View Full Version : Until the patch is released, I am playing MTW!
I am really soured on RTW given the broken features, idiotic AI, and bugs. The claims that the game is still playable is really laughable when you consider that archers can beat heavy cavalry in melee. I wish that I could be optimistic with the patch, but I think the speculation is overhyped and a lot of people are going to be disappointed. Well, thats my opinion anyway.
I have rediscovered MTW and I can tell you that the MTW battle AI is vastly superior to RTW. It isn't perfect, but MTW is by a more finished product than RTW. With Mods such as BKB's Supermod, MTW was a far more moddable and enjoyable game than RTW.
My hope is that Slitherine's Legion 2 will salvage the Rome period and will be historically accurate and more challenging than RTW.
Barbarossa82
01-26-2005, 19:02
I'm sure everyone is very much looking forward to the patch, and yes, there are more and worse problems with RTW than we might hope for and expect in a game coming from the same people that brought us STW and MTW.
But I really can't agree that the game is "unplayable" I haven't seen archers defeat heavy cav in melee unless they hugely outnumber them. The AI is a real pain, especially suicide generals, but it doesn't take too much to get around it (leave your family members out of reinforcing stacks). I am disappointed with the bugs and problems, but it's not going to stop me playing and enjoying what is ultimately a very cool game.
Since CA have not rushed out the patch, and have delayed it to fix the missile/melee bug, I think we can at least hope that it will be quite comprehensive. At least let's not write it off before it gets here!
Lonewarrior
01-26-2005, 19:05
that's what I been doing. BTW is january 26, close to the end fo january
Everybody just keep whining about the AI problem and all da 5 |-| ! T, i mean the CA people have been doing their best to make a better patch, so you guys should be patient. I mean you should respect someone else work. Imagine if you do something bad and people just keep on laughing and saying you "5 |_| c |
Colovion
01-26-2005, 20:13
RTW ruins MTW for me.
There are some things that I just love about RTW which when I try to play MTW I sorely miss; this goes both ways. RTW has shown me facets which could be possible, but steals away Total War's soul. After playing numerous campaigns with vanilla, partial mods and full mods I realized that the game actually has less depth than MTW did. Most of that depth-loss comes from the way that the arcade-theme makes for a game that doesn't feel authentic. Sure, many things about RTW are better - but there's so many things that could have been better and since they had it almost right with MTW then it seemed like a no brainer.
As many people have said before:
If MTW had RTW's engine, I would love it.
The Stranger
01-26-2005, 20:14
maybe its your computer my game only cdt's once a month and i play it every day and it is very playable it is a game not real life the grafics are good and the 3d map is a real improvement the new units are cool and lots of other stuff and yes the game isnt perfect and if you want one go timetravel and get killed in a real battle in 400 bc
i think, i'm going back to playing tic-tac-toe!
~:handball:
Colovion
01-26-2005, 20:26
maybe its your computer my game only cdt's once a month and i play it every day and it is very playable it is a game not real life the grafics are good and the 3d map is a real improvement the new units are cool and lots of other stuff and yes the game isnt perfect and if you want one go timetravel and get killed in a real battle in 400 bc
How much did you play MTW? Mine has only CTD once - that's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about gameplay, not fancy dressing on a soulless product.
Old Celt
01-26-2005, 21:24
Turbo,
I think you should go back to something else. I think you are part of a very vocal but also very small minority of gamers whose expectations have little acquaintance with reality. No software with thousands of lines of code is perfect. You may think that programming AI to high standards is a walk in the park, but let me assure you, it is not. RTW has gotten terrific reviews. Most strategy gamers love it and are blown away by the gaming experience. You don't like it. Okay, fine. As the routing Gauls would say: "Head for the hills."
Oh and here's a newsflash for you: CTDs might be caused by your beloved machine and it's evil OS rather than the game software. It seems like every user lives in a bubble and thinks everyone sees the same things they do. Machines vary in quality, OS, conflicting software installed, etc. etc. Don't you think if CTDs were an everyday occurence, the game wouldn't have such acclaim? But I digress. You could probably dust off the NES and play Dragon Warrior if you want a really stable platform.
My biggest regrets about RTW is how they had many things that worked pretty well in MTW, and that work much worse in RTW (the friendly fire is one of the most blatant).
Also, I've find that the AI, the diplomacy, the economy and the public order, were potentially great, but were somehow bad implemented, and this have a vicious tantalous effect (seeing the potential while enduring the flaws).
But the game is still great, the graphics are perhaps not all the game, but they still account for a huge part of the immersion, and many things are simply great.
Additionnally, I don't remember ever crashing to desktop more than once or twice since I've the game (which means : from the very, very beginning).
I await the patch with impatience, and though I don't think it will solve everything, I hope it will fix enough so that the game lives more up to its potential.
Grand Duke Vytautas
01-26-2005, 22:32
Well RTW is a masterpiece and far superior than MTW in anything, BUT except errors and bugs (damn) which makes everyone very unhappy. I'm not playing RTW for over a month, waiting for the patch (God and CA please let it be good!), meanwhile enjoying again MTW. Yes sir! Although graphics of MTW is no match for RTW, I find MTW quite interesting and what is most - challenging (that's the most important thing considering strategy games' levels-always to have a potential to improve playing skills, otherwise it gets boring, e.g like RTW). So I think matters will get great when the patch is released and RTW will be the most enjoyable strategy game!
Old Celt
01-26-2005, 22:46
There is alot of depth in RTW. Lots of people cannot even manage the Egyptian cities without cheating and using extermination on their own people. City management is challenging. Winning battles without using 15 units of uber troops can be challenging. Taking a minor faction and allowing enough time for the Romans and Egypt to grow into big threats is certainly challenging. Try winning without bribing any invaders. All of these can lead to situations that just might improve your gameplay.
Byzantine Prince
01-26-2005, 22:50
I enjoyed MTW a lot but RTW has amazing graphics. I mean there's no comparison. If I didn't know better I'de say that the games were made 10 years apart. But they are actually 2 years in difference. Also RTW is not as slow as one would expect for a game with it's graphics. It's actually amazing.
Those little bugs will be fixed eventually trust me. There's no way it'll last. Plus there is still the exapnsion to look forward to.
As far as CTD..... well for the first few months I do'nt think I had any, then all of the sudden RTW crashed every so often, and after just recently deleting 1 GIG of spyware......... I can almost laugh :furious3:
Anyways maybe some STD treatments would'nt hurt your computer
RTW ruins MTW for me.
Most of that depth-loss comes from the way that the arcade-theme makes for a game that doesn't feel authentic.
Colovion, I'm curious what are you talking about. Because I've never played MTW before, so I'm just curious what is so arcade-themed in RTW that makes this game unauthentic. ~:confused:
I vastly prefer the strategic level of Rome: Total War, it's a truly massive and excellent leap. But I prefer the Medieval battles. Damn it's infuriating.
Turbo,
I think you should go back to something else. I think you are part of a very vocal but also very small minority of gamers whose expectations have little acquaintance with reality. No software with thousands of lines of code is perfect. You may think that programming AI to high standards is a walk in the park, but let me assure you, it is not. RTW has gotten terrific reviews. Most strategy gamers love it and are blown away by the gaming experience. You don't like it. Okay, fine. As the routing Gauls would say: "Head for the hills."
Oh and here's a newsflash for you: CTDs might be caused by your beloved machine and it's evil OS rather than the game software. It seems like every user lives in a bubble and thinks everyone sees the same things they do. Machines vary in quality, OS, conflicting software installed, etc. etc. Don't you think if CTDs were an everyday occurence, the game wouldn't have such acclaim? But I digress. You could probably dust off the NES and play Dragon Warrior if you want a really stable platform.
Here is a news flash for you. I never said my PC had CTD's. Why don't you try re-reading my post then respond in an intelligent manner. I have never had any CTD's. My issue is with the broken features.
Don't attack someone because you disagree with what they say. Explain why you disagree and what your position is. Read over the other posts and you will see what I mean. The ORG is a place for discussion.
Old Celt
01-27-2005, 16:03
Turbo,
Being critical of someone else is not "an attack". You were simply flat out whining that you don't like the game and whining in print to let the whole world know about it. I made perfectly valid points about why what you said was whining. You're right, this is a place for discussion. If you can't stand the heat, STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN!
The vast majority of gamers give RTW a score of 9/10. You complain that a bug allows archers to melee your cavalry to death. Well, did you know that cavalry is not designed to fight at a stand still? You can adjust your tactics to workaround the issue.
Your expectations for the game are unrealistically high. Corporations don't make money building free patches for software. Because of that fact, you can expect them to do the minimum of fixes possible to shut up their harshest (sane) critics, and not one bit more. The development team will be assigned to potentially moneymaking projects at the earliest possible moment, and probably already have finished this project.
I apologize for directing the remarks about the CTDs at you. I was responding to someone else on another forum, and somehow cut and pasted the wrong content from Notepad into the post in your thread. My mistake.
The vast vast majority of 'gamers' have just progressed from final fantasy and love the new RTW eye candy.
For those of us who have followed the series since STW we now have lots of gimmicks and less gameplay.
Old Celt
01-27-2005, 16:33
The vast vast majority of 'gamers' have just progressed from final fantasy and love the new RTW eye candy.
For those of us who have followed the series since STW we now have lots of gimmicks and less gameplay.
That's quite vague. Perhaps you could expand on that a bit? Do you think RTW is just unplayable because of its flaws, or what?
I totally agree with Old Celt, i mean in your topic heading it says "Until the patch is released, I am playing MTW!". This already shows that you are gonna whine and say R:TW is not good and blah blah blah. It is not a discussion topic. A discussion topic will be different
i.e. Which one is better to guard the city and mantain garrison, cheap infantry or expensive infantry or others?
Thats what we call discussion. So if you say "Until the patch is released, I am playing MTW!" what are we going to discussed?
We are not going to discuss why you come out with that kind of conclusion and blah blah, so you pratically has lose the argument with Old Celt and your topic is just for people to share the feelings with you not discussing
No Hard Feelings
Red Harvest
01-27-2005, 16:53
Old Celt,
Take a look at the poll in the entrance hall for best TW series game. RTW is third in a field of three, pulling only 21% of the vote. Turbo is far from being in the minority on this. He is comfortably in the majority. Vanilla RTW doesn't have the staying power that vanilla MTW/STW had. I think/hope its faults can be addressed. It looks like it has potential to be the best of all three, or else I would have gone back to MTW already.
I wouldn't be playing RTW if I wasn't trying to mod it enough to understand the engine. I get hooked into troubleshooting, and RTW is ripe for troubleshooting. I've never modded stats in anything the way I've HAD to in RTW to get some satisfaction from it. I didn't do this to STW, MI, MTW, or VI.
therother
01-27-2005, 17:49
The Shogun has posted preliminary details about the forthcoming patch here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=42771). Looks pretty comprehensive, and addresses many issues. Hopefully it'll win over more TW veterans.
Old Celt
01-27-2005, 19:44
Red Harvest,
Your point is taken about the poll, but you have to consider that these data represent only a tiny proportion of the people who pay to buy and play the game. I never even heard of the other games in the series until RTW was being advertised. I respectfully wish to say that critical acclaim and GOTY awards are far more important than what a tiny proportion of hardcore critcs have to say.
If these people really believe RTW is third in a field of three, then they should go back to playing the other 2 and not rain on the parade of very enthusiastic players of RTW. If a majority of people thought the game sucked, I don't think it would be averaging 9/10 review scores, would it?
There are workarounds for most of the issues people complain about. Although some of them are dependent on player self control (i.e. multiple sallys on the same turn to missile your enemy into oblivion), for me and I dare say many other people, that doesn't make the game unplayable.
Turbo,
Being critical of someone else is not "an attack". You were simply flat out whining that you don't like the game and whining in print to let the whole world know about it. I made perfectly valid points about why what you said was whining. You're right, this is a place for discussion. If you can't stand the heat, STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN!
The vast majority of gamers give RTW a score of 9/10. You complain that a bug allows archers to melee your cavalry to death. Well, did you know that cavalry is not designed to fight at a stand still? You can adjust your tactics to workaround the issue.
Your expectations for the game are unrealistically high. Corporations don't make money building free patches for software. Because of that fact, you can expect them to do the minimum of fixes possible to shut up their harshest (sane) critics, and not one bit more. The development team will be assigned to potentially moneymaking projects at the earliest possible moment, and probably already have finished this project.
I apologize for directing the remarks about the CTDs at you. I was responding to someone else on another forum, and somehow cut and pasted the wrong content from Notepad into the post in your thread. My mistake.
Interesting how critizing RTW brings out the "whinning" accusation and the childish insults. Seriously, grow up! If you are so tired of hearing "whinning" then why are you in this thread? Sounds like you came in to whine about whinners. ~;)
therother
01-27-2005, 19:54
There are workarounds for most of the issues people complain about. Although some of them are dependent on player self control (i.e. multiple sallys on the same turn to missile your enemy into oblivion).Hopefully not for long. Version 1.2 will apparently only allow one sally per turn.
Old Celt
01-27-2005, 19:57
Turbo,
Are you just a glutton for punishment or what? You will find no case in any of my remarks of me insulting you. If you choose to take what I say as an insult, that's your problem.
Did it occur to you that since this is a forum on RTW, that by and large the people here would really like the game? So if you don't like it, should you be surprised when people who do tell you to go poop in your hat?
You are the one who needs to show some maturity. Your post was trolling and now you don't like that someone called you on it. Too bad. If you have anything to add to this debate that actually involves game play, I'd like to hear it. If you don't, then I think you should be true to your word, stop posting here and go play MTW to console yourself.
Turbo,
Are you just a glutton for punishment or what? You will find no case in any of my remarks of me insulting you. If you choose to take what I say as an insult, that's your problem.
Did it occur to you that since this is a forum on RTW, that by and large the people here would really like the game? So if you don't like it, should you be surprised when people who do tell you to go poop in your hat?
You are the one who needs to show some maturity. Your post was trolling and now you don't like that someone called you on it. Too bad. If you have anything to add to this debate that actually involves game play, I'd like to hear it. If you don't, then I think you should be true to your word, stop posting here and go play MTW to console yourself.
Whatever dude. This isn't worth my time replying to.
Ok you two. Stand back to back, take ten steps, turn, and raise handbags. First one to drop their bag and start squealing loses.
ChaosLord
01-28-2005, 02:58
I always think its funny when people say MTW is better then RTW, when vanilla MTW is as easy/easier then RTW. I mean I hadn't played STW before when I got MTW, by my third game(didn't finish the first two, just tested stuff) I was winning easily on expert. The mass peasant/spearmen/archer armies of the AI were a joke, and easily overrun by yours. You could also easily setup a trade network and make much more then larger AI nations.
It wasn't until VI and some of the better mods that the game even got moderately difficult. (Thank you MedMod) The only main difference would be how the AI handles sieging(something it didn't do that well in MTW either, but it happens more often in RTW). And of course the suicidal generals, who die like flies compared to the jedi generals MTW produced. But anyway, just my gripe. If you want something to keep you occupied till the patch comes out, get RTR 5.1. I'd say its the best mod out for RTW right now, and can keep your game interesting/difficult.
Zharakov
01-28-2005, 03:19
I feel MTW had better unit equality. But RTW has better graphics and more indepth gameing.
I don't like RTW because I feel like the Urban Cohort is a master unit. It really is so unstopable that a trained chimp with no tactical ability could win with it.
I have evean seen them beat ELEPHANTS!?!
But other then that RTW is a good game that will get better with time...
Red Harvest
01-28-2005, 04:59
Red Harvest,
I respectfully wish to say that critical acclaim and GOTY awards are far more important than what a tiny proportion of hardcore critcs have to say.
If these people really believe RTW is third in a field of three, then they should go back to playing the other 2 and not rain on the parade of very enthusiastic players of RTW. If a majority of people thought the game sucked, I don't think it would be averaging 9/10 review scores, would it?
I didn't say the majority said it sucked. I don't feel that it sucks. However, its gameplay is presently weaker than MTW and perhaps even STW. It has improvements in much of the graphics, and it has many new facets that are a leap forward, but it stepped backward in key areas (and in those areas pre-patch it sucks.)
The problem with reviews? They are usually about a 1 week period of game play. If the game is interesting for a week, the reviewer is happy. If the graphics are great and do things that have not been seen before, it is going to get a good review. Doesn't matter if interest fades quickly. MTW/STW had staying power. Reviews don't matter to me once I've played a game myself... "If all your friends jumped off of a bridge would you jump off the bridge too?"
Another thing about reviews...what to they have for comparison? A bunch of RTS clones.
Reminds me of motherboard/graphics card reviews, where everyone falls all over themselves giving a good review to the latest high end beast. After all the enticing reviews, you buy the board or card and start finding out about its quirks. The reviewers rarely have the gear long enough to do anything meaningful. Just a bunch of benchmarks.
There are workarounds for most of the issues people complain about.
No, there are not. Now hopefully most of the worst will be patched, but it all stands on the quality of the AI. If the AI can't give the vets a decent game, there is not all that much that can be done to fix it. Mods can fix balance, they can give historical accuracy or variety. Mods don't rebuild the AI, only tweak it, or play to its strengths at best.
What's missing in RWT for me.
1. The battlefied's AI: how you really have to sometimes come up with different tactics other than charge and flank. And RTW units are (for me) somewhat dull, no uber cool units like Varangian Guards, Hashishins, Johms Vikings (I miss this bastards!)... I dont know, I just dont get exited when I train Chosen Swordsmen, Druids, even War Elephants.
2. The tension the campaign map/board generates. Like when you stack your border provinces with troops and the enemy does the same thing and you cant attack yet for fear of leaving another province open for yet another faction. Its like you're always on the verge of a battle. I miss that BIG TIME! But the RTW map is more true to the real thing but there's still something missing.
AquaLurker
01-28-2005, 10:28
Hi people,
In terms of tactical game plays and challenge, I don't get as much satisfaction as I had when playing MTW and STW. I am not really sure if it is because of inferior AI tactics because the AI of these games approach the battlefield in the same manner and attack in the same manner.
I think the problem lies in the fact that the AI doesn't have enough quality troops and generals to give us a tough time in the field not to mention that player controlled characters get their stars too easily and quickly. As THE SHOGUN had metioned, this part of the game will be addressed. Same goes for the stratagies of the AI in the campaign map.
What I feel is that RTW has more superior gameplay features than the previous TW series but can definately be refined and improved. We just had to hope that CA will refined the AI strategies in the game and fixed all the critical bugs.
Let us just cross our fingers and toes and hope for the best! ~:cheers:
Colovion
01-28-2005, 10:41
Colovion, I'm curious what are you talking about. Because I've never played MTW before, so I'm just curious what is so arcade-themed in RTW that makes this game unauthentic. ~:confused:
To name a few of the most obvious:
Green arrows
Meatgrinder killing
Screeching Women, Head hurlers...
I'll stop there ~;)
i think a big part of the reason for the disagreement among patrons is what they compare RTW to.
if you've never played the older totalwar games and compare RTW to other current strategy games, chances are you'll think its one of the best strategy games you've ever played, because there's nothing comparable. and if you were to go back later and try some of the earlier totalwar games, it's probably be difficult to get into, because you'd be transition from 3-d to sprites and less options on the strategic map side of the game. so it might seem like a lot of whining by the vets when we complain.
but if you started on the earlier games and have progressed to RTW, there is a serious deterioation in gameplay, atmosphere or whatever you want to call it and it is very noticeable. of all the totalwar geezers on the board, i think there is only one who argues that RTW is the best if the series. most are of the opinion that it could be the best, if it's fixed, and some believe CA has jumped the shark on this one and its beyond repair. so i think it matters what you compare RTW to when you evaluate it.
i think a big part of the reason for the disagreement among patrons is what they compare RTW to.
if you've never played the older totalwar games and compare RTW to other current strategy games, chances are you'll think its one of the best strategy games you've ever played, because there's nothing comparable. and if you were to go back later and try some of the earlier totalwar games, it's probably be difficult to get into, because you'd be transition from 3-d to sprites and less options on the strategic map side of the game. so it might seem like a lot of whining by the vets when we complain.
but if you started on the earlier games and have progressed to RTW, there is a serious deterioation in gameplay, atmosphere or whatever you want to call it and it is very noticeable. of all the totalwar geezers on the board, i think there is only one who argues that RTW is the best if the series. most are of the opinion that it could be the best, if it's fixed, and some believe CA has jumped the shark on this one and its beyond repair. so i think it matters what you compare RTW to when you evaluate it.
I'm one of those geezers who think RTW is the best of the 3. I played shogun for the first time when a friend loned it too me back in 2001. I loved it, when I heard about MTW some months later I really wanted it. I got it a month after it came out, I though it was better than STW in every way imaginable. I think the same about RTW when compared to MTW. The simple reason being the simplified game play has increased my enjoyment of RTW. Why well in MTW auto-calcing made for less casualties than fighting the battle myself. Now in RTW I can fight battles and not lose 2/3 of my armies like I did in MTW.
True, but there is also a tendenancy to overlook some of MTW's faults, including it's less than sparkling AI (which, incidentally, only really got any good AFTER two patches and an expansion pack!).
But I agree about some elements of game design (especially the atmosphere, you don't really feel like the Romans) being superior in MTW.
mambaman
01-28-2005, 17:33
yup sorry guys but i'm with the vets that have been playing since the start of STW and feel that RTW is the best of the 3 by some stretch-not perfect by any means but certainly much more immersive.
Strangely it took me a while...for 1st month or so i really couldnt get into RTW and then something clicked-i now absolutely love it-when you look at the graphics, the campaign part and the total game experience there really is (for me) no comparison
It may be that the large number of bugs is a show stopper for many but they really can (in the main) be worked around...
And when i'm stuck-i come on here and canvass you good people for your opinions ~:cheers:
Old Celt
01-28-2005, 18:01
The development team and resources that would be necessary to satisfy the most demanding 10% of complainants is well and truly beyond the means of game designers. Intuitive AI, doesn't just react, it plans, and thinks in its own offensive terms. Those of you who aren't happy with the battle AI will just continue to be disappointed for some time because a $50 product doesn't support the many millions of dollars it would take to give you what you really want.
As I predicted, the devs are responding to bugs, which reasonably should be fixed. AI behavior is not a bug: the product functions as designed. Human players can easily defeat the AI. Not a big surprise. I expect it will stay that way until breakthroughs in algorithms change the technology of AI forever. I think people need to understand that it's just a game, and what do you really expect to get for $50?
Red Harvest
01-28-2005, 19:06
The development team and resources that would be necessary to satisfy the most demanding 10% of complainants is well and truly beyond the means of game designers. Intuitive AI, doesn't just react, it plans, and thinks in its own offensive terms. Those of you who aren't happy with the battle AI will just continue to be disappointed for some time because a $50 product doesn't support the many millions of dollars it would take to give you what you really want.
That is just nonsense. God, I get sooooo sick of hearing that LAME excuse!!! It is a simple minded defense for NOT trying to write decent AI and making AI a very LOW PRIORITY. There are older games with better AI...think about that for a second. (I don't think Sid Meier had a defense budget to write Gettysburg or Antietam.) Why? Because they put their effort into AI not, graphics and baubles. Sure it costs money to do development..."many millions"... BS . NOT TRUE. It has more to do with allocation of resources and schedule.
The real truth is that most game development is out there to snatch the dollars of folks looking for some snazzy short lived product that entertains for a short time, then fades. Everyone targets the easy money. So get the product out fast with lots of bells and whistles, with weak AI that will interest folks briefly, then quickly get dull.
To write decent AI you need to either freeze the game rules fairly early or do serious AI development in patches. It does take time and it is easier for most to ship as soon as the game LOOKS good.
It is true that the vast majority of the public only is interested in the looks of the game. There is a niche of folks who want game play. AND it is possible to have both. Certainly when you have a series that is in its 5th release you cannot use the excuse about not having enough money or time to write decent AI. If anything your AI should get better every time, not worse. That was true of previous TW releases...
Congrats, Old Celt, you've bought into the line that has been the death of decent strategy gaming. Closed thinking ("it can't be done!") is the sign of an industry in its death throes.
Old Celt
01-28-2005, 20:19
Red Harvest,
I'm not saying these things to aggravate you, I'm saying them because, I'm a developer and I know a little about how software is built and marketed. I'll bring up the chess analogy again and ask how much it costs to develop an AI to beat a human chess master with 32 pieces and 64 possible fixed positions? It took 20 years and yes, MILLIONS of dollars to do it. And even now, whether that AI can consistently defeat human masters is open to debate. It bugs me to hear people who know very little about programming tell programmers how easy it should be to do what they want. I don't know what you do for a living, but whatever it is, wouldn't you find it annoying for people to tell you how easy it should be to do it better? I know you probably don't believe me, but good AI is a very tough nut.
Almost any problem can be solved if you throw enough money at it. The whole point of this is to give the majority of your buyers a happy experience with the product. They've achieved that goal. Hopefully, they've made some money, too. You can develop the best software imaginable, but if you don't have sales, you're sunk. So product design has to be to a lower level of player than that top 10% to keep costs down and maximize profit. Yes, great AI is available, but not much in the private sector. The best and brightest work for governments doing military simulation AI.
I disagree that the industry is in its death throes. There is so much RTS crap out there, it isn't even funny. People are buying it up like hotcakes, i.e. It's profitable!!! So the venue will continue, have no fear. Someone will come along and bring better AI to games in general, but that technology is not readily available now. Doable? Yes. Affordable? Not for games at this point. No one can show me a game with AI that really emulates any sort of military genius on the battlefield. They can't show me a strategy game that can even begin to beat a West Point pleb. But something is better than nothing, and RTW is fun for most people in its totality, even if not in many aspects of its battlefield AI.
That is just nonsense. God, I get sooooo sick of hearing that LAME excuse!!! It is a simple minded defense for NOT trying to write decent AI and making AI a very LOW PRIORITY. There are older games with better AI...think about that for a second. (I don't think Sid Meier had a defense budget to write Gettysburg or Antietam.) Why? Because they put their effort into AI not, graphics and baubles. Sure it costs money to do development..."many millions"... BS . NOT TRUE. It has more to do with allocation of resources and schedule.
The real truth is that most game development is out there to snatch the dollars of folks looking for some snazzy short lived product that entertains for a short time, then fades. Everyone targets the easy money. So get the product out fast with lots of bells and whistles, with weak AI that will interest folks briefly, then quickly get dull.
To write decent AI you need to either freeze the game rules fairly early or do serious AI development in patches. It does take time and it is easier for most to ship as soon as the game LOOKS good.
It is true that the vast majority of the public only is interested in the looks of the game. There is a niche of folks who want game play. AND it is possible to have both. Certainly when you have a series that is in its 5th release you cannot use the excuse about not having enough money or time to write decent AI. If anything your AI should get better every time, not worse. That was true of previous TW releases...
Congrats, Old Celt, you've bought into the line that has been the death of decent strategy gaming. Closed thinking ("it can't be done!") is the sign of an industry in its death throes.
You are dead on mark with that comment. Remember SSI, SSG, and Avalon Hill that put out strategy games? Each one of these companies started out strong with good products and a strong customer base. Progressively each put out poorer and poorer quality games. Their customer base dried up and now these companies are ghosts of what they were.
There are always excuses and justifications that the suits rushed the game out, they ran out of money, blah blah. The worst excuse I keep hearing from the lapdogs are that we (the consumer) should be *grateful* for a patch that fixes bugs. The developers make a patch because they don't want to allienate the hardcore users. Allienate us and their sales go down.
Old Celt
01-28-2005, 21:42
Turbo,
I've read alot of posts on several forums and never once found a remark from a "lapdog" saying you should be grateful for a patch. All software has bugs. When they are identified, the releasing company has a responsibility to act for a reasonable length of time to support their work. Customer satisfaction as an overall indicator is very important.
The other side of the coin on support issues is that some people will never be pleased. No amount of work will make them happy. Now, if you are designing new programs, do you target the majority of your audience (whom you CAN please), or the few people who will never be happy? The answer is obvious there. Maybe you will like the next Total War release better, but even if you don't, whether or not CA cares by necessity, has to boil down to a question of whether you represent a large portion of their target market. You are in the minority, so guess what? Do you think Microsoft cares if 10% of the world hates Windows XP? (Mac users). Nope Microsoft doesn't care because they can't please those people.
I see these kinds of discussions on every gaming site I visit. You have people who like the game, and want to talk about it to get tips, or just to share their experience, and then these few people who want to beat up on it. The logical response is: so then go play something you like, but why cry in other peoples beer? The result of your complaints in this context isn't going to change a thing.
If you are really unhappy with the product, then write to CA and tell them so directly. Be specific about what you don't like and see what response you get. Tell them you vote with your dollars. If enough people complain, they get results. I just think you are totally barking up the wrong tree with a game that has gotten such consistently good reviews and happy people playing it.
Red Harvest
01-28-2005, 21:47
Programming a decent battlefield AI distills down to figuring out within the rules of the game what a competent human player uses as their own decision tree and coding in such a way that the computer AI can duplicate these decision trees in context. The decision tree aspect (pre-patch) is certainly lacking in RTW. I won't claim it is easy to get the multiple unit army handling to work, but when single unit management is poor, the root of the tree is rotten and you are sunk.
Chess doesn't apply, different type of strategy with very discrete rules for moves and pieces. Chess is far more based on pattern recognition and intuitive grasp, and requires overview of the entire board at once, things that are much more difficult to build into an AI. You cannot break it down as simply as you might a combat AI. I had quite a bit of experience playing chess computers in the old days. Opening books have improved, and computing power is literally thousands of times what it was when I bought my 2100 Expert Rated machine back in the late 80's (a Par Excellence running at 1 or 2 MHz.) It could give me a good game. One thing I noticed comparing chess software then and in the late '90's was how LITTLE had changed. They were all using the same basic numerical positional analysis that I remembered from the mid '80's software. The refinements were slight, but the increase in computing power and tricks was adding plies.
I have seen many folks pull off amazing things with very modest tools, because they believed they could--even when I thought the task was impossible. My own experience is that given some time, I could usually make complex computer simulators match real life performance of my process units. While my coding skills are limited, I did make insights to bridge the gap from simulation to reality, and develop algorithms that worked. (This is not advertisement for me, this is illustration that even non-programmers can have considerable insight into programming problems.) I worked in software development for a time, poking through the code to fix problems, testing the applications, adding features, improving the interface, and handling the tech support. I saw far more potential than I saw limitation while doing development.
I've also seen that it is possible to take an existing AI engine, and modify battlefields and the like to improve AI behavior, by knowing what the AI's goals were. Now if I can do that from the outside, imagine what a skilled programmer should be able to do from the inside?
I'll leave you with this consideration: in my years of working in manufacturing and software and trying to improve the tools I had at my disposal, I never saw anything improved by saying it would be too expensive and time consuming to do it right. I have seen projects fail that way though. I learned quickly (and the hard way) that when someone thought they could accomplish something with the tools at hand, you were best off to either help, or stay out of the way; because they were usually right.
Colovion
01-28-2005, 21:56
MTW;VI AI > Vanilla RTW's AI
Which game is the newest?
oh right - the one that is LESS THAN the other
It shouldn't be hard to keep things in the game which were once there. Not at all am I ragging on the devs here as they have deffinately shown their true colors by releasing this mammoth of a patch list before the patch is released... that is something I have truly never seen at such a scale before.
How about this: We wait until the patch comes out before we start arguing. I know I'll be putting in my two cents (or $3.08 as it'll turn out to be) but until that we're just doing this:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/colovion/horse.bmp
at least wait until they revive the horse before we run our mouths about problems which might be on the way to being fixed.
Red Harvest
01-28-2005, 22:05
Turbo,
I've read alot of posts on several forums and never once found a remark from a "lapdog" saying you should be grateful for a patch. All software has bugs. When they are identified, the releasing company has a responsibility to act for a reasonable length of time to support their work. Customer satisfaction as an overall indicator is very important.
Huh? I've seen those posts OVER and OVER and OVER again about how grateful everyone should be for the game or for the patch and that nobody should ever criticize it. It is common theme in any game forum. We call them the whiner whiners.
I've also seen many posts where folks can point to specific problems and be told they are wrong by the same types... It is amusing when a patch actually fixes the "non-existent" problem.
And the WORST defense of all is that "well, if you want a better product, you are a whiner and in the minority, so go away." That is what you are in effect saying. The best input I got for software development and bug fixes was from those "difficult customers."
Turbo's right about companies failing when they lose the thread. Drive off your core users and you have a serious problem. I have seen this from within a company as well as from outside. It usually takes a couple of years to reach a crisis state, but some of us see the indicators well ahead of time, when the shift occurs. Moving out of your niche into an over competitive commodity market is a classic blunder. When you decide that servicing your core niche is no longer important, you might as well put a gun to your corporate temple.
Hint for you: Don't go to a core player site and tell the core types that they are an insignficant part of that games market.
Colovion
01-28-2005, 22:13
Old Celt you should've been here during the demo/release times.
Then you would know what those lost vets truly feel.
Maybe do a little searching.
Old Celt
01-28-2005, 22:16
Red Harvest,
I was born an optimist, but as old as I am now, I'm a realist. Building software is all about money in the gaming world. There are, no doubt, plenty of devs on the team who wanted to build it better than they did. But they were a year late. Intolerable by todays standards for delivery. There comes a time when the project manager and lead programmer go in a room, have a screaming match, and the release date is firmed.
I would absolutely love to see military genius in the AI of games I play. But it's never happened. Real military genius revolves around perfect timing and positional analysis of battlefield events, and these do relate to why chess programming is harder than it looks. A real commander evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the units opposing him, not just numbers. Effective tactics like sacrificing some cheap units to kill the other side rely on sharp assessment of all the variables of battle. I believe the chief problem is that no military experts on ancient warfare were directly involved in the product development (at least from a tactics standpoint). One day, a game developer will get smart, and realize that the added expense of playtesting with real experts will pay off in spades with the finished product. Until such time, we will have rudimentary computer opponents.
Red Harvest
01-28-2005, 22:32
Red Harvest,
I was born an optimist, but as old as I am now, I'm a realist.
Old Celt,
It is time to get some of that optimism back! Don't let the b******* get you down. Nothing wrong with being a realist (except that being realistic with management can effect your raise or employment status.) Finding a balance is important. I'm a firm believer in the concept of continual improvement. Even if something has been done that way for ages...there is often a better way of doing it. That is where innovation comes from.
~:cheers:
Old Celt
01-28-2005, 22:42
Hint for you: Don't go to a core player site and tell the core types that they are an insignficant part of that games market.
I think you might mean, "hard core" don't you? You seem to think that because you have a history of playing the series, that somehow entitles your opinion to have more value? What makes you "core" players? Most people don't complain bitterly about the shortcomings of the game because despite them, they still have a good time with it.
You are trying to tell me that by creating a GOTY, CA has also alienated their "core" players and "put a gun to their temple"??? I think you are overreacting to the situation just a tad.
They seem to have a good history. Their base product is good. I have faith that they will make good fixes in the patch, but that you will have to wait for an expansion pack (if any) to address AI issues.
And I don't want you to go away. You are just as entitled to say what you want as anyone else. I simply think what you are saying won't change anything, EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT. That's because money makes the world go round, not doing the right thing. The hardest lesson I ever learned in life was that being right doesn't matter a whit, unless you're in charge.
Colovion
01-28-2005, 22:54
Red Harvest,
I was born an optimist, but as old as I am now, I'm a realist. Building software is all about money in the gaming world. There are, no doubt, plenty of devs on the team who wanted to build it better than they did. But they were a year late. Intolerable by todays standards for delivery. There comes a time when the project manager and lead programmer go in a room, have a screaming match, and the release date is firmed.
I hope you realize that they would have had a product completed on time - but from their own mouths - Activision gave them a year extension so that they could build in other features and goodies that wouldn't have been there in the first place.
Speaking of being sick of something... How about these constant chess comparisons? Sure, one of the top ranked players in the world can sometimes beat a computer AI. Sometimes it beats him. Often they draw. That means that it can easily beat 99.99999999999% (probably a few more 9s in there) of the planet. Consistently. Are we asking for anything even remotely that challenging? Not hardly!
Asking for a decently challenging AI in a game is not at all similar to trying to program the 'ultimate' AI for a game. I've been decently challenged by freeware chess programs, and while I don't play chess often, I'm certainly not 'bad' at it. I would say I'm certainly in the top 50% of people who have played chess. If your program can beat over 50% of the population, then the AI is pretty good.
So yes, you can drag out the strawman fallacy with the "can't even win in chess", but that's all it is, a fallacy. It doesn't connect to this situation in the slightest.
Bh
mambaman
01-28-2005, 23:18
i think you should all take a deep breath.....and calm down. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but lets have some respect for those same opinions eh?
As someone who doesnt post very often it dismays me to see people who obviously care deeply about the game having a go at each other like this......
I think you might mean, "hard core" don't you? You seem to think that because you have a history of playing the series, that somehow entitles your opinion to have more value? What makes you "core" players?
Sorry to have to point this out, Old Celt, but that's exactly the case! Having a history of playing a series of games, no matter what the series, will always mean your opinion has more value when you are talking on their relevant forums. How often will you see the veterans views widely respected and noted on forums, while the newbies are often disregarded, (if not scorned) for their views!? Lets face it, it's the way the world works.... those with experience usually know more about the subject.
And frankly, I can't see how anyone who HASN'T played MTW and STW before RTW can EVER say anything about whether Rome is a great Total War game. How can they, when they obviously don't have all the facts and haven't seen the development of the series!? Only the veterans who played every game in the series, one after the after from the beginning of STW, can truly appreciate the differences and improvements that each new game has brought around.
One last note : When this site is the only site with a link on the Offical TotalWar.com website, I think you can safely assume that not only are the members here "core" players, but that CA also think so too.
Colt.
IceTorque
01-29-2005, 00:39
STW and MTW were " best sellers.
and with RTW they wanted a greater market share ????
maybe they should decide which market they want
the 50% of gamers who are starved of decent games who want a more mature game.... sim v's arcade
or the other half who are at saturation point with new game titles.
remember the STW demo spearmen v's archers wow i thought at last a realistic battle sim.
and MTW demo yep things were "looking better"
but the RTW demo left a sour taste in my mouth i only bought the game because i was such a fan of TW.
i waited years for this game but i'm not too interested in the next one
Red Harvest
01-29-2005, 03:13
IceTorque,
That sums it up for me as well (except I never tried the STW demo...went right to the game.) When I tried the RTW demo I was disappointed. I decided to buy the game right away, because it looked like it needed work. With other games I wait for prices to fall a little bit and a patch or two to come out. But with RTW I felt it was going to need all the input it could get...including mine. Waiting until it was too late to comment would have been stupid and self defeating. So I bought it right away so that I could dig into it.
Another reason for buying right away: I was expecting a single major patch, and that would be it. Indeed that is what we will be getting. I still can't figure out what CA was thinking with regard to speed. They had plenty of input to suggest it was too much and not a welcome change to most players. Merely giving an option to slow things down would have been an improvement.
Sol Invictus
01-29-2005, 04:04
I have owned all of the previous TW games as well as the expansions and I can see RTW going down a fairly consistent path. I think most of the TW vets remember STW and MTW as they ended up and are comparing mint fresh RTW to that standard; v1.1 doesn't even count as a patch imo. I truely believe; god let it be so; that RTW will be greatly improved by v1.2 and will finally be in a pristine state after the Expansion/Patch. Only at that time should we judge RTW in comparison to STW and MTW. The release versions of the preceeding two had plenty of problems.
I am worried about the noticeable move toward a more "user friendly" engine, but I will reserve judgement until after the expansion. I think that at that time, the vast majority of TW vets will judge RTW the finest iteration of the series. Then again, I may wrong. :furious3:
AntiochusIII
01-29-2005, 06:32
Hey, err, anyone knows how to buy M:TW again?
I moved a country a year ago and didn't bring the M:TW game with me. After reading the forums I (now act as if I'm crying like a baby) WANT TO PLAY IT!!! ~D
Unfortunately no place in Las Vegas seems to have the game.
I HATE Walmart. One day I'll kill them all with my gladius... I swear. (an oath to Jupiter.)
The problem is that the SP AI has a onetrack mind. The earlier games in the series were better programmed in this respect, IMHO. The first step is to give the AI some variation, then make it smarter. There is much that can be done to RTW in this regard that is not expensive or very timeconsuming.
D
Colovion
01-29-2005, 09:03
i think you should all take a deep breath.....and calm down. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but lets have some respect for those same opinions eh?
As someone who doesnt post very often it dismays me to see people who obviously care deeply about the game having a go at each other like this......
Challenging an opinion is the test between the opinion and the opinion's 'owner' to see if it's an opinion worth having.
Lord Hornburg
01-29-2005, 10:09
I have never played MTW but i have got STW and one of the things i miss is the assain movies now i hardly ever use assain's in RTW
BalkanTourist
01-29-2005, 10:19
I think today I am going to reinstall MTW:VI and have a nice campaign with the Irish. This is what I am gonna do ~:)
Red Harvest,
I was born an optimist, but as old as I am now, I'm a realist. Building software is all about money in the gaming world. There are, no doubt, plenty of devs on the team who wanted to build it better than they did. But they were a year late. Intolerable by todays standards for delivery. There comes a time when the project manager and lead programmer go in a room, have a screaming match, and the release date is firmed.
I would absolutely love to see military genius in the AI of games I play. But it's never happened. Real military genius revolves around perfect timing and positional analysis of battlefield events, and these do relate to why chess programming is harder than it looks. A real commander evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the units opposing him, not just numbers. Effective tactics like sacrificing some cheap units to kill the other side rely on sharp assessment of all the variables of battle. I believe the chief problem is that no military experts on ancient warfare were directly involved in the product development (at least from a tactics standpoint). One day, a game developer will get smart, and realize that the added expense of playtesting with real experts will pay off in spades with the finished product. Until such time, we will have rudimentary computer opponents.
STW wasn't perfect and neither was MTW, but MTW represented a step forward in the series, and its battlefield AI improved through VI. Now, RTW is a step forward in many areas, graphics, and it even improves on MTW in its strategic game. Where the misfire is in my opinion is in the battlefield AI, which I think is a major step backwards in terms of challenge. Unfortunately, the battlefield AI is the heart of the game. It is also the buggiest game of the series.
The sheer number of things the patch addresses points out the flaws and broken features of the game. Lets face it, this game was only marginally playtested and hurried out of the door. I am not going to roll over and bark with gratitude that this game was released in its current form.
My experience was that MTW was more bugged than RTW.
And I just can't wait for the patch.
AAAAAAAAAAAARGH !
When is it supposed to be available ?!
The Stranger
01-29-2005, 14:21
that's what i think too
they say that in rtw the armies are shattered but thats better then be ever chasing an 15000 men large army in mtw
but it is true that you dont see the major ofensives vs you that was there in mtw i think shogun battles suck becaus i always lose but in R and MTW i never loosed
I heard (read) that it would be out this week,so its today. (doubt it, do they even work today?) Or some day in (not) to distant future...
They should release it tomorrow, just for laughs ~D
The Stranger
01-29-2005, 19:56
How much did you play MTW? Mine has only CTD once - that's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about gameplay, not fancy dressing on a soulless product.
played it a lot but after a while its was just selfcreated misions for me
my tacticts whiped out every army even whent outnumbered 1:4
(ofcourse count in my passion for a perfect army) :charge:
but as example it way to easy just conquer the best trade countries put in every region an strong army upgrade everything and maintain your navy and whoila an aproximate 100,000 fl a year
sunsmountain
01-30-2005, 03:12
RTW is third in a field of three, pulling only 21% of the vote.
This only shows the dedicated base of Shogun fans that has been growing ever since (until now).
It neglects the fans who own the game R:TW but do NOT own S:TW or M:TW.
S:TW or M:TW owners have internet & about 1/6 of them visit forums.
'R:TW only' owners have internet (slightly less) but only 1/18 of them visit forums.
So most opinions are not heard, and most R:TW fans do not like or even attend forums as much as the earlier fans do. This is due to the fact that R:TW is designed for a greater public, also drawing in more social gamers. STW and MTW tend to be more mentally oriented, and thus more active on fora. RTW fans are more likely to meet in a bar, like Halo fans.
Sure this may change, but not a lot.
Men of Wid
01-30-2005, 07:00
I was without RTW for a week and reverted to STW & MTW to keep my twitching fingers busy. All I can say is what remarkable games they were in their day ... both still play very nicely, particularly STW. I found myself getting all nostalgic playing on some of the battlemaps where I cut my Total War teeth, some of the landscapes I know like the back of my hand. The music, styling and mood of STW was very immersive, and I enjoyed going back there.
MTW was my all time favourite until RTW, and playing that again for the first time since last September I fell in love again with the Medieval period, but the graphics are so clunky, and the campaign so lacking in RTW's subtlety ... I really can't understand why anyone would ditch RTW 1.1 for MTW, irrespective of whether there's going to be a patch or not.
Clicking to get a general's eye view of the action, and seeing realistically depicted armies panicking when they're flanked - the dynamics of combat in RTW are so much more sophisticated. Units of soldiers don't simply hack away at each other until one or other falls below a 'tipping point' in terms of casualties, RTW makes melees so much more realistic - no unit will stand and fight when successfully flanked and charged from the rear. That alone means that there is no scissors-stone-paper simplicity to this game. I have played about 30 hours a week of RTW since beginning of October ... it is simply the most immersive game I've ever come across, until the next iteration of this series that is.
Mouzafphaerre
01-30-2005, 07:09
-
Your optimism makes my blood boil for RTW, Men of Wid, and refreshes my keen memories of MTW stretching a two year period, interrupted into two blocks.
Welcome to the ORG!
:medievalcheers:
-
screwtype
01-30-2005, 07:30
Oaty, what programs did you use which found 1 gig of spyware on your PC? Just curious.
screwtype
01-30-2005, 09:05
Damn it I am sick and tired of fanboys like Old Celt telling us we expect too much, that we have no right to complain, and that we should get down on our knees and grovel with thanks for every little crumb the industry tosses our way.
If games development was left up to people like you, we'd all still be playing Pong on our TV sets.
I played STW and loved it. I still play and enjoy it sometimes. I also bought MTW and didn't like it at all. It didn't add anything but size to the first game, and I'm not a believer in the idea of "bigger is better". Shogun was just the right size, MTW was a bloated monster.
In addition, MTW's campaign AI sucked (building nothing but huge peasant armies) and the battle engine was clearly more sluggish than the crisp engine at the heart of STW. The lame attempt to create a challenge by having faction resurgences with uber-armies was the last straw for me.
Now I know that puts me at odds with a lot of people who love MTW but for me, STW is still by far the best game in the series, and it saddens me to see how the franchise has progressively gone backwards from that first title.
As for RTW, well I think the system has potential but it has a long way to go. The campaign AI in particular needs sharpening up - I haven't found the battle AI to be that bad, apart from suicidal generals. It's the bugs more than anything that drove me away from playing it.
But I think the greatest irony with RTW is that it was designed to be a fabulous piece of eye-candy and I think it's actually less attractive than the previous games! To me it looks very unrealistic, with the flat, largely featureless battle maps, the absurd skyscraper tall trees, the buildings that seem to be all out of proportion, and which appear to change their proportions as you move around them, and above all, those blindingly bright military units whose clothing looks backlit with neon! I mean, the whole thing looks kind of cartoony to me, and it does nothing for the immersion factor. Perhaps if they had sprays of blood when soldiers got killed - but that would hurt sales, wouldn't it? So the battlefield is not only cartoony, but antiseptic.
Not that I don't appreciate the huge effort that's gone into designing this 3D world, or the sometimes spectacular animations of the soldiers - but man, I wish they'd tone down the colours on those soldiers a bit!
Oh, while on the subject of graphics, where are the fabulous weather effects that they had in STW, those beautiful, evocative mists, the hiss of steady rain, or the spectacular bolts of lightning which light up the whole battlefield and the mighty crash of thunder which makes you JUMP in your seat?
And then there are the finicky controls, which in almost every respect are worse than in the previous games. Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? I mean, I could go on, but it's all been said before.
I still think the system has great potential and I look forward to refinements in future releases. I'm hoping the patch irons out those play-destroying bugs and brings the fun factor back. But please, don't tell me I don't have a right to be disappointed, or to express my opinion just because it doesn't happens to coincide with yours!
Men of Wid
01-31-2005, 08:27
When I returned to STW last week I was actually startled by the lightning - the ambient weather effects are extremely good, the best of all three games. Why this should be the case I don't understand. Nonetheless, I'm glad to be back on RTW 1.1.
One thing regarding STW is that because it was a simpler game - in terms of units, faction building/troop preferences, and number of provinces - the AI was more up to the job of keeping you on your toes.
MTW & RTW are far more complex worlds, with far more permutations ... is this an argument against the scale of MTW & RTW? Not for me. Eventually the AI will grow to fit into the larger strategic footprint.
And lets not chide CA for being wallflowers when it comes to ambition - the increase in graphics is more than just 'eye candy', it delivers an immersive experience. And I'll repeat the point I made earlier ... the dynamics of melee are far superior in RTW. No matter how good a unit is, they'll still run if you get at them from behind. This is a conceptual leap from STW & MTW, and makes RTW a serious game for adults.
But I hope that they fix the thunder & lightning effects.
Old Celt
01-31-2005, 16:30
Damn it I am sick and tired of fanboys like Old Celt telling us we expect too much, that we have no right to complain, and that we should get down on our knees and grovel with thanks for every little crumb the industry tosses our way.
If games development was left up to people like you, we'd all still be playing Pong on our TV sets.
I still think the system has great potential and I look forward to refinements in future releases. I'm hoping the patch irons out those play-destroying bugs and brings the fun factor back. But please, don't tell me I don't have a right to be disappointed, or to express my opinion just because it doesn't happens to coincide with yours!
Screwtype
I never said you had no right to complain. I never said you should get down on your knees. I DID say some of you expect too much, and that's absolutely true. There's quite the disconnect from reality when a couple dozen people who are an extreme minority, think their opinions should trump the work done by marketing and R&D for software projects. RTW isn't a great game because I say so; it's a great game because industry analysts, and many happy consumers say so.
You have the right to complain. I never said you didn't. What I said was: your complaining comes to nothing when most other people are happy. Do you think any company should change its plans just on your personal say so? How about you and 10 other people? I don't think that would matter. But if the reviews were poor, and sales were poor, you would have to change based on the flaws you could fix.
You couldn't be more wrong about me, games development, and Pong. As a programmer, I use the maximum amount of creativity my employer will allow in development. I believe in beginning with the end in mind, and doing a comprehensive assessment of project goals and resources. I will not sign off on any project if I feel adequate testing has not been done, or think things are shoddy in any way. But I'm just a dev. I get overtrumped by sales, marketing, etc. Do you really think the project devs didn't know about the common bugs and issues people point out about RTW? Of course they knew about them! The decision to release isn't up to them!!
Screwtype, you can be as disappointed as you like. And I never said you didn't have a right to express your opinion. I have, in fact, defended that right previously, and will do so again. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from attributing statements to me that I never made.
Wh1teWolf
02-01-2005, 08:02
Well said Old Celt.
Screwtype this game is awesome and I almost did not buy it due to the complaining from jagoffs like yourself but I just got it on Friday and love it, I have all TW games and this one is leaps and bounds above the rest.
Oh one more thing.... YOU GOT OWNED!!!
How about you and 10 other people? I don't think that would matter. But if the reviews were poor, and sales were poor, you would have to change based on the flaws you could fix.
Er, yes, because only 10 people (ok, fine, 11) have complained. :rolleyes: Nice strawman.
As for reviews, it's already been posted how reviewers tend to be 10hr players. That is, play the game for 10 hours, and then post their review. That may work for FPS with no depth. It doesn't work for a game like RTW. Let's face it, the graphics are a big step up in the "flash" department since MTW. The sheer "differentness" of it means that things look new and cool. It isn't until you've played it for awhile, and seen how bad some of the areas are that you get an understanding of what the issues of the game are.
As for the sales, I hope they are making the bean-counters happy. Lots of sales doesn't translate into a good game. It translates into good marketing. It doesn't mean that the game doesn't have serious issues. And it doesn't mean that the programmers of the game should be satisfied.
If you feel that RTW is a good/great game as it stands now, that's fine. But your somewhat poor attempts to write off the people who don't as "you and 10 other people", or "a couple dozen people who are an extreme minority" is both unsupportable and silly. You are making the exact same mistake you are accusing others of making.
Bh
Colovion
02-01-2005, 10:18
Well said Old Celt.
Screwtype this game is awesome and I almost did not buy it due to the complaining from jagoffs like yourself but I just got it on Friday and love it, I have all TW games and this one is leaps and bounds above the rest.
Oh one more thing.... YOU GOT OWNED!!!
Oh please calm down and do away with your facade of drama, it isn't wanted here. No one wins or loses when someone expresses an opinion.
The facts, with my comments:
1. The majority of those who frequent these forums are not those who used to frequent them during the MTW days, let alone the STW days. This does not spell "keeping your core enthusiasts happy" to me. I can remember a bunch of people who used ot be very proactive in the game part of the community basically fade away after the Rome Demo was released. This further compounded when the final unit lists were released along with the game itself.
2. The Advertising and Sales have gone up since the beginning. Coke is not the best or more rewarding beverage to drink, yet it's the best selling. It's sales are such because of their advertising and marketting - this is for the same in any Capitalist Society.
3. Many things were lost in transition from Generation to Generation of the game's history. This is not to say that nothing is added, I'd say that more was added than taken away - but it's the little and pivitol things that define any certain game. In a strategy game the physics and graphics engines are relatively moot - it's the AI and the Battle Engine that make up the bread and butter of the genre. It would be very nice to have a lot of things back from previous editions, but I'm not holding my breath. Basically if the patch doesn't do enough, I'm gone.
Yeah - not only has the game been dumbed down, so has the feel of these forums.
1. The majority of those who frequent these forums are not those who used to frequent them during the MTW days, let alone the STW days.
True, doesn't mean they haven't been playing them though. I only joined here in december, but I suppose would be classed as a 'veteran', whatever that means. ~:confused:
For me, the biggest way that RTW lets me down compared to the other two is that when you take an army into battle after looking at theirs, the odds, the experience etc is that you know beforehand what the result will be and most often if not always (unless a brutallt stupid AI bug such as general suicide with reinforcements) you know you will win.
The only thing in doubt is how much you will win by and if the enemy army will still exist post conflict.
Someone mentioned build up of tension previously on this thread and that is the key element that RTW misses. RTW is more like taking a Dyson vacuum cleaner over Europe and easily sucking up enemies, especially with the AI not doing to you what you can do to it ( as effectively) such as assisinations, building up and using diplomats to bribe etc.
I remember in MTW taking my stack of 1000 well solid troops with an awesome general against many thousands, lets say 4000, and having an EPIC.
Due to tiredness you would have to keep a couple of units in reserve until later but would that mean you would be too badly outnumbered. OK i've killedthe general quick, that leaves only 3800 troops to deal with vs my 950.
This type of tension no longer exists in RTW and was a real draw for me in the other 2.
I PREDICT A POST WILL FOLLOW THAT SAYS 'I THINK THERE IS THAT TENSION IN RTW AND I AM JUST NOT PLAYING IT RIGHT' Hmmmm, how long will it be.?
By the way, hello all, haven't posted in bloody ages. ~:cheers:
Colovion
02-03-2005, 10:10
Yeah - not only has the game been dumbed down, so has the feel of these forums.
:embarassed: yeah. it used to be all history and strategy chat. good point.
I should be more careful what i post. To clarify, I mean that the game in its current state has not encouraged many threads on how we can defeat the uber AI ~:confused: or on battle tactics. I in no way meant the members of this forum, which is currently the only plus point to a rushed and pretty incomplete game.
Old Celt
02-03-2005, 15:42
Many of the posts I read here suggest changes that, while they may make the game more "realistic", they would also take the element of fun (you know FUN; the purpose of all games) out to some degree. An example would be the whole bribing/assassination genre. Sure, the AI can be programmed to use every advantage to build up a big treasury, then systematically bribe everything you have away from you. Would that be fun? We could change the AI so cities would revolt constantly, and the people would never be happy. Would that be fun? We could eliminate morale from the battle AI, and also any attempt to emulate the particular style of a civs battle tactics and instead have cold calculated logic for all AI behavior. Would that REALLY be fun? We could make siege warfare much more realistic by emulating real life behavior and eliminating nearly all direct assaults. Sieges will be a waiting game because, with proper defensive logic, direct assault = SUICIDE. Again, would it be fun?
I'm not a bonafide military genius, but I know the computer can easily outmanuever you if decision making and actions are equally based on logical reference and limited time to execute (i.e. RTS where you cannot pause). Do you think it would be fun to have a game that deteriorates to a "click fest" because you cannot think and react as quickly as the computer? A good game will always balance the fun aspect with the difficulty or tedious aspects of the representation.
There are bugs which need to be addressed. Hopefully, all the major ones will be. The bigger the scope of a project, the more likely bugs will remain hidden for long periods. They still discover bugs in Windows 2000 on a routine basis. I really don't see how any enthusiast for military history and tactics could NOT have fun with this game. Yes it has limitations, bugs, and stupid behavior at times on the AI's part. But I think, even with all that, the game is still a dang lot of fun. I play it for hours and hours, and enjoy it even with the flaws. The patch should fix most of the outright bugs, but there's no way the AI will be improved enough to satisfy some of the most demanding players in the time they've (CA) had to implement the patch.
In past TW games it took a lot more time to deploy troops, march troops and do the actual battle itself. The deployment/marching/maneuvering ritual is gone! :dizzy2:
The units are too fast and unbalanced. What is the longest battle you've had in RTW? In MTW? in STW?
In STW, deployment was very crucial, due to the chain rout.
In MTW, it was much easier, due to the strength of the spears and higher morale.
In RTW, it was dumbed down to the point that it doesn't even matter anymore since the enemy will all charge at the same time at unbelievable speeds ~:eek:
In STW, deployment was very crucial, due to the chain rout.
In MTW, it was much easier, due to the strength of the spears and higher morale.
In RTW, it was dumbed down to the point that it doesn't even matter anymore since the enemy will all charge at the same time at unbelievable speeds ~:eek:
Um, I'm not sure about this. In some ways, I think deployment matters more in RTW because combat is so quick - it is hard to pull off grand manouvres, so it is more a question of having pointed your men in the right direction and letting them go.
However, it seems terrain matters rather less in RTW than the earlier games - hills, in particular, don't seem so dominating. (This may be a good thing.) So this reduces the importance of deployment.
I appreciate the speed of RTWs battles, particularly in the context of keeping a campaign moving at a brisk pace, but they do often seem to miss the epic quality of some of STWs and MTWs battles. However, my hunch is that a lot of the problem is in the AI failing on the strategic map to get a reasonable force to counter the player's. The few times I've confronted full strength AI stacks with decent generals, the battles have been impressive if still brisker than in the earlier games.
a_ver_est
02-03-2005, 18:15
Um, . The few times I've confronted full strength AI stacks with decent generals, the battles have been impressive if still brisker than in the earlier games.
Fully agree, IMHO the main problem of the AI is the bad use of their generals, most of it's full stack armies are leaded by a capitan, meanwhile player armies are leaded by a 4 stars general at least.
It has two major effects, armies are cheap to bribe and their battle performance is to poor.
If AI used good generals to lead their armies. the game would be more challenging
I think deployment matters more in RTW because combat is so quick I disagree too. Whatever happened to the Rock-paper-scissor scheme?
it is hard to pull off grand manouvres That's because it was abandoned. That's what separated TW from other games in the first place. You can't do it because the units are meant to plow head-on. Why do you think they cranked up the speed in the first place?
Here's some of what's missing, from STW (minus expansion pack):
- Vicious fights for the Hill. Defending or attacking, the fight is always on the edge.
- Weather effects. Attack a province in a middle of a
a) Snowstorm/blizzard. The AI is hidden. Formation is always defensive.
b) Heavy rain. Most of the AI is hidden in the forrest and your arrows are considerably weakened. Occasional lightning can help. Trying to extricate a buried army is amazing. ( in RTW, you just plow right through).
- AI hides and divides its forces. You are constantly torn whether to divide your army.
- Limited access to army. You can't pump out units from many province or you'll go broke quickly.
- Routing and Rallying. It is practically impossible to do this since 100s of soldiers are wiped in a couple of seconds. In bridges, you just create a box, let the AI flow through and then charge. Literally, the whole army vaporizes.
- Ranged unit shootouts. Try charging arquebusiers with melee units and they will rout. Attack hidden archers without backup and your melee units will be decimated.
- Better battlemap. They kept talking about huge battlefields, yet you have this tiny area to maneuver in the final product.
Where are these TW hallmarks in RTW? I can let my collosal disappointment of MTW pass, after info on RTW was leaked out. Heck, I even bought VI since I was impressed with RTW.
I'll try out Imperial Glory if RTW is still a dog after the patch. CA seriously need a competition. Right now RTW is a Wargame/Arcade hybrid, it simply doesn't mix. :dizzy2:
Claudius Maniacus Sextus
02-03-2005, 21:02
I am really soured on RTW given the broken features, idiotic AI, and bugs. The claims that the game is still playable is really laughable when you consider that archers can beat heavy cavalry in melee. I wish that I could be optimistic with the patch, but I think the speculation is overhyped and a lot of people are going to be disappointed. Well, thats my opinion anyway.
I have rediscovered MTW and I can tell you that the MTW battle AI is vastly superior to RTW. It isn't perfect, but MTW is by a more finished product than RTW. With Mods such as BKB's Supermod, MTW was a far more moddable and enjoyable game than RTW.
My hope is that Slitherine's Legion 2 will salvage the Rome period and will be historically accurate and more challenging than RTW.
im doing that to......but patch is up so..... PLAY!!!! ~:cheers:
For me the biggest dissappointment in RTW is the lack of challenge. I haven't played STW, but when I began playing MTW it took quite a few battles and a lot of forum browsing to discover all the tricks and ways to beat the AI and even after that it was still quite difficult. It was fun, step by step I could face greater enemies with more confidence, but victory was NEVER certain! Now RTW is just plain boring in that aspect, the AI ALWAYS uses the absolute same tactic. It deploys in a long thin line and charges, thrilling, isn't it? In MTW the AI tried to manevour for higher ground or a better position, I remember trying hard to out manevour him.
I mean a battle in RTW where my army of 2300 beat an enemy of 3500 and I only suffer 37 casualties, that is not normal! Sure I could put it to VH and see my unit of heavy cav be cut down by archers, but that is just plain stupid, ahistorical and most importantly NOT FUN!
RTW has been made more appealing to the FPS crowd and thus it was seriously simplified, I mean the AI uses barbarian charge tactic for every army out there *sigh* Yes it does, I made a test where I gave the Parthian, horse archer heavy, army to the AI and it just charged it.
The second great dissappointment was the lack of historical accuracy. The Roman factions are portayed nicely, but when one looks at the barbarians :dizzy2: It doesn't really help if all barbarian factions have the same units which are named like in some very old games - I mean: swordsmen, chosen swordsmen, spearmen, cavalry, noble cavalry. It is like it used to be ten years ago, where you faced yellow enemies, blue enemies and red enemies and there was a boss that had the same skin but was black. *sigh*
And when we see some difference it is totally shocking...druids...head hurlers...:dizzy2:
The above really takes away from that feeling when you play the game, where you think who it is best to attack and you need to take into account casualties and the size of the enemy army. It was nicely pointed out that in RTW you just run over Europe with a vacuum cleaner, doesn't really matter who you attack, you will probably win, even if you don't use the cheesy bribe. ( Full stack for 8k anybody? )
caesar44
02-04-2005, 00:29
actually in roman history there were several famous battles that ended with 50 to 300 roman casualties and 5,000 or so barbarians casualties
the thick line was the most common battle tactic ia ancient times
did you try to play as emperor (not general praetor or consul) ?
:book: ~:handball:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.