On realism and the kill rate - RTW is a game! [Archive]

sapi

10-10-2004, 02:31

Right, i'm sure anyone who has visited these forums since rome came out has seen the complaints on realism, on how fast units are killed, and a horde of other things. What i think people are missing is that Rome Total War was designed first and foremost to be a game. No, it was not made to be the perfect simulation of warfare in roman times, but just to be something that is FUN. If RTW was perfectly realastic, then it would not be as enjoyable a game, as some factions (read: romans, carthage, greeks etc.) would be overwhelmingly powerful, and some would be extremely weak. Now while some factions do have weak/strong militarys, this is balenced by something else, such as an advantageous trade position or financial problems. If you want a historically accurate game, well, download one of the mods (and boy they came out quick), but if you just want a fun bit of gaming, play RTW and enjoy.

There have also been some complaints about the kill rate, and how some units are overpowering. In roman times, people were killed very slowly (no machine guns :)), but would you really get fun out of sitting in front of your monitor, watching your units kill the enemy painfully slowly? I don't think so. I would get more enjoyment out of a game that is focused on the tactics that you can pull off, and if done successfully, hope to win the battle by using. This is RTW. Would you really like to have it so that your only chance to win a seige is to attack when you outnumber the defenders 3 to 1, where archers can kill entire units in a few volleys? Where your best chance to win said seige is to starve out the defenders? That's not fun, but that's what it was like.

I'm not saying that RTW is perfect; it certainly is not, but try to think of it as a game, something you get fun out of, and you might begin to like it a little more.

Colovion

10-10-2004, 02:47

I stopped reading after you said to use tactics with fast kill rates.

HAHAHA! that made my night

The Hun

10-10-2004, 02:48

Arakasi

10-10-2004, 03:26

I think the kill rate and speed does need to be reduced, but not to as slow as MTW was. Somewhere in between vanilla RTW and MTW is fine with me, and that's what I've been working with.

sapi

10-10-2004, 05:27

DisruptorX

10-10-2004, 07:10

Medieval had a slider for all of you ADD kiddies, RTW just has overdrive as the default. Thus, out of the box, RTW is quit-to-desktop-in-anger bad.

Ptah

10-10-2004, 07:23

In real life usually a group of men who are dying too fast tend to back up and regroup instead of staying there and getting their guts poked out. Try controlling individual units as much as possible and you'll see that they don't melt away like some people claim.

The kill rate and moving speed is all fine. Its the players that fail to cope with RTW.

On the other hand, considering the difficulties of one man controlling multiple units with a mouse, it would have been good to have some more control options such as "passive mode" for the infantry, where the infantry would engage but not at full force but sort of act like in a "skirmish" manner. This kind of option would have been very nifty so you could set your men to engage but not stick around at difficult attacks, but gradually retreat as they are fighting, so you could go to control some other units while the rest of the soldiers in this mode fight on.

DisruptorX

10-10-2004, 07:27

The kill rate and moving speed is all fine. Its the players that fail to cope with RTW.
.

I can "cope" with the very much not fine kill rate and moving speed. The problem is that it isn't fun in the least. Any game that has me swearing at my units is not relaxing or enjoyable to me at all. I own warcraft 3, I'd play it instead if I wanted green unit markers, a 1/4 screen interface, unit confirmations, druids, and speedy gameplay(although still slower than RTW). The differance is that WC actually has pathfinding and fewer bugs.

chemchok

10-10-2004, 07:48

sapi

10-10-2004, 08:17

How to enjoy 101:

Play as the romans, and attack a weak faction such as the gauls, but so that the battle will be fairly even. Only use infantry. Watch your good troops plow through the warbands, but slowly as there are so many of them. Enjoy the animations.

Red Harvest

10-10-2004, 08:45

I think the kill rate is okay, but i see your point about a single charge killing an entire unit - it's just stupid. On the topic of kill rates, has anyone noticed that a unit on the top of a wall will always fight to the death instead of routing? Whether intentionall or not, it's a nice touch.

Ok, i was exaggerating about the archers killing in a single volley, but they did do a lot of damage. Archers are stronger in RTW than in MTW and this is much better :)

The kill rate really hurts the battle experience, so I hope they either cut it considerably or give us an option to slow it down. In MTW the battles were much more fun to command and watch. Fortunately, the strategic game is more interesting in RTW.

The archery for the "elite" units is certainly overdone. I see more elite archers/slingers than standard units in battle. Archery was not very powerful in this time period. The Greeks did well facing hordes of them, and the Romans didn't put an emphasis on it either.

Both STW and MTW's archery models had more depth to them from what I've seen so far. In RTW I've never really had a battle where I had any complex archery moves or positioning. I only do minimal movement for height, and trees don't seem to be very important (for archers or anything else.) They get lots of kills though. Shooting at extreme range seems very accurate and doesn't change much with closer ranges. I can turn archers to a nearly perpendicular position and they still ALL shoot? Depth of the archer formation was critical in MTW. Rear ranks didn't shoot. There was friendly fire, and portions of the line that were blocked would not shoot. IMO, bring back MTW's archery model and you have an improvement.

Del Arroyo

10-10-2004, 09:16

It is very sad for me to hear how the tactical game has been so gutted :embarassed: However much the strategic game may have been improved.

hotingzilla

10-10-2004, 09:37

I seem to see arrows flying past their target more often.

So shooting at the backs of an enemy while engaging your own troops with them on the other side actually causes more friendly fire.

csebal

10-10-2004, 11:05

I think people complained because the game changed so drastically from MTW. In MTW you had the time to manoeuvre whereas RTW was super fast, fine if you want to pause and issue commands or are more interested in the strategy map. A game it may be but when a game is given a theme I think things change otherwise why not give out machine guns. I don't want to see cav charge into rear of a phalanx and kill them all in less than 10 seconds. I don't call it painfully slow on MTW, I call it time enough to react or time enough to at least enjoy a battle. Epic it would not be if it lasts only 5 minutes, why bother fighting at all in that case. In any case the most complaints are about issues that leave the online game in a real mess.
And I don't think entire units were ever destroyed in a few arrow volleys
Actually, Cavalry charge is what troubles most it seems.

I agree, that unit speeds are completely messed up, how on earth does a foot soldier outrun my cavalry? Fatigue should have a lot more effect (a fresh light cav has no chance to catch an exhausted heavy cav fleeing the field).

I think those who complain about cav charges have never seen a horse in real life... imagine 100 horses charging into a group of tightly packed man. Those not killed by the horses will be killed by the soldiers sitting on them.

What i do not like is the morale effect of cavalry. Even on very hard, if you have 3 units of cavalry (almost no matter what size) charge into an enemy from the front, they almost instantly start to run. Frankly... i start to think about not using any cav in the game, as i can make 2000+ man armies (spearman and swordsman - gaul) run with about 4 general units (so 4 units of heavy cav, each having about 40 men).

Now here is the catch, my charges never kill too many men, and if the enemy would stand just a few seconds longer, half my cav would be gone. But they do not stand, they just run, and from that point on, the battle is down to a 'coward chase'.

Thats why i think, that the biggest problem with cavalry is its effect on moral, not the fast kill rate. If you are 'dumb' enough and let a cav charge into the rear of a phalanx (or manage to outmaneuver an enemy phalanx with your cav), then that phalanx is as good as dead.

csebal

10-10-2004, 11:07

I have to add, that im posting from an SP standpoint, taking the existance of pause into account. I definitely realize, that the current game pace is kinda fast for MP gaming.

My question there: wouldnt it better to have a game speed multiplier, instead of messing with unit balance and kill rate and stuff, just because MP is too fast?

Akka

10-10-2004, 11:21

Uh, Sapi, sorry, but your post is completely off-the-mark.

Right, i'm sure anyone who has visited these forums since rome came out has seen the complaints on realism, on how fast units are killed, and a horde of other things. What i think people are missing is that Rome Total War was designed first and foremost to be a game. No, it was not made to be the perfect simulation of warfare in roman times, but just to be something that is FUN.
And it can be a game that try to reflect as accurately as possible battles of the times.
I wonder why I see so often this stupid argument "it's a game, it doesn't have to be realistic".
Aren't F1 simulations realistics ?
Why this stupid a priori that fun != realistic ?
(this is even more stupid considering that during the past years, the games who have bring something new in the game world, and had a big success, were precisely the ones including more realism...)

If RTW was perfectly realastic, then it would not be as enjoyable a game, as some factions (read: romans, carthage, greeks etc.) would be overwhelmingly powerful, and some would be extremely weak.
Breaking news : some factions (Romans, Greeks...) ARE overwhelmingly powerful, and some ARE extremely weak.
And that's good. I can't even imagine how ridiculous it would be to see the mighty legions of Rome falling against an inferior number of gallic basic swordsmen.

Now while some factions do have weak/strong militarys, this is balenced by something else, such as an advantageous trade position or financial problems.
No. And that's good.

If you want a historically accurate game, well, download one of the mods (and boy they came out quick), but if you just want a fun bit of gaming, play RTW and enjoy.
If I want a historically accurate game, I buy the most historically accurate game there is, and the Total War serie is precisely that. That's precisely why it upsets so many people that they slowly quit the "accurate and realist" settings to start to tend toward "action wargame for kiddies".

There have also been some complaints about the kill rate, and how some units are overpowering. In roman times, people were killed very slowly (no machine guns :)), but would you really get fun out of sitting in front of your monitor, watching your units kill the enemy painfully slowly? I don't think so. I would get more enjoyment out of a game that is focused on the tactics that you can pull off, and if done successfully, hope to win the battle by using. This is RTW.
I fail to see how slightly reducing the killing speed would make the enemy dying "painfully slowly". It would give the time to actually maneuver the units before the fight ends, and to WATCH the fight.

Would you really like to have it so that your only chance to win a seige is to attack when you outnumber the defenders 3 to 1, where archers can kill entire units in a few volleys? Where your best chance to win said seige is to starve out the defenders? That's not fun, but that's what it was like.
That's actually what's like in the game. And I'm not complaining about it. But you definitely seem to have a strange perception of this game, as you describe how it actually is, and say that if wouldn't be fun if it was actually like that :dizzy2:

I'm not saying that RTW is perfect; it certainly is not, but try to think of it as a game, something you get fun out of, and you might begin to like it a little more.
I think that RTW is one the best game ever made, and certainly the best game I had since several years.
This doesn't make me unable to see the flaws and speak about them in order for them to be adressed.

ChaosDrake

10-10-2004, 12:18

I think that RTW is one the best game ever made, and certainly the best game I had since several years.

yes thats right the best game ever!

and the thing with marching speed and killing speed is a thing mhm some like it some dont like it whats the prob?
you have many options there are 2 mods too reduce the speed install it and enjoy for the guys that think rtw is too fast and i believe those excellent modders here are doing something for everyone of us.
and you can always press the pause button in sp mode!

Akka

10-10-2004, 12:21

As I said, it's not because you like something, that you can't criticize it.
MTW had a crappy diplomatic system, that was improved in RTW. Because people complained about it.
It's not that MTW was a bad game, it was an excellent one. But that doesn't prevent people to see the flaws and adress them.

Well, RTW is excellent, but it has flaws. Among these flaws, a too fast killing rate. Don't see what's the problem to tell it to CA.

The Hun

10-10-2004, 13:16

[QUOTE=Ptah]

The kill rate and moving speed is all fine. Its the players that fail to cope with RTW.

QUOTE]

Hah!!! Yes it is all just fine......I think not. MTW I played MP only, here on RTW I decided to give SP a try. The AI will just use rush tactics, this is fine, just throw in your forces and within minutes you have the outcome! Is that enjoyable? You have no replay to go back and watch 'close up' so there you go, a so called huge epic battle settled in no time at all. Do you think chasing archers with cav and not being able to catch them is fine?
CA do a lot of research into historical units and such, how can people say it is not meant to reflect history, that it is just a game?
Yes we can all use a mod to get accuracy, I already do, the point is why should it be necessary?
As DisruptorX said...I can cope but at what expense? Enjoyment, that's what!!
Akka has explained the situation perfectly IMO

BDC

10-10-2004, 13:19

ChaosDrake

10-10-2004, 14:23

i dont have those problems i always get with my cav routers only when its cav then i dont get em.
for me is rome total war perfect and i think for many others too.
and you can use tactics!
look on the keyboard there is a thing looks like that "P" press it and you have the time too make decisions, that is what i used when i bring a huge force into battle, with smaller forces is it not necessary(for me).
the first time ive played rome i thought oh my god thats crap, but later it was in my eyes the best game ever.
you must see it like this the first game of the total war series was shogun, then came medieval and now rome.
for me who buy first medieval and later shogun total war, is shogun the crappiest game ever. for other not who buy it first.
thats the same here you think all it must be the same like medieval but its not medieval this is something new.
i hope you understand what i mean.

The Hun

10-10-2004, 16:01

I can understand you ChaosDrake but you will not be able to press 'P' in the multiplay foyer and the fact that using pause is why many people say the game speed is ok is the very reason why I think it is way too fast. That and the fact that armies have never moved like that

Tyrac

10-10-2004, 19:27

I want a slider where I can CHOSE ANY SPEED I WANT from stop to triple speed.

The game is too fast. Right now a battle is
Deploy
Start battle
PAUSE
look at everything
arrange and give orders
Unpause
5 sec or less PAUSE
Re order units etc
unpause
.05 sec
Pause
tell units to RUN :P
Unpause
watch for 5 sec as the uits start to make contact
Pause
Fix my units that are supposed to be grouped but are acting like they are not.
SCREAM AT THE STUPID ARCHERS as they take out my front line troops.
unpause
watch 3 units die and route as my cav flanks them and charges
pause
try to sort out the units that are in the broken ones and turn off my stupid archers before they slaughter my cavalry.
etc.etc.etc.

I want to WATCH THE FIGHT dammit. I do not want to pause more then not.
PLEASE let me slow the speed down without useing mods that change things and may effect balance in unintended ways.

Red Harvest

10-10-2004, 20:09

and you can use tactics!
look on the keyboard there is a thing looks like that "P" press it and you have the time too make decisions, that is what i used when i bring a huge force into battle, with smaller forces is it not necessary(for me).

If I have to use pause repeatedly to use tactics (and I do)...then the game is running much too fast. Stopping the action every few seconds saps much of the fun out of it. STW and MTW battles were more entertaining for me. With MTW I would pause some battles a few times to get initial arrangements, deal with forest unit placement, etc, but I let the battles run in real time for the most part. RTW battles look better, but it all happens so fast I don't get to watch them, so much of the eye candy is lost on me.

Colovion

10-10-2004, 20:15

^ you got it

and it makes me angry >:(

Accounting Troll

10-10-2004, 20:33

I don't have a problem with killing speed as most battles in clasical times tended to be short affairs. Even in medieval times, a battle that lasted more than two hours was considered to be unusual.

According to Julius Ceaser's account of the Gallic Wars, the Gauls were quick to rout when things started going wrong. In the battles between the Greek city states, the weaker side would also break and run very quickly.

Hannibal_Barkar

10-10-2004, 22:13

I didnt consider the speed to be much of a problem ( I didnt do MP yet) and somehwat liked the fast pace. Now I installed the RomeTotalrealism mod, because I was getting annoyed by the campaign issues of the game. The kill speed /movement speed mods are built into that mod. I must say that surprisingly I like the battles much much better now.

I suggest everybody try the kill speed / movement mods first and then post an opinion on whats best :P

~:cheers:

H.

Ptah

10-10-2004, 23:32

The annoying thing about the kill rate is that I rarely have any time to simply sit back and watch the melees close up during a major battle. I'm too busy monitoring my flanks, chasing down routers, and watching out for friendly fire. I mean, why did CA make such gorgeous battle animations, only to speed up the pace so much you can't even enjoy it?

You could always use the replay to sit back and watch the flick. Or were you expecting to do that during you were in control of the battle? Or do you mean campaign battles?

Now here is the catch, my charges never kill too many men, and if the enemy would stand just a few seconds longer, half my cav would be gone. But they do not stand, they just run, and from that point on, the battle is down to a 'coward chase'.

Wouldn't you be compelled to run when you suddenly feel somebody's coming into impale your head? Be it four guys or forty guys charging in from behind, a band of soldiers engripped in fear do not think about what is going on - they think about how to run away and live. If you think fighters locked up in a brutal melee turn around, stop and think 'oh, its only four guys, not a problem' then go merrily fighting again then you've got the wrong picture.

And it can be a game that try to reflect as accurately as possible battles of the times. I wonder why I see so often this stupid argument "it's a game, it doesn't have to be realistic".

Aren't F1 simulations realistics ?

Why this stupid a priori that fun != realistic ? (this is even more stupid considering that during the past years, the games who have bring something new in the game world, and had a big success, were precisely the ones including more realism...)

The problem lies in hordes of amateuers - us - thinking we have any real experiences fit to comment on reality. Face it - all our conceptions on reality are merely what we interpret through our meager experiences. When's the last time any one of us slashed a knife around someone? Thus in many cases these hordes of amateuers - us - , think that what we think about reality is reality itself. Perhaps, in this case, many people tend to confuse the experiences from one game - MTW - which they personally did not have much trouble with, and mix it up with another game - RTW - which, is out for only a month so far.

Basically the logic behind "realism", "kill rates", "movement speed" comments are based on; "Oops! This is so fast and confusing that I can't adapt to it just yet. Since I had no trouble with MTW, which must be more realistic since I can play that better(since, it is impossible that I, a good player, would never be incompetent so I would need continued practice and experience over time to adapt to something), it must be RTW that's unrealistic"

I fail to see how slightly reducing the killing speed would make the enemy dying "painfully slowly". It would give the time to actually maneuver the units before the fight ends, and to WATCH the fight.

Again. A general's task is to lead his armies to win, not to sit back and enjoy the large-scale gladitorial games.

Outmaneuvering the enemy isn't so hard against AIs since they're stupid.

Against human players, they are under the same conditions as I am. All one needs to be is simply be faster than the other guy. Your brain-eye-hand coordination doesn't automatically increase upon need. How long's this game been out? One month?

Hah!!! Yes it is all just fine......I think not. MTW I played MP only, here on RTW I decided to give SP a try. The AI will just use rush tactics, this is fine, just throw in your forces and within minutes you have the outcome! Is that enjoyable? You have no replay to go back and watch 'close up' so there you go, a so called huge epic battle settled in no time at all. Do you think chasing archers with cav and not being able to catch them is fine?

So you're basing your claims upon some AI algorithm that is inherently and immensely more stupid than humans, that doesn't have even the slightest grip of flexible tactical adaptation? What's that got to do with 'killing speed'? Sounds more like 'we could use a better AI' issue to me.

I use the kill rate and speed mods. It's absolutely unplayable properly otherwise. I STILL need to pause a lot, something I hate doing and didn't need to in MTW or STW. Do these people ride scooters or something?!

It could be that you're slow. Not to be personal or anything, but I'm quite curious as why nobody ever thinks that a problem perceived may be their own, and not the game. (btw, never felt any need to pause anything in campaign mode)

The game is too fast. Right now a battle is
Deploy
Start battle
PAUSE
look at everything
arrange and give orders
Unpause
..... *snip* .....
try to sort out the units that are in the broken ones and turn off my stupid archers before they slaughter my cavalry.
etc.etc.etc.

I want to WATCH THE FIGHT dammit. I do not want to pause more then not.
PLEASE let me slow the speed down without useing mods that change things and may effect balance in unintended ways.

I do the same thing, except I never have to press the 'pause' thing. I don't think I have a Cray computer for my brain, nor do I have 20 fingers and four arms. If I can do it, why can't you? Maybe you should set up practice missions to try and increase your reflexes. Doing the same thing over and over again does not necessarily make you better in it, unless you have a clear goal to become better in it.

I suggest this; try a practice custom battle mission at medium mode.

Enemy(AI) is Greece, 1x General Unit, 4x Archers(gold level arms), the rest of the positions are filled with Armoured Hoplites as much as the money goes. Human player will use no archers, no cavalry, no phalanx using infantry. Practice this until you can consistently beat that without having to use any pause buttons, and then try the campaign battles and tell me if that's too 'fast'.

Besides, if watching the battle is such a big problem, what you might be wanting to ask for is making it able to save replays for campaign battles.

If I have to use pause repeatedly to use tactics (and I do)...then the game is running much too fast.

Or, you're too slow.

Forming defensive lines, archery contests, making minor adjustments matching enemy moves, watching and analyzing everything he does, waiting the enemy to make the first move, giving battle orders and "enjoy the show" as they duke it out...this, is one "version" of reality we got used to, and MTW has got us to believe.

RTW is another and something different. Adapt to it friends.

chemchok

10-10-2004, 23:52

You could always use the replay to sit back and watch the flick. Or were you expecting to do that during you were in control of the battle? Or do you mean campaign battles?

Campaign battles, and yes, I did assume I would be able to enjoy the eye candy while I was in control (and not just in situations where I had overwhelming force).

Puzz3D

10-11-2004, 00:32

I use the kill rate and speed mods. It's absolutely unplayable properly otherwise. I STILL need to pause a lot, something I hate doing and didn't need to in MTW or STW. Do these people ride scooters or something?!

I use 20% slowdown on movement and the fighting speed slowdown mod, and I find the battles are more fun and more realistic. Plus, I can coordinate my units better. I couldn't stand the battles at the default speed. I was going to return the game until I tried these slowdown mods.

Orda Khan

10-11-2004, 00:47

It could be that you're slow. Not to be personal or anything, but I'm quite curious as why nobody ever thinks that a problem perceived may be their own, and not the game. (btw, never felt any need to pause anything in campaign mode)

I do the same thing, except I never have to press the 'pause' thing. I don't think I have a Cray computer for my brain, nor do I have 20 fingers and four arms. If I can do it, why can't you? Maybe you should set up practice missions to try and increase your reflexes. Doing the same thing over and over again does not necessarily make you better in it, unless you have a clear goal to become better in it.

Or, you're too slow.

RTW is another and something different. Adapt to it friends.

YAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNN
....And another genius appears. It's strange but posts like this appeared when MTW was released. Someone who can do anything, with no problem and strangely enough they disappeared a short while after release YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN !!

btw I would not assume people will consider your post that of a 'friend' either

.....Orda

Colovion

10-11-2004, 01:44

The problem lies in hordes of amateuers - us - thinking we have any real experiences fit to comment on reality. Face it - all our conceptions on reality are merely what we interpret through our meager experiences. When's the last time any one of us slashed a knife around someone? Thus in many cases these hordes of amateuers - us - , think that what we think about reality is reality itself. Perhaps, in this case, many people tend to confuse the experiences from one game - MTW - which they personally did not have much trouble with, and mix it up with another game - RTW - which, is out for only a month so far.

Basically the logic behind "realism", "kill rates", "movement speed" comments are based on; "Oops! This is so fast and confusing that I can't adapt to it just yet. Since I had no trouble with MTW, which must be more realistic since I can play that better(since, it is impossible that I, a good player, would never be incompetent so I would need continued practice and experience over time to adapt to something), it must be RTW that's unrealistic"

In battles Generals have time to reposition troops and fill gaps in the lines. Usually there are minutes or hours to do this - Rome gives you about 3 seconds. You seem to love the click-fest Rome has become and have no problem doing that, but people are drawn to the Total War series because they want to be able to use tactics, not have to just charge their lines at the enemies lines and hope for the best.

Again. A general's task is to lead his armies to win, not to sit back and enjoy the large-scale gladitorial games.

Remember how CA built this awesome 3D engine? Yeah, they probably want people to look at it when they're playing.

Outmaneuvering the enemy isn't so hard against AIs since they're stupid.

boy that really makes me feel better about playing this game :rolleyes:

Against human players, they are under the same conditions as I am. All one needs to be is simply be faster than the other guy. Your brain-eye-hand coordination doesn't automatically increase upon need. How long's this game been out? One month?

Sounds more like a click-fest and less like a tactical wargame. "Click faster guys, that's why you suck"

Hannibal_Barkar

10-11-2004, 02:02

Or, you're too slow.

.

and your point is ?

If somebody is "too slow" why not allow him to adjust the battle speed to a point where one is comfy with ?

Heh, even UT had that feature when you trained vs the AI.

~:cheers:

H.

DisruptorX

10-11-2004, 05:04

Oh please. He is basically saying "U ARnt Hardcore enough 2 play RomE"

It isn't fun, which is all that matters. You can give pathetic excuses all day, but that doesn't make the silly looking fast forward speed any more enjoyable.

Ptah

10-11-2004, 09:09

YAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNN
....And another genius appears. It's strange but posts like this appeared when MTW was released. Someone who can do anything, with no problem and strangely enough they disappeared a short while after release YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN !!

And as much, after months and months of experience look how finally people adapted to the differences of MTW compared to STW, and finally learned to stop there incessant whining.

It is exactly because I'm not a 'genius', that I find it difficult to understand why people are having these problems. Or rather, it is natural to have a 'problem' when everything is still new. The MP sessions have changed a lot in basic tactics, and the fights are much more dynamic. While some people loom on the couch whining how the game doesn't play nice to their docile, slow nature, other people are busy adapting to it.

In battles Generals have time to reposition troops and fill gaps in the lines. Usually there are minutes or hours to do this - Rome gives you about 3 seconds. You seem to love the click-fest Rome has become and have no problem doing that, but people are drawn to the Total War series because they want to be able to use tactics, not have to just charge their lines at the enemies lines and hope for the best.

In a real battle, orders are not transmitted to receivers implanted in the soldier's brains, and officers must receive it via flags, messengers, or try to follow a basic set strategy and follow it until somebody comes and tells them "do it this way". In many cases orders are received late, or not received at all - and that's when an army loses.

Besides, your definition of 'tactics' is inherently biased. If making a pretty formation, and being able to manage every micro detail, and having all the time one needs to analyze the other guys behavior is your idea of 'battle tactics' then it indeed worked in MTW, but not in RTW. Fighting the battle and winning depends on how one gains the initiative. 'Making formations' and 'forming lines' leisurely, and just reacting to the other guys movements are passive tactics fit for a defensive.

Think of it this way. If it is the game presses people to react faster and make a habit of quick judgements, then the other player is under the same pressure as yours. It just comes down to how fast you are than compared to the other guy. If your implications were true everybody in the MP rooms would be simply lining the soldiers up and charging them - except the reality of MP is that charging guys doesn't always win. People still counter charges, outmaneuver other people. The only thing different in RTW is that it pays off to be the guy who makes the first move.

Remember how CA built this awesome 3D engine? Yeah, they probably want people to look at it when they're playing.

I'd be looking at them when I don't necessarily want to win. Nobody's stopping anyone from looking at those eye-candy. Ofcourse, since somebody can't watch a battle and direct it the same time its quite natural to expect. Even in the slow-poke MTW MP battles I hardly zoomed in to look at every detail, since a slip of concentration leads to loss.

Sounds more like a click-fest and less like a tactical wargame. "Click faster guys, that's why you suck"

Perhaps you'd be better off playing turn-based tactical games. That'd satisfy your need, no?

and your point is ?

If somebody is "too slow" why not allow him to adjust the battle speed to a point where one is comfy with ?

Heh, even UT had that feature when you trained vs the AI.

That's why there's a 'pause' button for those with slow fingers and brains. Remember?

Oh please. He is basically saying "U ARnt Hardcore enough 2 play RomE"

It isn't fun, which is all that matters. You can give pathetic excuses all day, but that doesn't make the silly looking fast forward speed any more enjoyable.

No. I'm basically saying that this whole "realism" bit is a sham. It's an ego thing, not a gameplay thing. People fail to cope with a new thing and a new pace, and conclude that since there's nothing ever wrong with themselves, naturally it must the game that must be wrong.

Instead of even trying to think about the new implications, or trying to practice to fit in to the new system, they immediately think about reverting a new game into an old one they're already adjusted to. It's basically, "people are afraid of change" sort of thingy.

The fact is there are people in MP rooms who pull off incredible things, and the balance of factions are quickly taking its place. Like everyone else, when I played the demo version I was in a shock since everything seemed to happen so fast and I couldn't do anything. Like everyone else my first reaction was, "wtf, how am I supposed to do anything when everything is this damn fast?"

But after playing the demo over and over again, things started to become better and it made sense. Ofcourse, I was playing the same set of game - who wouldn't be able to adapt to the Battle of Trebia when they practice the same thing again and again, right? But then again, its the same thing with the whole game itself.

Again, try the custom battle under conditions I've posted in my prior post. At first, to my meager skills, it seemed impossible. But now I find that it is very possible. If a someone with grubby hands like me can do it, so can you guys.

Colovion

10-11-2004, 10:12

In a real battle, orders are not transmitted to receivers implanted in the soldier's brains, and officers must receive it via flags, messengers, or try to follow a basic set strategy and follow it until somebody comes and tells them "do it this way". In many cases orders are received late, or not received at all - and that's when an army loses.

Remember how this is a game? Remember how it's all desigened so that troops start doing orders right away? We all know how orders were transmitted. I don't even know why you put this as an argument. You say that Generals may not have had enough time to get orders to the troops - what's your point? This is a game, it was designed so you COULD get orders to the troops on time.

Besides, your definition of 'tactics' is inherently biased. If making a pretty formation, and being able to manage every micro detail, and having all the time one needs to analyze the other guys behavior is your idea of 'battle tactics' then it indeed worked in MTW, but not in RTW. Fighting the battle and winning depends on how one gains the initiative. 'Making formations' and 'forming lines' leisurely, and just reacting to the other guys movements are passive tactics fit for a defensive.

Sounds kind of like what the AI gets to do. Why can't I? Because I can't click as fast as a 12 year old? Should the Competative MP portion say "Not to be attempted by those with Arthritis" ? This also applies to the below paragraph of yours.

Think of it this way. If it is the game presses people to react faster and make a habit of quick judgements, then the other player is under the same pressure as yours. It just comes down to how fast you are than compared to the other guy. If your implications were true everybody in the MP rooms would be simply lining the soldiers up and charging them - except the reality of MP is that charging guys doesn't always win. People still counter charges, outmaneuver other people. The only thing different in RTW is that it pays off to be the guy who makes the first move.

[quote=Ptah]
That's why there's a 'pause' button for those with slow fingers and brains. Remember?

I'm basically saying that this whole "realism" bit is a sham. It's an ego thing, not a gameplay thing. People fail to cope with a new thing and a new pace, and conclude that since there's nothing ever wrong with themselves, naturally it must the game that must be wrong.

Instead of even trying to think about the new implications, or trying to practice to fit in to the new system, they immediately think about reverting a new game into an old one they're already adjusted to. It's basically, "people are afraid of change" sort of thingy.

The fact is there are people in MP rooms who pull off incredible things, and the balance of factions are quickly taking its place. Like everyone else, when I played the demo version I was in a shock since everything seemed to happen so fast and I couldn't do anything. Like everyone else my first reaction was, "wtf, how am I supposed to do anything when everything is this damn fast?"

But after playing the demo over and over again, things started to become better and it made sense. Ofcourse, I was playing the same set of game - who wouldn't be able to adapt to the Battle of Trebia when they practice the same thing again and again, right? But then again, its the same thing with the whole game itself.

Again, try the custom battle under conditions I've posted in my prior post. At first, to my meager skills, it seemed impossible. But now I find that it is very possible. If a someone with grubby hands like me can do it, so can you guys.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/colovion/flash.jpg

csebal

10-11-2004, 11:48

It seems that ptah has fallen to the other side of the horse.

People are complaing, that the game is too fast, or that soldiers die too fast...

OR

People complain, that others complain because they do not like the current mechanics.

Truth is, both of you are right, and neither of you are right at the same time. It all depends on what you like. Again, a clear line should be drawn between MP and SP play, as those are two completely different experiences.

Why don't we agree, that different people have different tastes, and that RTW cant really please us all at the moment. Its pointless to argue about how historically accurate or inaccurate the game is, as it is a game, and its only relation to history is the background the game is based on. Instead of smashing eachother with pointless and equally invalid arguments (those with a degree in ancient history, please raise your hands), we should try to figure out what the game needs, to be better for us all.

Here is my 'wish list':
- speed slider (0%-300+%)
- configuration options (preferably in game, or at least a CFG entry, or moddable data file) for the effects of different combat events, like charges (i would really like charges to be less catasthrophic on enemy moral), loss of men from same troop, loss of general, loss of men from other friendly troops, etc...
- save replay function for SP battles
- extended army size configuration, so we can control different size classes like cavalry, small infantry group, large infantry group, medium infantry group individually.

Maybe if there are enough people looking for a specific feature, CA will consider adding that feature to the game in a future patch. What would you like?

HopAlongBunny

10-11-2004, 14:25

csebal

10-11-2004, 15:32

Guess I'll add my 2cents.

The tactical map is nowhere near as enjoyable as MTW. My only complaint with it was the endless cycling of reinforcements after the battle was truly over.

With this game, that is not a problem. No battle (SP) has yet to see the endless numbers of units that MTW had. The battles are just a joke though. The feel is all wrong.

If I want a click-fest I'll play a FPS; that's not what I want from Total War.I do not see your point here. Plain criticism, no reasons, no ideas how it could be better, just ranting. Somewhat pointless, don't you think? As I mentioned, different people have different tastes. Maybe someone likes RTW the way it is (i kinda like it for example, except for a few minor, but annoying issues).

RTW is different than MTW.. why? If the fact, that its not called Medieval, but Rome isn't enough for you, then there is the time difference, meaning RTW plays a good 1400 years before MTW.

Let's forget MTW for a moment, and concentrate on how we could make the best out of what we've got, and thats called: 'Rome: Total War'.

Orda Khan

10-11-2004, 16:51

Yawn again

......Orda

Aedil

10-11-2004, 17:48

I think both sides should recognize the right of the other one to have their opinion.

Those who say "RTW is a new game, accept it" should perhaps consider that one my not WANT a new game, and that nobody's required to accept a Game as is.

On the other hand, it's of course acceptable to find RTW as is fun. Which is the basic intention of the game.

This discussion is a bit ~:handball:.

That being said, I don't think a large-scale tactical game should be decided by your hand-eye-coordination.

Sure, it should be worthwile to take the initiative, but initiative in a strategic game doesn't really mean that you're quicker in giving orders. It means you FORCE your enemy to do something, not make your enemy do nothing for lack of time...

CBR

10-11-2004, 17:53

The main issue is that in MTW you could use the speed slider if you wanted increased speed.

I dont recall any mods for MTW that increased unit killing/movement speed (maybe cav slightly faster as some in community asked for but never got) but you see lots of people complaining in RTW and want it slowed down.

CBR

DisruptorX

10-11-2004, 19:53

frothing at the mouth searching wildy for his ADD medication.

Lets put it this way. The people who enjoyed the previous total war games enjoyed watching giant battles that were under thier control.

Unfortunately, CA has attempted to appeal to people like you. That is, people think that "strategy" is defined by how fast they can carrier rush their opponents.

You miss the point of our argument, we don't want battles to be somesort of bizarre test of skill, where the players must use the best combination of hot keys and build order to acheive victory. I'm sure that this goes entirely over your head, but most total war fans enjoy the spectacle. Yes, we like building up our empire and revel in watching our men do battle. I suppose that you woudn't understand, because you are too busy trying to figure out the best way for your all-urban cohort army to win multiplayer matches. No one cares what your battle.net ranking is. Most people play for fun, not to compensate for their small member.

Yes, there is a group of people, like me, who play the single player campaign because they enjoy strategy games. You immediately lost any respect from me when you suggested "use the pause button".

Total War is supposed to be about simulating giant battles and watching them play out. You can take your zerg rush and leave. We don't want you, and we don't want to hear about how fast forward mode takes "more skill and U aren't l33t liek me". Go play every other RTS game on the market, they are designed with people like you in mind.

CBR

10-11-2004, 19:56

DisruptorX:

oi! I only bought MTW for MP and expected same thing for RTW but I hate this clickfest.

CBR

BDC

10-11-2004, 21:40

If you want a clickfest play C&C or something... Total War is about flanking and making the enemy route!

ChaosDrake

10-12-2004, 06:18

ive tried out the mod from sage with reducing killing speed its a lil bit better then the original ~D
now is rome total war better hehe but it was good before those mod!
*sneaks out of the room* lol

suggestion for the mp players why dont you use those mod with reducing speed and killing speed? is it not possible? i mean (ive never played mp)
can you change the game name i.e. "only speed mod" or something else?

let us find solutions for this problem! let us ask the modders what they can do for us to solve this problem!
we love all the same game!!! TOTAL WAR RULES!!!
do not harass each other!!! thats not good!
this is the best community ive ever seen!! DO NOT CHANGE THIS!

sorry for my bad english!!! hehe

and at least ENJOY THE GAME!!! BECOME RULER OF THE WORLD!

mfg
chaosdrake

csebal

10-12-2004, 10:44

Yesterday, i havent had the time to react to this thread... as i see, things haven't gotten better since then. :/

First of all:
Aedil wrote:

I think both sides should recognize the right of the other one to have their opinion.
There are different levels of opinion. I usually use three main categories:
- Useless opinion
"Its ugly/bad/uselsss/terrible, and i do not like it!"
This kind of opinion contains no reasoning, no arguments, its simply a statement made to tell other about the personal feelings of the poster. I can't imagine a situation where this kind of opinion should / can be accepted.
- Acceptable opinion
"Its ugly/bad/useless/terrible, because ..."
As you can see, the acceptable kind of opinion contains a very important element: reasoning. It clearly shows your audience, that you gave some thoughts to the matter, and at least have an idea why you like or do not like something.
- Constructive opinion
"Its ugly/bad/uselsss/terrible, because ..., It would be much better this way ..., because ..."
This opinion not only explains why the poster thinks what he thinks, but contains ideas on how to improve the issue at hand.

To the above quote: Sure, everyone has a right to have its own opinion. This however doesn't means, that every opinion has a valid reason to be posted. If you can tell me why a useless opinion should be posted, im all ears. At the moment, i cant find a reason.

DisruptorX wrote:

... You immediately lost any respect from me when you suggested "use the pause button". ...
I think you never really tought about the implications of this sentence.
- First of all, you are looking down at someone, whose only fauls is to play differently than you.
- Then you also imply, that the use of an in-game feature makes one a weaker / lower quality player.
- Finally you forgot to mention why he lost 'your respect' - which i doubt he ever had -, and with this you just managed to hit the useless opinion category on that line.

Please note, that i do not intend to hurt you with this criticism, im just trying to show you how rude and unjust that sentence was.

I don't think, that any of us has the right to criticize the playstyle of the other, as - to my knowledge - none of us has that kind out outstanding experience, that would make him/her qualified to form critics.

Personally, while i have no feelings towards the pause button: its just another game-control. On the other hand, i can respect the feelings of those, who do not like it, and do not try to force my play-style on them.
I can live with the speeds of the game as it is now, though i have to agree, that it could be slower. As i mentioned, a game speed slider, going from 0-300% would be the best solution, which would achieve the desired results without making the game less playable / enjoyable for anyone.

Btw: those who call RTW a click-fest, have obviously never played any game, that truly deserved this title.

ChaosDrake

10-12-2004, 13:08

Yes, there is a group of people, like me, who play the single player campaign because they enjoy strategy games. You immediately lost any respect from me when you suggested "use the pause button".
.

i can live without it ~D

CBR

10-12-2004, 13:32

Technically is easy to play mods in MP. All people have to do is use the same mod and they can use it with no problems. The problem is to get enough to use a mod. Its not fun to sit and wait for ages to get a game going.

RTW MP has more people playing so it might be easier then it was in MTW...we just have to wait and see.

CBR

Scorpion

10-12-2004, 14:01

So.....are you saying that you can´t pause in multiplayer and must give all orders in real time?

Well, that´s enough to convince me to never try it out.

I mean, sure, if a battle of skills and speed to determine who is the better player is what´s fun for you, then hey, go crazy.

But some people (including most tabletop wargamers) like to enjoy the game, plan out the moves in no rush, and just watch the action unfold.

You don´t need to tell me to "go play another game instead". Sure I will, always have. Until the advent of multiplayer campaigning in Total War, multiplayer does not interest me that much.

It´s a funny thing, all these arguments about "it´s a game, and it´s the most fun this way".

Says who? We all have our tastes. These same discussions have been had for most other game genres - in FPS´, some people are bothered that you have to always shoot a german soldier five times until he dies, and that the player can take 59 gunshot wounds without slowing down, and the fans of the game are there to say that "it´s a game, and it wouldn´t be any fun otherwise!"

The point is, realism can be fun. It´s a matter of taste.
I would enjoy FPS´where you´d really be scared shitless about being hit, and where shooting an enemy has a reasonable chance of putting him down.

The same applies to RTW. Being all "gamey" instead of "simulationey" does not make the game inherently more fun - just different. It all depends on what you get a kick out of.

Me, I´m a realism freak, but that only goes so far. I don´t want realism to be a detriment to the game (for instance, I do not want to sit out and wait a 3-hour flight to the target area in flight simulations just because it´s realistic).

Meh, guess I´ve just grown tired of the ol´ "it´s a game!" argument

CBR

10-12-2004, 14:25

Yes no pause in MP. Well in RTW you can have pause or even accelerate time if all players want it but not if youre the only who wants to.

MTW MP could be pretty hectic in a chaotic 4v4 but the 50% increase in run speed in RTW plus the 4 extra units to control is making it plain silly IMO. In MTW it felt like playing a battle now its just a game. And the current lag problems that basically forces you to play with 40 and 60 men units doesnt improve on it either.

CBR

Hannibal_Barkar

10-13-2004, 01:29

and your point is ?

If somebody is "too slow" why not allow him to adjust the battle speed to a point where one is comfy with ?

Heh, even UT had that feature when you trained vs the AI.

That's why there's a 'pause' button for those with slow fingers and brains. Remember?

.

No, sorry I am too slow to hit it and I keep drooling on my keyboard.

Playing the game in motion and having to hit the pause button often are two different things. So your argument is a bit sophistic.

Ptah, the people are complaining about the game speed mainly as a feature of the UI. Why not make them happy ?Any UI that is directed towards a general public, should try to be as comfortable as possible for as many people as possible. So no matter how long your index finger is, no matter what challenge you look for .. this is not the point, if people have a valid complaint about being unable to use a software in a way they desire to use it. I don't see any valid reason why the UI should not include a spoeed slider from 0 to 400 %

H.

DisruptorX

10-13-2004, 01:37

I think you never really tought about the implications of this sentence.
- First of all, you are looking down at someone, whose only fauls is to play differently than you.
- Then you also imply, that the use of an in-game feature makes one a weaker / lower quality player.
- Finally you forgot to mention why he lost 'your respect' - which i doubt he ever had -, and with this you just managed to hit the useless opinion category on that line.

Please note, that i do not intend to hurt you with this criticism, im just trying to show you how rude and unjust that sentence was.

I don't think, that any of us has the right to criticize the playstyle of the other, as - to my knowledge - none of us has that kind out outstanding experience, that would make him/her qualified to form critics.

Personally, while i have no feelings towards the pause button: its just another game-control. On the other hand, i can respect the feelings of those, who do not like it, and do not try to force my play-style on them.
I can live with the speeds of the game as it is now, though i have to agree, that it could be slower. As i mentioned, a game speed slider, going from 0-300% would be the best solution, which would achieve the desired results without making the game less playable / enjoyable for anyone.

Btw: those who call RTW a click-fest, have obviously never played any game, that truly deserved this title.

I believe that a certain someone refered to those who don't enjoy fast forward gameplay as "drooling on the keyboard". My response certainly was not an insult compared to that.

Khorak

10-13-2004, 04:32

Cavalry charges are the main problem. They shouldn't break solid, braced formations so ridiculously easily. Yes I'm fine with them ploughing through a phalanx from behind and formations in combat already, yes I'm fine with the devastation when they catch fleeing enemies. NO they should not pile headlong into disciplined heavy infantry formations from the front. Cavalry should NEVER do this. Even Romans armed as they are with their little swords are still deadly to all but ridiculously heavy cavalry when remaining steadfast and in formation. The less said about what happens to ANY cavalry dumb enough to go headlong into a phalanx the better, as if the horses would obey such stupidity anyway!

Hell, heavy cavalry only reigned supreme in the dark ages because of ill disciplined infantry who weren't much cop compared to the ancient armies that came before them.

econ21

10-13-2004, 10:07

Personally, I don't buy the "it's just a game!" argument. I come to RTW from a historical wargaming background and although RTW is aimed at a wider market, I still find it is a better historical wargame than any other computer wargames of the periods (of which there are few).

I would not be interested in this game if instead of infantry and cavalry it was, say, blobs and squares - something abstract like pawns in Chess. It is the fact that the game represents something "real" that it catches my interest.

Discussions about kill rates etc are fun from a military history point of view because they are essentially about modelling - how do we capture (indeed quantify) key features of combat. The representation of data by a mathematical model is a key feature of much scientific thought. It is harder to model convincingly something like military history than, say, the movement of planets. However, I still find it a very stimulating way of thinking.

More generally, for people who are interested in the historical aspect of Total War, issues of realism are relevant if only to help immersion and suspension of disbelief. Part of the fun of Total War for me is trying to put yourself in the shoes of a historical general - witness the Time Commanders program. However when blatantly unrealistic things exist or happen, it is hard to do this.

Ultimately, people will have different standards about how realistic a simulation they want and when they can suspend disbelief, but I don't think such considerations are irrevelant to many - probably most - Total War players.

Bhruic

10-13-2004, 11:24

The issue of "just a game" is quite simple. When it comes down to "realism" vs "fun", "fun should always win.

Obviously the concept of "fun" is somewhat subjective. But only somewhat. While I'm sure that someone out there would think it "fun" if the game played in true real-time, which means that it actually takes you 6 months to play a single turn, the majority of the population would not.

In the same way, I consider the current kill-rate system (specifically for charging cavalry) to be "unfun". I don't particularily care if it's realistic or not. In fact, it could be the absolute perfect representation of realistic, and that wouldn't matter at all. To me, it makes the game boring. Playing as the Carthagians, I haven't built a single infantry unit for anything but garrison duty or siege equipment. It'd be stupid. The cavalry are so overpowering that there is no other choice. Now, this may be entirely realistic (although I doubt it), but it certainly doesn't make for a fun game.

For me, that's what "just a game" is. I want a game that is fun to play first, and realistic second.

Bh

Papewaio

10-13-2004, 11:37

Like a good book a good game should have suspension of disbelief.

In other words if making it too unrealistic makes you go 'Oh another Hollywood movie where the bullets make the bad guy fall back fifty yards but the good guy gets no kickback in the gun.'

So realism is useful in keeping the game believable.

Uber-fit men outrunning horses and entire units dying quicker then you can say 'why bother wearing armour' then it becomes an issue.

Also I have heard how epic walls crumble like sugar in water.

For those who have played old D&D it was a case of why bother to spend months making a castle when magic will eat it apart in moments.

So use too fast and all it becomes is a FPS with lots of tiny sprites and no tactics.

Scorpion

10-13-2004, 12:59

dcd111

10-13-2004, 15:35

The bottom line is that some people prefer the faster speed of battle in RTW, and some prefer the speed similar to what they had with MTW (I didn't play MTW except for the demo, so I have no experience with it). I think the run speeds and killing rates are too fast, mostly because I'm finding I get a little lost once the melee starts, but I can understand why some would not want CA to slow these down because they are able to handle it as it is.

The best solution, in my opinion, that would please most of the people most of the time, would be to make it adjustable. I don't think this would be all that difficult, if CA has implemented a double and triple speed option, surely it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to add a 1/2 speed and 3/4 speed option or a similar type of ratio. Not sure if that's been suggested before, I haven't seen it listed specifically in any patch request threads here or at the .com, but I don't read those regularly. I'm also not sure what speed ratios would be ideal, but perhaps those who have been modding the running speeds could propose something that works well.

For MP, I would guess there would have to be a way for all participants to agree on the speed before starting the game and then lock it in for that session, but I don't play MP so I'm not sure how that would work.

Just slowing everything down might be enough to satisfy those who are also concerned about the kill rate, I don't know. Has anybody examined whether these are independent problems, or if the fast kill rate is just a function of how fast everything is moving?

Regardless, I don't know why people get so indignant about posts that disagree with how they like to play the game, or changes they would like to see. That certainly isn't going to lead to a constructive solution.

Bhruic

10-13-2004, 15:49

I still don´t get why people always come up with the whole realism vs. fun issue - to me their relation is completely different - realism is one of the factors that make the game fun. Some people just like realism more than others.

Analogies like "taking six months to play a strategic turn is realistic" are simply idiotic.

There´s nothing unrealistic about compressing time. Realism governs issues like whether it´d be a good idea to include jump infantry in the game, WH40K style.

Troops equipped with jetpacks would jump over a hill to attack the enemy phalanx from the rear, armed with chainsaws.

Oh, please. You can't simply take one extreme example and conclude it's the only end of the spectrum that matters. Compressing time IS unrealistic for the very simple reason that compressing time does not happen in real life. You know, that thing that determines what "realism" is. As soon as you come up with a nice little button I can press that allows me to zoom through a few hours in the space of a second, I can agree with you about compressing time being realistic.

However, if that example just doesn't work for you, there are a few million other examples. I mean, why doesn't RTW have a health system built in to account for people getting sick, and not fighting at their best? Why do your governors all age, but your actual soldiers don't, allowing them to live for hundreds of years?

A truly "realistic" game would model all that. However, I'm quite confident in concluding that very few people would find it fun. The point is, you have to look at every "realistic" thing that you want to put into a game to see whether it makes the game more fun or less fun to play. As I said, that's going to be an entirely subjective issue, but the key is to try and make it so that the majority of your intended market will like it. Obviously in a case like RTW, the target market is going to be interested in a higher degree of realism than the Doom/UT market. So yes, your extreme examples of "jetpacking men with chainsaws" would be stupid. But no more stupid than the examples above that I provided.

Bh

CBR

10-13-2004, 19:13

Just slowing everything down might be enough to satisfy those who are also concerned about the kill rate, I don't know. Has anybody examined whether these are independent problems, or if the fast kill rate is just a function of how fast everything is moving?

I remember several people talked about having a slider with 1/2 and/or 3/4 speed.

That would slow down the killing too. But it would also slow down marching speed and that hasnt been changed in RTW compared to MTW.

The run speed for all units was increased by 50% for RTW (based on my tests in RTW demo) And killing speed was increased too, dont know how much as we dont have the formulas for RTW.

CBR

Hannibal_Barkar

10-14-2004, 01:04

Personally I find that the kill speed and movement speed mods already available, are doing a good job. The game still runs considerably faster then MTW, but you ample time to micromanage your units and sometimes to juct enjoy the show.

These mods are easy to install and seem to run smoothly for most people, so from that point this whole discussion is a bit moot.
H.

Scorpion

10-14-2004, 22:55

Sorry if I offended you, Bhruic, I guess I was a bit irked to see the exact same analogy that I referenced earlier as one aspect of realism I didn´t care about (time).

Nobody´s asking for "full realism".
I don´t think anyone has asked for that. Howerer, "believable" is another term altogether.

Everything about a game is unrealistic, if you take it that way.
But whether a game is a believable presentation of the real thing - that´s the crux of the issue.

I leave things related to user interface right out - time compression being one of them.

You just need to apply a bit of common sense in these things. It´s easy to say that "sure, to be realistic you need to model every aspect of ancient life" but really...is that relevant?

Belenus

10-14-2004, 23:04

To me it's not so much the kill rate as how fast the units move. In MTW the speeds seemed okay, in RTW winded units run as fast as a horse in MTW. That just isn't right.

The Kill rate is okay in RTW to me because no longer do you have these super valor high hp troops that could get whacked 20 times and survive. Now, they got whacked once, and boom, down they go.

Bhruic

10-14-2004, 23:22

Sorry if I offended you, Bhruic, I guess I was a bit irked to see the exact same analogy that I referenced earlier as one aspect of realism I didn´t care about (time).

No offense taken.

Nobody´s asking for "full realism".
I don´t think anyone has asked for that. Howerer, "believable" is another term altogether.

No, I wasn't implying anyone asked for it. However, I'm sure there's a (very) small percentage of people who'd actually like it. I don't find that to be a sufficient reason to include it in a game.

Everything about a game is unrealistic, if you take it that way.
But whether a game is a believable presentation of the real thing - that´s the crux of the issue.

That seems to be a bit of a semantic argument. Sure, we aren't actually being transported back in time to be the ruler of a country. But the concepts that are being used for this game are historical. So if one wished to, one could make the game "realistic" in the sense that it modeled history accurately.

My point is that accurately modeling history doesn't necessarily make for a fun game. I'd prefer to leave out historical issues that make the game less fun. And I don't think that historical accuracy should be used as an excuse and/or justification for the inclusion of something that isn't terribly fun. That's really the gist of it. Attempting to suggest that the combat speed is historically accurate doesn't in any way make it more palatable to me.

Not that I'm saying the game should conform 100% to my personal tastes (although wouldn't that be nice ~;) ). But I suspect that the viewpoint I'm presenting is shared by some of the other people who have posted along similar lines.

Bh

Daveybaby

10-15-2004, 12:37

I am at a loss to figure what CA were thinking. There were a lot of things broke in MTW, but the pace and Rock/Paper/Scissors nature of tactical combat was never one of them.

More to the point, it was the whole REASON we bought and kept playing the game despite the fiddly campaign map, nonexistant diplomacy and random naval battles.

So why mess with it? I'm not a member of the .com forums, but has there been a constant level of complaint over there that STW/MTW battles are too slow and too complex, or something? (ive never seen anything like round here). Or is it the publisher forcing CA to dumb the game down to the usual RTS level of retardedness, in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator? Or are these just bugs which have been left unresolved in the rush to release the game?

I guess what i'm asking is : has anyone seen anything posted anywhere by CA staff that even acknowledges that there is a problem, or that attempts to explain why the fundamental gameplay dynamics have changed? I'd really like to know, because after playing and hating the demo i'm holding off buying the game until i'm fairly sure that these issues are at least scheduled for a fix in a patch.

jimmy53

10-15-2004, 15:25

Hi All. Long time player of the TW series. First time poster. I might rustle a few feathers but I will try to keep it tight.

On realism and the "kill rate". I think that people should realize, nobody has any idea what happens when 200 armed and armored men charge at each other from across a distance of perhaps a football field. We all know that carnage and chaos insue, but we don't know about the details. No historian has ever said "They were killing X amount of soldiers per minute and recieving X amount of casualties per minute" about any battle. The plain fact of the matter is that it has been about 400 years since the last time anything happened that was even close to what goes on in RTW. Even CA has to pretty much guess at what the "kill rate" is.

Further, the "kill rate" in this game is actually the casualty rate. A casualty is when you are wounded (including death) badly enough to prevent you from holding your sword and shield and fighting. That could be a hand cut off or a beheading. I don't think that the "kill rate" in MTW took that into account and I think that may be why the "kill rate" in RTW is quicker. I would not be suprised at all if I traveled back in time and saw a battle with 2000 men on the field last about 3 minutes. We are talking about vicious melee's here.

Anyhow, I might be wrong or right about a couple of my above points. However, I know I am right when I say that nobody on this board knows how fast Romans could kill Gauls or Greeks or whatever and how fast Romans would die as a result. The idea is silly and people should give it up.

Ravinhood

10-15-2004, 18:48

Hi guys

I've been playing around with the stats for the units for about a week now and have tested anywhere from 2 extra health points to 4 extra health points, the 4 extra health points is nice, long battles, but, quite a hit to archery kills since there is more "wounding" now instead of drop dead figures with each volly. And when units throw pilums or spears it's sort of rare to see a unit drop at all.

But, when I decreased the health to 2 hit points, things got a lot better with archer and javalin/pilum throws, but, of course the battles increased in speed.

So, now I'm leaning more towards the middle 3 hit points, this does fair archery, javilin, pilum kills per shot, usually 1 or 2 a shot and of course the rest are wounded, and the battle speed feels just about right like MTW battles were.

I also played around with the archery/javilin/pilum stats, but, since units have 3 or 4 hit points the wounding is still more prominent than actual drop dead figures and I found out 63 is the maximum one can use on an archer or javilin/pilum thrower atk value. heh Even at 63 atk value, there wasn't significant change on the "drop dead" figures after the toss, it would seem they average the hits out amonst "all" the units and it's rare to drop more than 4 units even with a 63 atk value with 4 health points per unit. Obviously they are all hits since the defense of the units hardly gets anywhere near a 63 atk value, and I suppose they even have that occassional 1 roll that is always a miss and that 20 roll that is always a hit with critical damage in some calculations, though I can't be sure, you know they love to keep their inner workings so secret.

Slowing the battle death down was pretty easy with just increasing health points, increasing the staying power of each unit before routing was solved by increasing the mental points.

What I discovered from playing the vanilla RTW stats with units only having 1 health, placing two exact units "Hastati" vs "Hastati" that the average kill rate per pilum throw per round was 9 units, these were 80 men groups also. So near abouts 1/9th kill ratio per toss. Archers were a little bit less in some cases and more in others, of course it depended on their stats, some archers have low atk values and others have some pretty high ones.

Even with higher attack values doubled, tripled and quadrupled after raising the health of the units by 2, 3, and 4, I never saw the death rate that I did using the vanilla RTW stats with 1 health point. There's a lot more wounding going on, but, it does look kinda funny when you have volley after volley of arrows and javalins and hardly anything drops until the 3rd volley.

So this is my delima, to have longer lasting battles with 3 or 4 health points, I must give up the "graphic" of seeing units drop like rain as in the vanilla RTW version. I enjoy the longer battles, but, I hate that I lose that "graphic" of a rain of arrows decimating a whole unit in a couple to three volleys.

Right now I'm still using the 2 health points setting and gave all archers, javilin, pilums a +4 to their atk values, and it LOOKS realistic enough, but, of course it makes archers, javalins, pilums a little more powerful than vanilla RTW stats, though you wouldn't know it from the graphics of the kills, but, of course the wounding is still happening within each unit. But, a 1 minute battle from vanilla RTW is now lasting 3 to 4 minutes, so that's a significant difference to me. Decisions, decisions.