What should CA concentrate on for future releases...

[Michael the Brave]

To start this off,I'll just point out that I hate those people that say:"Hey why the hell unit x swings it's sword like that,or unit y can't do this,blah this game is not realistic".
That's because the point of the Total War series is to put the player in command of huge armies,so the player should be able to control his troops just like a general from those days would.The problem is that he(the player) is not.
Certainly,you just can't call a game realistic when you have to control,micromanage 16 (or more) units,in every phase of the battle - deployment,mellee etc.
A real general would never be able to control all his units like this, and be able to assign new orders every second like in TW games...
Yeah,some people might just say..yeah but it's the only way to control your troops in a game - well,I think not,and I am happy to see that CA has also (to some extent)realised this.
I believe that in this game,the general with better tactic abilities should win, NOT the faster mouse-clicker,unfortunately,right now it's the latter who has an advantage over the first.
CA should concentrate on easing all of the tasks for the player by assigning them to be done by the AI,this has been implemented but it needs much more improvement; for example,in the Trebia demo battle,I should assign all of my cavalry that I am going to flank the romans with to a group and put them under AI control.Then I should be able to give them adivce on what units to preffer attacking.Right now,if I put any units on AI controlled,I cant give them any guiding.
I really like the new interface(looks like the one from Praetorians heh),but there is also one thing no one ever tought of....why in the world do I have to select every one of my individual unit then click on individual enemy units to attack..?? why isn't there an "attack" button like in other RTS's where u click behind or in front of the enemy any every unit will pick an enemy and attack(if you just click behind the enemy units,right now,your units' charge bonus wont apply).
I really thing they should work a lot more on this AI controlling your troops thing as it shows real promise...
I mean it's just ridiculous the way it is now,and I should give general guidance and advices to your troops before battle,and then your control should be very limited after melee starts...
So,what do you guys think ?

[Colovion]

It's nice to know that you hate people who have an opinion you don't share.


Certainly,you just can't call a game realistic when you have to control,micromanage 16 (or more) units,in every phase of the battle - deployment,mellee etc.

I dislike your view on this. It seems you think that anyone arguing for historical accuracy on one point must be a History Purist and can't abide to play a video game that has a camera, birds eye view of the battle ground which the General wouldn't have had. You realize this is a video game, right?

[fester]

It's nice to know that you hate people who have an opinion you don't share.



I dislike your view on this. It seems you think that anyone arguing for historical accuracy on one point must be a History Purist and can't abide to play a video game that has a camera, birds eye view of the battle ground which the General wouldn't have had. You realize this is a video game, right?

I think the thing that makes TW great is it is as realistic/accurate as it can be. There are plenty of games out there for people who like to fight with giant squid and mind control so the more historicaly correct TW can be the better.

[Colovion]

I think the thing that makes TW great is it is as realistic/accurate as it can be. There are plenty of games out there for people who like to fight with giant squid and mind control so the more historicaly correct TW can be the better.

Agreed

[quadalpha]

It's nice to know that you hate people who have an opinion you don't share.



I dislike your view on this. It seems you think that anyone arguing for historical accuracy on one point must be a History Purist and can't abide to play a video game that has a camera, birds eye view of the battle ground which the General wouldn't have had. You realize this is a video game, right?

It seems that you've ignored the rest of his post. Notice that he is arguing for more realism and accuracy, and has not said anything against history purists either. The first sentence, if I understood it correctly, is more against people who argue over petty details over what he sees as much more important problems, the discussion of which takes up the rest of his post.

And also, I submit that sarcasm is not the best way to welcome new posters voicing their opinions.

[Colovion]

It seems that you've ignored the rest of his post. Notice that he is arguing for more realism and accuracy, and has not said anything against history purists either. The first sentence, if I understood it correctly, is more against people who argue over petty details over what he sees as much more important problems, the discussion of which takes up the rest of his post.

And also, I submit that sarcasm is not the best way to welcome new posters voicing their opinions.

I never missed the rest of his post, but the beginning of his thread muddied the following paragraphs.

[exarchi]

Delete and Ban.

THREAD STOP.

http://netace.us/custom/images/stop-sign.jpg

[exarchi]

Oh, and what CA should concentrate in the (possible) future games of TW series:
Not releasing any information whatsoever (no demo, no pics or vids) before the release so that ungrateful sobs couldn't whine.

[Essex_Cohort]

It's just a demo, & there is still a month untill it is released, so this is not a 100% representation of how the full game will eventually play.

Not everyone will like it off the bat, but thats a fact of life. And perhaps the comments people are making, are to point out weaknesses in the game, that maybe even the developers might take note of before releasing the game, and improve it for all of us ?

[Michael the Brave]

It seems that you've ignored the rest of his post. Notice that he is arguing for more realism and accuracy, and has not said anything against history purists either. The first sentence, if I understood it correctly, is more against people who argue over petty details over what he sees as much more important problems, the discussion of which takes up the rest of his post.

And also, I submit that sarcasm is not the best way to welcome new posters voicing their opinions.

Ahh,someone finally understood what I tried to say...heh,sorry,it was kinda late at night when I posted this and didn't fully realise that by saying 'hate' I could spark off such reactions... :tomato:
By "hate",I've meant that I disagree with the people that seem to talk all day about tiny historical unaccuracies,while they ignore the striking fact that babysitting 16 units on the battlefield is tottaly unrealistic.
They should do everything they can to help aid the player and micromanaging,as this game STILL is (altough many would disagree) a CLICKFEST.
I just expressed my view that the way to go would be to improve the AI capabilities to help and control player's units - and yes the player should still be able to control all of his units at any time,while giving the AI controlled units some general advice on what to do when engaging the enemy.
I hope that I've clearded that up now....so,now do you people GET IT ...?? ~:wacko:

[Colovion]

Ahh,someone finally understood what I tried to say...heh,sorry,it was kinda late at night when I posted this and didn't fully realise that by saying 'hate' I could spark off such reactions... :tomato:
By "hate",I've meant that I disagree with the people that seem to talk all day about tiny historical unaccuracies,while they ignore the striking fact that babysitting 16 units on the battlefield is tottaly unrealistic.
They should do everything they can to help aid the player and micromanaging,as this game STILL is (altough many would disagree) a CLICKFEST.
I just expressed my view that the way to go would be to improve the AI capabilities to help and control player's units - and yes the player should still be able to control all of his units at any time,while giving the AI controlled units some general advice on what to do when engaging the enemy.
I hope that I've clearded that up now....so,now do you people GET IT ...?? ~:wacko:

sorry, I was having a bad day

you're right that there are other ways to do it, and yea - disagree is a better word

~:cheers:

[sunsmountain]

Oh, and what CA should concentrate in the (possible) future games of TW series:
Not releasing any information whatsoever (no demo, no pics or vids) before the release so that ungrateful sobs couldn't whine.

Ignoring your own STOP sign also helps.

To answer michael, I agree it would be nice, but it's really difficult to program a working AI in the first place, let alone one that understands 'player intention'. It can work against you, consider when the cavalry arrives in the correct spot, but has nothing to do. Where should they go next? You give it targets but some targets are closer than others, which one?

I like the idea of letting units auto-charge anything that comes in their way, but that can also work against you. Consider only a few enemy units stayed in that spot, and don't need to be charged/attacked at all.

You know, what if they move?

[Del Arroyo]

I think that a more realistic command and control system would be great, and quite possibly more fun to play, but the technical obstacles at this point are pretty large.

The basic paradigm has long been established in a long list of Old and Honourable wargames and the concept wouldn't need too much revamp to work with the TW model. Basically, You would only be able to directly control a certain-sized section of units, and the rest would have to either be assigned to fellow generals, or left under the independent command of their captains.

Before the battle, you would give independent generals and captains certain orders and directions. During the battle, you would only be able to directly control your own section, and your subordinates would carry out your orders to the best of their ability. You would be able to send them new orders, which would take a certain amount of time to arrive, and would have a certain chance of being intercepted or lost-- depending on distance and enemy activity.

Indpendent commanders would make some effort to react to changing circumstances, with the general's ability to adapt obviously being more sophisticated than that of a lone battallion commander. There would also be a certain chance that a cowardly, incompetent, arrogant, or even a treacherous commander (especially an allied or mercenary general), would screw-up or ignore part or all of your orders.

..

To make this work, the battle sequences would have to work a bit differently. A Meeting Engagement would begin with a timed phase during which each side would observe the other marching troops into initial positions. After this phase, both sides would have the option of withdrawing to their camp.

If one side withdraws and the other does not, the side left on the field would have the option of pursuing and attacking the enemy at their camp (which might be fortified).

If neither side withdraws, both would have a period of time in which to assign battallions to generals and give initial orders, for instance-- Numidian King A, attack Roman left cavalry wing, wheel to attack rear of infantry column. Then the battle would begin.

For battles other than Meeting Engagements, things would work a bit differently. For a Camp Assault, everything would be the same except that neither side would be able to withdraw before the battle (and there would be a baggage train and/or fortifications on the field). During an Ambush, the ambusher would be able to deploy and give orders normally but without being able to see the enemy, and the ambushee would be automatically deployed in a marching column (as per RTW preview), and only be able to assign units to leaders (no initial orders).

..

The design work necessary for such a system is considerable, and the AI development mammoth. It would also be nice to have about ten times more men in each unit, and it would also be nice if we all had 7.4 terrahertz mainframe computers to play on.

All in all, a next NEXT generation concept if you ask me, but we'll see what the prog-whizzes come up with. As generations go nowadays, someone might try it in a few years.

DA

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The problem michael is that for just about everyone who played the previous games the ability to control your units on the battlefield is the whole point of the game. In rome it is a clickfest but in the others it isn't. The point of the game is to have fun really and and making a few decisions at the start of the battle and letting the ai do it for you would not be fun for me. A good general has to change his strategy on the battlefield. If you make the game as realistic as possible it would be an rpg not a strategy game.

[Del Arroyo]

If you make the game as realistic as possible it would be an rpg not a strategy game.

On the contrary, Kojiro-san, it is my opinion that one would have more than enough planning to do before-hand, and more than enough direction to give during the actual battle. If implemented properly, such a system would liberate the player from a sea of "small stuff" and allow him to focus on true strategy. :bow:

DA

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If you focus to much on strategy you lose sight of tactics...

[Colovion]

focus too much on tactics and you lose sight of your mind

[ah_dut]

i believe that CA need a better control system, the rtw one is a clickfest and way to fast. there is too little room for strategy.

[exarchi]

I'd just like to point out that it is a clickfest for a simple reason: you cannot control 20 cohorts with the keyboard effectively.

thx, now stop whining

[Ludens]

Though it would be a nice and realistic touch, there is one problem: the AI never does things the way you would have done it. I can see myself ordering an AI commander to flank:

'No! Not my elite Numidian Cavalry up front! The're going to get charged! Pull back! Pull Back! Aargh! All right :deactivates AI:, I'll do it myself!'

And given that skirmish and auto-aim AI are still not implemented properly, I don't think the AI is quite up to this kind of sophistication. For this to work satisfyingly, the AI has to be at least as good as a human.

I have heard that it would be possible to split up your army and place different parts under control of the AI, and you could give basic orders to the AI. However, this is not the same as sub-groups with specific tasks.

[Del Arroyo]

I'm not sure whether the AI would have to be as good as the human, but it would have to be tactically competent. There is currently a ways to go, I agree.

But remember-- the goal is not for the AI to make decisions FOR you. The goal is for YOU to make the decisions and have the AI carry them out.

DA

[ShellShock]

Never having played any wargames, it is difficult for me to assess whether I would enjoy a TotalWar game as described by Del Arroyo, where you are giving out orders to your generals, and let them get on with the actual fighting.

I enjoy the fast and furious battles in the demo, and being able to flank around the enemy and sending my cavalry crashing into the rear, directly under my control. However, like many others, I don't want RTW to be a clickfest (especially as my joints protest at the strain), and would not mind if attack speeds were slower.

Unfortunately for some, the biggest consideration for CA is probably popularity. They and Activision have invested a lot of money into RTW and need to get significant sales; I think this more than anything is dictating the future of the game. I can't see much market for a traditional wargame rendered as a computer game, no matter how worthy it is. Plus, programming a really intelligent AI is very difficult (and expensive).

[Michael the Brave]

Well,I did a few experiments with the "Put group under AI control" command...and it's tottaly useless...in the battle of Trebia,if you put your whole army under AI control,it will charge the romans frontally,and the flanking cavalry will just arrive when your main force is alread defeated...also your general will be the first one to get killed...

[Papewaio]

I'd just like to point out that it is a clickfest for a simple reason: you cannot control 20 cohorts with the keyboard effectively.

thx, now stop whining

Interesting post. Would you care to explain why with 16 units it was fairly easy to control yet now with 20 it is not? Or better why when you have less then 16 units in RTW it is still far harder to control then MTW or STW?

It may have something to do with one or a combination of the following:
1) Interface.
2) Combat cycle speed.
3) Morale.
4) Lag in command speed.
5) Animation cycle response.
6) Group comands reduced.
7) Short cut keys like maintaining current facing after moving etc removed.

[Michael the Brave]

Interesting post. Would you care to explain why with 16 units it was fairly easy to control yet now with 20 it is not? Or better why when you have less then 16 units in RTW it is still far harder to control then MTW or STW?

It may have something to do with one or a combination of the following:
1) Interface.
2) Combat cycle speed.
3) Morale.
4) Lag in command speed.
5) Animation cycle response.
6) Group comands reduced.
7) Short cut keys like maintaining current facing after moving etc removed.


It does(except 4 which I think is a realistic thing),but even with those things improved,it will still be hard to control 20 units,because you have to click all over the place.Also I have a question,if I click behind some enemy units,will the charge bonus apply when my troops make contact ?

[Emren]

Michael,

It seems to me that you have 2 main "wishes" for the future development for the TW series - correct me if I'm wrong:

1) Better AI during combat (and who doesn't wish for this)
2) More realistic control - whatever that entails

Since number one is self-evident, I'll focus on number two, and try to describe one way I'd like to see the game developed. My idea will limit the 'clickfest'-ing. Not all will agree with me, but that's not expected! :)

Alright, here goes:

Time delay player orders. If CA introduce a system of Time delay during combat, I think this will improve the realism. From the time the player gives an order, there is a time delay. Not a standard time delay, mind you, but a dynamic one. When the battle begins and your general is close to his troops, and no troops are involved in any combat or ranged attacks, there is minimal delay. Troops with higer valor/morale have a lower delay. Generals with high command ratings lower delays. Units on the move recieve a slight increase in their time delay, running units even more and charging uits yet even more. As the battle progresses, and units get imbroiled in battle, time delays increase. When a unit is in a melee, there is a high delay. When the general is actively fighting, there is a high delay. The further away a unit is from the general, the higher the time delay is. Time delays accumulate, so a cavalry unit that is far away, under fire and with low morale will take longer to execute your order (unless it's a withdraw order) - and it will take THAT long before you can issue another order to that unit!

Practically, a small graphic representation with the unit will tell you if the unit is eligible to recieve an order, as well as the time delay imposed when giving the order. I don't expect time delays to usually be more than 5-10 seconds, but in the extreme examples time delays may be up to 30 seconds. However, this all depends on the pacing of the battle - I haven't played the RTW Demo much, as my system is too small, but I read that the pacing is on the fast side. I believe my idea will, if not reduce the battle pace per se, it will make controlling your units feel more realistic and reduce clicking. You also need to weigh your decisions more carefully, because if you send a unit into harms way, you cannot easily or immediately give a counterorder.

My 2 cents.

[Michael the Brave]

Yeah,I really like your idea there Emren,and there already is a little time delay after you issue orders to units,but I don't really know why they implemented it(altough it's cool) because the pace of the battles is fast enough already...

[Emren]

Yeah, Michael, I know there's a small delay. But the current delay doesn't stop you from issuing a new order to that same unit immediately. I suppose it should only apply when issuing an order that involves a new destination for the unit - giving out a run order to a unit on the move should not be delayed. I think it would work well.

[Del Arroyo]

I'm not sure, Emren, that sort of a system sounds a bit arbitrary to me. It would definitely change things up, but the problem is this-- I see no clear argument for it, either in history, or in direct and specific remedies for precisely defined problems. When people get annoyed with it, that argument would be crucial.

Another problem I see is that it does nothing to expand the player's options, it simply restricts them in the name of "gameplay". If someone were going to go to all the trouble to program and balance a new C&C system, one would hope it would be more than a mere reaction.

DA

[Emren]

Del Arroyo,

It's not arbitrary, since the delay penalties are very specific to certain events and situations. The historical justification is this: If we assume that the player takes the place of the commanding officer (the general), then it is only reasonable that he cannot command all units at all times perfectly. We (the general) have way to much information compared to reality. At best, the general would use signals and runners to relay orders - hence the justification for a command delay. It simply was not possible to give orders and change them a second later, like it is in TW.

If you follow this logic, as well as accept my basic assumption, I think that what I suggested makes sense. I know I'm not addressing any specific problem as such, merely suggesting a new way of improving realism. And you're absolutely right in that it doesn't expand the players options - rather the opposite - but it requires a better tactical judgement, since mistakes are more costly. I realize that it might lead to frustration for some - fortunately, I'd imagine that if any system like this was introduced, CA would make it optional! ~:)

[Del Arroyo]

Well, I suppose a major problem I'd have with it is the "one order at a time" thing. I mean, you don't think these guys had more than one runner? ~;) Also, I don't know about the veritable host of factors you mentioned for judging the ETA-- a simple distance formula seems better to me, maybe with a certain chance of being intercepted if it must travel through a hot area.

And it would not be particularly realistic in the sense that people back then had a solution for long lines of communication-- subordinate commanders! ~:p Simply cutting off the player's control of the flanks without any mitigating options seems pretty limiting to me.

While your concept is simple to program and inspired indirectly by historical fact, I have a feeling that it would just change gameplay rather than truly improve it.

MHO, of course.

A wise man once said: For every problem there is a solution, that is simple, easy and wrong.

DA

[Phatose]

Of course, the obvious point here is that a player is not the general. TW is simply not a role playing game, and like most stategy games, the player's role is one of a primal force, not an individual being. M:TW and S:TW both clearly demonstrated this by allowing us to continue our battles after the general dies.

You're closer to being the command structure of a people then you are to being their general. The player is simultenously in control of many exchangable people - the general of any particular battle, but simultenously his lieutenants and commanders, and you're quite capable of body-jumping into the next in the chain of command whenever any of these people dies.

And that's not even getting into the generation-spanning strategic map.

[Emren]

On subordinate commanders: True. This is why I suggested that all orders which do not involve a new destination are executed without delay - like hold, fire-at-will, wedge, and so on.

Improving gameplay: Whether or not it's an improvement is of course highly subjective. I think it improves realism - which is argueably not the same as gameplay. But if it's an optional, then I don't see what the harm is.

Phatose: I know that the player is not the general in the strictest sense of the word. The player controls whoever is in charge, at any given point in space and time. I'm not advocating that TW be changed into a RPG, at all. I'm merely suggesting a way to improve upon the simulation aspect of battles.

[Michael the Brave]

Well, I suppose a major problem I'd have with it is the "one order at a time" thing. I mean, you don't think these guys had more than one runner? ~;) Also, I don't know about the veritable host of factors you mentioned for judging the ETA-- a simple distance formula seems better to me, maybe with a certain chance of being intercepted if it must travel through a hot area.

And it would not be particularly realistic in the sense that people back then had a solution for long lines of communication-- subordinate commanders! ~:p Simply cutting off the player's control of the flanks without any mitigating options seems pretty limiting to me.

While your concept is simple to program and inspired indirectly by historical fact, I have a feeling that it would just change gameplay rather than truly improve it.

MHO, of course.

A wise man once said: For every problem there is a solution, that is simple, easy and wrong.

DA

Well it seems that you took the words out of me mouth ~:cheers:
But I'm not to sure if CA will consider such things,just think that they would have to rework a lot of details in TW to implement them.
Knowing that they have already implemented AI cotroled units on the player's side,why not improve the feature so that you can give custom orders to the AI,like "go into a flanking position then charge their left flank,attack any type of unit,prefferably infantry" - so you should be able to 'build' phrases like this so that there is no confusion for what the AI has to do,and I don't think this is going to take to much effort in AI programming,because the AI only has to do what you tell it,relying on a set of parameters you specify.
Btw,anyone played the game "Black & White" - now that game had some AI !

[Ja'chyra]

This is what I think.

It would be pratically impossible to have a totally realistic control method, and, I don't think it would be so enjoyable. Most decisions on tactics would have been made before the battle even started based on the terrain, troops available, what forces you are facing and information gathered about the commanders. You would then place your captains in command of the most suited troops for their part and explain what you wanted them to do without, I believe, regulating their moves step by step e.g. allow them options and initiative. The reason you could allow them is that you have chosen them and trained them to compliment your style of fighting and allocated them to suitable tasks e.g. you wouldn't have some good at hit and run tactics holding the centre of the line or a heavy cav specialist in command of horse archers. On the day of the battle the orders would be amended to suit if possible, but if you've sent cav to hide in woods ready for a rear attack it wouldn't be advisable to send runners to them and give away their positions. Once the battle actually begins communicating with individual units would be extremely difficult and you would have to rely heavily on your delegated commanders.

In terms of the game I see it as you are actually playing the general and, to some extent, the captain of every unit. Obviously this has advantages and disadvantages such as all of your captains understand the exlicit details of your plan, cos it's you ~:eek: , but it means you have to jump between all the units and the actual delegation is drastically deminished. That said I like it the way it is, in RTW the battle is a lot faster, I only played the demo, but I believe this to be a good thing where a wrong click can be construed as a wrong decision or where your captain doesn't do exactly what you want them to do.

I am happy with the demo and see no reason why I wont be happy with the game, for those who want total reality I would only say that there is a reason why there are so few really successful generals in history.

Anyhow, that's just me ~:wave:

[Del Arroyo]

The reason, Ja'Chyra, that history produced so few successful generals, is in my opinion a simple lack of practice. A computer game offers a zero-stakes environment in which you can mess around and learn all you want-- people will adapt to practically any interface, as long as it is FUN.

As I said before, I would envision the battle phase broken down further. There would be maybe two or three minutes for both sides to arrange troops in their deploy zones-- and watch what the other side is doing, from a distance. Then there would be maybe three to five minutes to assign leaders and give initial orders.

I think that purely from a dramatic perspective, this sequence of events is more given to anticipation and suspense. Instead of just running in there in a compact formation with a general idea of bombarding your enemy and waiting for the right moment to double-click behind his line, you actually have the opportunity to see him deploying and think and plan ahead (and then hope it doesn't fudge up).

At any rate, I'm not saying that the current system is whack or that I won't enjoy RTW. I just think that the system I've described would be nice, and I've tried to show how it would be both feasible and fun. It is, in my opinion, a logical future step.

Personally, I'm very much looking forward to RTW the way that it is.

DA

[Ja'chyra]

Exactly my point Del Arroyo, you get one crack at it and either you win or in all probability you're dead or captured.

I also believe that almost all of the people who think they could do it wouldn't hack it as an actual general, and this is not an insult, who here could make all the strategic and tactical plans as well as the logistics knowing that their decisions will mean life or death for thousands of people? Who could send thousands of people to their deaths and still sleep at night? And who could make these decisions while actually on the battlefield?

But, we're lucky, it's only a game ~:) and I am looking forward to it being released. ~:cheers: