has added to Pape's argument pretty nicely... combining those two together, would actually form more or less my opinion. So, there goes:

What Cheetah and Pape said

SpencerH

08-26-2004, 12:38

SpencerH

08-26-2004, 12:47

You only have seen a small demo which probably is based in a old build.

How do you know its an old build?

I plan to buy the game and see how it goes but at this point I'd rather they hadn't released the demo, especially if it is an old build.

The_Emperor

08-26-2004, 13:40

By the way guys, i just stumbled across a Rome Total War hands on article on the IGN site... It seems they got to play a fully functional build.

Right near the top they say this.

This game is not for the timid, nor for the twitch strategic gamers. Rome is a complex meeting of tactics and deep strategy on a global level.

and later on in page 2.

Those thinking this is going to be another Command & Conquer or StarCraft are going to be pretty surprised. Consider the battles in Rome: Total War as more of a chess game then a lesson in clicking fast and micromanagement. Armies worked in divisions or troop types with a lot of importance placed on formation, pre-battle set-up, morale, flanking, correct use of combined forces, and movement management of troops so they aren't exhausted before the real battle begins.

a_ver_est

08-26-2004, 14:00

How do you know its an old build?

I plan to buy the game and see how it goes but at this point I'd rather they hadn't released the demo, especially if it is an old build.

I am not sure, but gamespy have demo's screenies at 08/08/2004, I know how software development works and I don't think that all work was done a couple of months before the release day.

Ok perhaps these screenies are only form a beta of the demo.. I am not surprised that they released a not very well worked demo, just read the forum some days ago and you can suppose that they were having some pressure, and it is just a demo so "it doesn't care to much if it's buggy", but again most of the people concerns are about game interface not because it's bugs.

But we are only speculating, so (IMHO) it's better wait until we have played a few with the final game.

SpencerH

08-26-2004, 14:52

By the way guys, i just stumbled across a Rome Total War hands on article on the IGN site... It seems they got to play a fully functional build.

Right near the top they say this.

and later on in page 2.
I dont think that article was written for TW addicts. I think its more likely that it was written for people who had not played TW previously. From that perspective, it's comparing and explaining the differences between RTW and a classic RTS not confirming that the demo battle is RTW-lite.

Kaiser of Arabia

08-26-2004, 15:58

Come on, it doesnt look that bad pape.
Slow the troops and get rid of those green arrows under the men and stop that zooming in when I click on a unit and it's fine, really.

The Wizard

08-26-2004, 16:00

I've decided not to make another comment on this game until it's here in my cd-player...

While I understand the worries of the mainly 'oldbie' community here (hell, I'm quite worried now that RTW will be as shallow as this demo felt), but please, try to calm down and judge when the game comes out.

I agree with the comments by Greg and Ellesthyan. This battle is set to be rushed - the whole beginning of the battle, which I've executed in a MTW campaign battle, where Hannibal lures them over the river, etc, is a cinematic. In MTW, you could only lure a small part of the enemy away from their strong defensive position in the way that Hannibal did it - with a mobile skirmish unit like horse archers or Numidian cav. Here, the entire Roman army crosses the river and sets up in the traditional manipular triple line with velites up front, followed by hastati, principes and triarii respectively. The game hands you the controls when the Romans are quite close to you. Therefore, the stage is set for some very quick combat where you don't have time to position your troops differently and think about how you're going to destroy the Roman army before you engage the enemy. The game has already done that for you. Therefore, this is the wrong battle to start judging battle speed by, methinks. I remember thinking "do I get to fight now already?" when the Romans were coming over the river.

Also, this does look a bit old to me. Looking at most the information and movies we've seen over the months, I say this is a build which is several months older than the current RTW build as it's being tweaked in the CA HQ.

No, I believe it's a bit early to start concluding that this game is too gamey for a self-respecting TW game.

~Wiz

Papewaio

08-26-2004, 16:05

Come on, it doesnt look that bad pape.
Slow the troops and get rid of those green arrows under the men and stop that zooming in when I click on a unit and it's fine, really.

Being consoled by Capo that things aren't that bad!.

"Check, one, two, check, one, two... hello am I in an alternate reality?

Cheetah

08-26-2004, 17:52

My critique is not about small faults, glitches or about the difficulty of the demo. What I say is that they made a wrong long term strategic decision by seeking the favour of RTS fans and entering the competition with mainstream RTS games.

just as Red Harvest said:

If CA is heading toward RTS, then they are going to lose their core. And the RTS crowd has a short enough attention span that they will be off to a competitor's product a few weeks later. It is a bigger market, but it is one with a lot of competition. Personally, I would rather dominate a niche market and be the gold standard, rather than being a small player in an "unwashed masses" market.

Unfortunatley it is very true what was said by Armchiar Athlete.

I agree, however I dont think they really care if they only buy the game and play it for a month. They have still bought the game, CA has their money and if the RTS noobs get bored of it thats their problem. They will still probably buy the expansion when it comes out, play for a month and get bored again. CA still makes money of it though. Also it is the 10-13 year old noobs that largely actually buy games rather than pirate them. ... So, love 'em or hate 'em, the 12 year old noobs will be carrying the game market for the foreseeable future.

So I am not surprised that they are aiming for this market. I am sure that it will increase sales on the short term. The problem is that they will lose this competition on the long term because they will be figting on hostile terrain instead of fighting on their own ground. That is why it is a long term strategic mistake.

Thomas Davie

08-26-2004, 18:12

Well Tom, I'm sure you are giving your completly honest opinion and there is nothing wrong with that
~;)

But it's hard to appreciate the past if you've not experianced it.

Fair enough, and I don't have any qualms with that. However, despite the fact that I have not played the TW system, I have read the manuals, have been wargaming since 1972, and computer gaming since 1976 (can't remember the name of the first SSI title I bought for my Apple). It doesn't make me any more (or less) and expert than other people, but it does say that there is probably a faction of people out there to whom the increased pace is immaterial.

All I'm really saying I guess, is that people who are abnegating the game in advance are doing themselves a disservice.

regards

Tom

Thomas Davie

08-26-2004, 18:22

Sorry, there are a lot of us out there who do care about the multiplayer. The battlefield system is half of the game. In fact more than half the game. The strategic side of things, there are games out there which are more elaborate and complex compared to the TW series, eg Civ series.

For the battlefield side of things, the TW series was meant to be set apart from the run-the-mill types of RTS out there. We want ammo limits, fatigue, morale, weather effects. We want to be able to maneuver troops on the field, flanking, ambushing. We want to pin down the enemy and hit them in the rear, not see the pinning spears bowled over like bowling pins by a 100ton bowling ball.

Pause screws over the flow of the game. I have played my fair share of click-fest since Dune2 came out. Never in any game do I like to pause. Pause spoils it all. I guess you have to play it to know.

STW and MTW attained a very good mix. You dont need to be lightning fast to command, but yet fast enough to keep the adrenaline flowing.

I never said there weren't any people to whom these things did not matter; merely that they do not matter to me, and if that is the case, then there are probably other people to whom they do not matter either. I'll always play on the slowest setting, and use pause frequently; and it doesn't matter to me if it takes a few hours to finish a battle. I'll enjoy it. And I'll still be playing after a month. I'd be slowing it down to the equivalent of a turn based game no matter what the pacing. Pause might spoil it for you and others, but not for me (and others).

Again, it should be obvious to you that I was staing personal preference and opinion, not public fact.

regards.

Tom

Sasaki Kojiro

08-26-2004, 18:30

I used to not mind pausing but now the music stops and there is that big block at the top of the screen...

Puzz3D

08-26-2004, 18:55

It's an interesting dichotomy how the graphics of the men have become 3D, but the gameplay has become more gamey. The overall sense of realism has not increased, but instead has decreased. Let's see, Time Commanders, Decisive Battles, Flash video clips and now the Demo all show a strong gamey element. There is no basis to expect that the RTW full game won't be just like what we've seen so far. This series never was a game intended to zoom in and watch the individual men fighting, but that seems to be the attraction now judging from the comments I've read from the people who like the Demo. So the reason that CA focused gameplay on controlling whole armies as they fought in STW and MTW was because computer technology wasn't up to showing close up 3D rendered men? Here CA is using Hannibal, one of the prime examples of a commander who defeated much stronger armies by his use of superior tactics, to illustrate a game where you have less chance of doing that than in previous versions of the game. It's begining to smell of exploitation of the historical setting just to sell more product.

Thomas Davie

08-26-2004, 19:02

This series never was a game intended to zoom in and watch the individual men fighting, but that seems to be the attraction now judging from the comments I've read from the people who like the Demo

Quite odd this. I play the entire game zoomed out, so that I can see more of the battlefield, and of my units. I rarely go in close to see the action. If I do, it is when the game is paused, and not when unpaused. And yeah, I like the demo.

regards

Tom

A.Saturnus

08-26-2004, 20:41

Check, one, two, check, one, two... hello am I in an alternate reality?

One of us surely is. Really, I can only repeat myself. I stand amazed at this thread where people I hold in high regard make arguments that are incomprehensible to me. Rome uses green highlighting and is therefore a RTS?? Sorry, but that´s absurd ~:dizzy:
I have to agree with Greg, what we see here is mostly rationalization for resistence to change.

Kaiser of Arabia

08-26-2004, 20:54

Being consoled by Capo that things aren't that bad!.

"Check, one, two, check, one, two... hello am I in an alternate reality?
What the heck is that supposed to mean? You wanna fight, BRING IT ON! ~:joker:
But seriously, what the fongul do you mean by that? ~:pissed:

Thoros of Myr

08-26-2004, 21:23

Plenty of valid points have been presented on both sides but we should not beat the issues into the ground for a month straight till the release. Getting hung up on this debate doesent make me feel good. I'm simply going to wait, see, and hope.

Blodrast

08-26-2004, 21:36

hmm, slightly OT but not very much so:

upcoming RTS Heroes of Annihilated Empires Heores of Annihilated Empires (http://www.heroesofae.com/?m=overview) boasts "- Large-scale battles with up to 64.000 units on the battlefield".
Note that this will probably be quite similar (at least in some aspects) with the HOMM series;notably one of the new things it will bring are the real time battles.

I am pointing this out because, IIRC, one of the issues at some point was that other games are coming with "epic battles", and fielding a large number of units.
I'm bringing some concrete proof of that.

You're all free to draw your own conclusions, of course.

Lord of the Isles

08-26-2004, 22:05

I never said there weren't any people to whom these things did not matter; merely that they do not matter to me, and if that is the case, then there are probably other people to whom they do not matter either. I'll always play on the slowest setting, and use pause frequently; and it doesn't matter to me if it takes a few hours to finish a battle. I'll enjoy it. And I'll still be playing after a month. I'd be slowing it down to the equivalent of a turn based game no matter what the pacing. Pause might spoil it for you and others, but not for me (and others).

Again, it should be obvious to you that I was staing personal preference and opinion, not public fact.

regards.

Tom

I've always included myself in the pauser's camp for previous TW games; I guess I'm too old and slow to be much of a MP gamer. So I can sympathise with the points you make Tom. But I find the demo just needs so much pausing that it spoils the feeling of immersion in the battle. And before it gets pointed out that it's just a demo to attract a different market to the game I have two things to say:

(1) I've played many of the mods that are around (thanks to all those modders). The only one that excited me was the Carthaginians v Romans bridge battle. Why? Because after the earlier jockeying for position, trying to draw the Romans over, it came down to sending heavy troops over the bridge and watching the slugfest at the other end. A very close thing and I had time to zoom in and watch the graphics (which are superb btw). But no maneuvering required.

(2) If the full game battles play very differently and have controls that are useful (see below) might someone from CA not have said so in a forum?

I've just played the Easymod V2, Romans v Gauls on the Trebia map minus trees etc. Felt a wonderful TW chill of expectation as it started and I paused to check troop types and make a battle plan. Then I tried to put my Romans into a formation. Selected all and tried shift-number. Nothing. Grouped them and tried again; good that worked. After they formed up I moved a few units around to refine the formation. Then wanted to move a line of Triarii to form a reserve: made them a group and tried RightClick-drag. Pink spots all over the place - ah, I remember, have to UNgroup the selected units to get them to form properly (why!?). Now it started ok but at the end of the drag the mouse went too close to another unit so when I let go the button nothing happened. Moved the unit, repeated the line drag, then moved unit back. Now selected all units, grouped them and ordered them forward. As they marched, they reformed into the preset formation (3 lines, missiles at front) that I had just refined!?

Can someone explain to me how anyone who had used the previous TW controls would redesign them to what they are in the demo? Like everyone else I laughed lots at the attempts of the Time Commanders teams to set up and control their armies. Now I find myself having a lot more sympathy with them. And I haven't even mentioned changing unit or formation facing, nor the far-too-fast speed of the battles (even pausing lots I can rarely get time to throw pila before charging infantry reach my legions, and forget it for charging cavalry). Nor other little things that worry me about the design (to get skirmishers to work, unset skirmish mode - after 3 TW titles, is it too much to expect something logical?).

Despite all this, I'll still buy the game. The campaign map looks great and I feel loyalty and gratitude to CA for the thousands of hours of pleasure they have given me. And I'll really try hard to learn to control my armies and get used to the speed of battles. But after the game I hoped for, it's hard not to feel a little disappointed. Not a happy way to mark 100 posts at the Org.

~:(

Gregoshi

08-27-2004, 03:52

Plenty of valid points have been presented on both sides but we should not beat the issues into the ground for a month straight till the release.
Why not Thoros? There's nothing better to do. ~;) ~D Let's be thankful the Egyptians weren't in the demo.~:eek:

Papewaio

08-27-2004, 03:55

What the heck is that supposed to mean? You wanna fight, BRING IT ON! ~:joker:
But seriously, what the fongul do you mean by that? ~:pissed:

~:joker:

Ah... RTW now a RTS and I'm the ranting one while young Capo is the rational one telling me to remain calm... thats when I thought I must be in an alternate reality... ~:joker:

discovery1

08-27-2004, 05:49

spmetla

08-27-2004, 06:18

I don't understood you guys, I have played with MTW for a long time, I ended my last game just a week before.

You only have seen a small demo which probably is based in a old build. Well some of you haven't done it yet but they feel free to be angry too. ~:rolleyes:

But more of your concerns are about game interface, in fact the main problem is that is different from the previous game, logical because is a new one. Which I mean is that after a week of playing you will be adapted to the new interface without any problem. Thinks like camera movement, unit selection, right click ... will be done naturally.

I can't understood your concerns about game atmospera, did you see the trebia battle ?, really?. It looks like a real battle not just MTW were you need some imagination to feel that those sprites are soldiers fighting.

Players impresions are fine but IMHO all these fatal comments may wait after a couple of week before the FINAL and FULL game release.

Did you read what you quoted? I haven't gotten the demo yet. I'm just responding to the two years of interaction here at the coluseum in which time and again I'm let down. The more we or at least I ask or hope for something from CA the more they go the complete opposite direction. This isn't bitching about uniforms and the little descriptions of the units but more that it seems my opinoin and the opinoin of a lot of people here (not sure how many) are being ignored.

I never said or even implied I wouldn't get the game. I'll get the game because I've liked all the previous TW installments and want to see what this one has for myself.

At this point in the development of the game I realize there's nothing I can do to make a change to RTW. I'mm really just venting my frustration with CA, just let me do that. I'll eventually get over it but for now let me vent ;)

There's other ways to make the game more enjoyable to the 10-15 year olds one being make the game have lots of options be it fast movement mode and all those things so that I can go online and have a good game the way it is in STW and MTW without needing to find someone who happens to have the same mod.

Erebus1101

08-27-2004, 06:52

I'm not a veteran of TW but I've played MTW for more than a year and I must say that no other game remained in my HDD for so long. Finally yesterday I could play the demo of RTW and was very pleased, so it surprised me to see a lot of complains in the forum. So I'm gonna also tell my impressions of it:

1) The main point seems to be the game speed, well I think is a matter of getting used to it. I'm of those who pauses a lot and for a long time, so the game speed didn't bothered me, it even looked more realistically (I mean the cavalry speed, however i found strange that velites could run nearly as fast as my cavalry,... probably just my imagination).
About the killing speed, well I think it depends on the situation. I played a few times the Battle of Trebia on "very hard" and I never had to worry about my infantry, the phalanx held for quite a long time and with 3-4 casualties per unit (before i threw the elefant who somehow always manage to disrupt my formation and i bet they kill some in the process). I even threw my barbarian merc cav vs equites head on and they were battling for quite a long time, just like in mtw. However what I found strange in MTW was that even if u charge with cav against their flank or rear, the killing wasn't as fast as I though it should be. So I was pleased to see that when I threw my Sacred Band cav against the equites flank, they died quickly.
So I share the point that speed isn't a problem, u will get used to it, and if things get ugly u can always use the famous pause.

2) Controls aren't a big issue. I played many games which had different ways to control units, camera, etc... as long as the control system is a solid one theres no problem which I think it is for RTW. I myself had to take some time to learn how to use properly the MTW camera and unit controls.

3) About the green lights, I think they are great (I missed them in MTW).

4) Well I too miss the icon bar from MTW, it left more screen for the actual battlefield, but, well i can put up with it...

Probably the only thing i feel disappointed about is the gameplay, its just as the MTW just with better 3D graphics, well thats good enough. I don't think that the way to address army control problems are making the fighting slower, but to change the way the army is controlled, like making pre-battle planning and such things, so that decision during the battle are few but important (it should be just adapting the pre-battle plan to deal with the unexpected situations the opponent brought up).

The battle of trebia in this demo was just like sending a man to execution, you just had to cut the romans. The strategic part was already done and is a pity. Im looking forward to the full release and see how it turns up.