View Full Version : Creative Assembly Initial Patch Thoughts
Colovion
02-03-2005, 22:45
So the patch came out today (yay) and I downloaded it and tried out a few custom battles. I must say I am impressed with only the impressions I got from playing a dozen or so custom battles in trying various things out.
1. Phalanx units seem much more formidable, instead of pivoting their entire unit to one side to have just one section of the line coming in contact with the enemy the whole unit is more fluid and will pivot to face and push into whichever unit I had them attack.
2. Battles are still over very quickly. I guess before I stopped playing I'd been using a kill/runspeed reducer so it just shocked me when the first battle was over in 5 seconds (or less) once melee had initiated... and that was with just vanilla Gaul and Roman units up against eachother with no Cavalry.... I tried many battles, and never got one that lasted longer than 60 seconds (or even close to that).
3. I couldn't test the Battlfield AI because there's no time - it's just charge = death = end of battle. In the phalanx testing though, there was a buildup of units on one side and the AI pulled that around to flank me - so that was a good sign... unfortunately by the time that he got around my flank his entire army was routing....
4. Javs really need to be thrown immediately once in range - there's still the problem of not being able to get a volley off because the skirms will halt, wait, get ready to throw - oh no, the enemy is too close - back up and try again... etc etc.
So far, I like - but I won't be able to play it without more modification. There's no point to a good Battlefield AI if it's nullified by the speed of battles.
I dont want to make this a big deal, but everyone complained about Rome without a patch, and now that its out, people are still complaining. You should thank everyone in the CA team for making this, even if it isnt up to your standards, they cant make everyone happy. :bow:
The AI is still pretty stupid on defense. I attacked a group of 5 falxmen with about 6 armoured hoplites, 4 units of archers and 2 generals. Admittedly, I was going to win, but the AI still did nothing. I moved my archers into range (they were out front) and started shooting. Took out 2 units completely. I moved one of my archer units forward, and finally they decided to attack with 2 out of the 3 remaining units. Of course, they took about 10 steps before they routed. Why a unit is set to stand under archer fire and not do anything, I don't know.
And now for my big rant... Why is it that companies insist on breaking things when putting out patches?? I had my keyboard configuration setup just the way I like it. Install 1.2, and suddenly it's broken. I had "1", "2", and "3" set as the keys to control gamespeed. Not only were they removed, I can't even set them again. Having to go back to pushing the stupid-hard-to-click buttons is a real pain. Minor point? Maybe. But there was no reason to break my key configuration, and even less reason for me to be unable to set them. A patch is supposed to make a game work better, not introduce new annoyances.
Bleah. Ok, I'm done.
Bh
Red Harvest
02-03-2005, 23:24
I've played a bit of custom and campaign mode.
Good stuff:
1. Storms are working now (right on the clock tick, but working nonetheless.)
2. Phalanx mode seems a bit more natural, but haven't tested enough to fully confirm it.
3. Pri/sec bug seems to be fixed.
4. Friendly fire seems to work intelligently now.
5. Cav charges seemed a bit weaker--not sure of this though.
6. Fire arrows did not kill frame rate.
7. Amok elephants are now a very bad thing!
8. Desert Axemen have taken off half of their transparent aluminum armour.
Not so good:
1. In my 2nd campaign battle an enemy captain charged right into my line. And the AI still sent in forces piecemeal.
2. In the same battle the AI let me march up the hill and take away its high ground.
3. The AI also sat there and let me pelt it with archer fire for awhile before it moved forward to attack, then withdrew. Then turned back and finally attacked.
4. Archery is still in sore need of a good nerfing.
5. Fire arrows still work during thunderstorms.
6. Archers still fire from multiple ranks deep (haven't checked it they still shoot from 16...but I suspect so.
7. Cav upkeep is still cheap.
8. Almost all erroneous Egyptian stats have been left as is.
9. Light auxilia (and I think cav auxilia) still appear to have pila in their animations and unit cards. Stats show javelin figures though.
10. Battle is still much too fast.
All in all, it looks like an incremental improvement getting it a bit closer to MTW. Still a long way to go. I'm going to try to hold off from modding it for a few days, but there is a lot that needs to be done.
Personally I'm glad they didn't change the kill speed. If you want the battles to last longer bring more men to the grinder...
Boudicca
02-03-2005, 23:36
Just a short experience analysis, didn´t have much time for testing....
I' ve struck several AI controlled villages in Gaul with my Julii Army. Whenever the AI had only several troops assembled in the central square, I tried to shooot those trooops down with my Archer units. The nice thing: The AI units in the central square ran towards my Archers and attacked them, so that I had to draw them back. I' ve never experienced this before. Still, the Computer is without a chance, but it at least takes a challenge.
I will analyze the patch during the next few days and see what other users experience...so far I'am happy to have it, even though I would like to continue my Campaings in SPQR, RTR and VLAD mod....
It is so stupid that it is already 23.37 h in Germany...damn it!
@totalwar.org: thanks for the additional downloads...I had 90kb/s download speed!!!
Red Harvest
02-03-2005, 23:39
Personally I'm glad they didn't change the kill speed. If you want the battles to last longer bring more men to the grinder...
Uhhh...yeah...it actually works the opposite of that. Single unit match ups often melee much longer. Big battles happen fast and you don't get much opportunity to issue orders.
Guess it keeps those with short attention spans happy though.
Sheesh...
I am honored to spot the good news today. Haven't played RTW for a while...
I just browsed through the readme and didn't seem to find:
(1) The reversed stamina bug fix. Spartan hoplites got tired like little whiny girls. Is this done?
(2) Replay campaign battle (as in custom). Guess hope is gone... :embarassed:
Thanks. :bow:
My initial patch thought was "Wow, 56.2mb???" Most patches I've downloaded for games are much smaller. ~:eek:
I don't think the patch was supposed to turn the AI into a godly general, but more aimed at fixed numerous niggling issues, which judging by the readme, they have. They never intended to stretch battles out longer by reducing the kill rate or anything. I'm disappointed to here a tale of another suicidal general already though.
While battles in RTW don't last as long as MTW or STW battles, I've not had a battle melee last five seconds unless it's heavy cav. vs. pesants. ~;) And in a fair, matched fight the battles I fought (this is in 1.1 btw...I'm still downloading 1.2) my battles don't seem incredibly impossibly fast. Faster than MTW/STW, and faster than I might like, but never lightspeed. I've not tried the Total Realism mod, either-perhaps my perspective would change if I had.
Well spotted RH! The charge of cavalry was indeed reduced a little. :)
Phalanxes are lethal now btw!
Red Harvest
02-04-2005, 00:41
Well spotted RH! The charge of cavalry was indeed reduced a little. :)
Phalanxes are lethal now btw!
Jambo,
What did they change to weaken the cavalry charge? Morale effects? The reason I ask is that the basic charge/melee stats look unchanged for the units I've seen in action thus far, but they did seem a bit less inclined to sweep away infantry in frontal charges (I was on the receiving end even...)
Barbarossa82
02-04-2005, 00:48
So far I'm impressed. My initial oberservations from starting a new campaign as Pontus:
1) Battle AI is smarter. No suicide charges as yet, and it seems to react more intelligently to the flow of the battle, attacking in a more co-odinated manner too rather than rushing for a single flank.
2) Diplomacy is much, much better - not only do AI diplomats work a lot harder than they used to, but the faction's responses seem more accurately to reflect their military/economic situation. Plus, they are offering much more imaginative deals off their own backs, rather than simply being restrained to ceasefire, alliance etc.
3) Carthage and the Seleucid Empire seem to have been beefed up. Not sure if this has been done directly or whether they are benefiting incidentally from improvements to Phalanx (Seleucid pikemen) and the resolution of the missle bug (Iberian Infantry now more effective in early game). Anway Carthage is giving the Scipii a run for their money on Sicily and the Seleucids are actually expanding better than Egypt!
4) Saw my first storm within a few years - yay!
Well, I would have liked kill speeds toned down a bit, but it's not a massive problem. As far as I'm concerned, the game is now worth the near £40 I paid for it on October 1st!
I don't think the change was a straightforward stats change per sé, unless maybe their mass has been reduced a little to lessen the impact (haven't checked tbh). It's more likely a hardcoded aspect.
Red Harvest
02-04-2005, 01:02
I don't think the change was a straightforward stats change per sé, unless maybe their mass has been reduced a little to lessen the impact (haven't checked tbh). It's more likely a hardcoded aspect.
The mass is unchanged, I checked that too. Like you say, it is probably hardcoded as part of the combat engine.
Best upgrade:
Right click on your towns tab, and now you get much more information. MOst importantly, you know which towns are recruting and building at a glance. ~:cheers:
Worst non-change:
No campaign battle replay.
~:mecry:
Bob the Insane
02-04-2005, 01:26
MINIMAL_UI:TRUE
Memorise your hotkeys (make sure to bind the time controls to keys) and toggle off all the UI for full screen RTW...
Bloody brillant.... ~D
I see they have not fixed the idiotic sytem-sensing routine. Since I did a clean install, lo, behold, RTW will not scale to 1600x1200. Now I have to go back and dig through the archives, trying to remember how to unlock my preferences so that I can run the game at full power.
This seems like a simple one, and an odd thing to leave broken. Oh well. Just glad to have the patch.
CeltiberoMordred
02-04-2005, 01:50
I am honored to spot the good news today. Haven't played RTW for a while...
I just browsed through the readme and didn't seem to find:
(1) The reversed stamina bug fix. Spartan hoplites got tired like little whiny girls. Is this done?
(2) Replay campaign battle (as in custom). Guess hope is gone... :embarassed:
Thanks. :bow:
1 - The reversed stamina bug has been fixed, as well as reversed heat_stat
2 - No, replay campaign battle is not available, but at least now they are accurate.
CeltiberoMordred
02-04-2005, 01:52
The mass is unchanged, I checked that too. Like you say, it is probably hardcoded as part of the combat engine.
Yes, it's hardcoded: IIRC, now it's less likely to see horses jumping over your troops (specially if you use a deep phalanx formation with pikes aiming the sky), so it's more difficult that they could break your formation or attack from the rear after a frontal charge.
AntiochusIII
02-04-2005, 02:20
Oh no, now my Parthian generals can't beat the phalanxes in city battles anymore. ~D
Yes, I've modded it personally to ensure Parthian generals have cataphracts... unfortunately it must be done at the start. Man, that WAS easy with every general become 20-50 extra cataphracts in the early game ... rechargable!!!!
Never mind. Where should I download it faster than at the official site? I mean, it's very slow, you see..
Repeat : Where?
Simetrical
02-04-2005, 02:48
Here is the first mod for 1.2 (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=45&t=20655&st=0#entry1811954561) (I think). It's basically an adaptation of adonys' kill rate mod, and it should help with too-fast combat.
-Simetrical
First off: I'm sure there is a lot of good in the patch, but the first thing that you notice tend to be the bad things, so is on:
Rebels everywhere after the patch. I get them mostly in provinces where loyalty is below 120%. These little scrimishes against the rebels are really tedious. You have to every turn check every corner of your empire for them, after finding one send some amount of town militia to attack them, run to them for few minutes (time accelerated) and see how the battle is over in two secs when the rebels rout.
Too boring... I trained diplomats in every town and send them to bribe those rebels off. It costs about 5k to bribe a few units, but I have money to throw away.
Building is slower now, because the game doesn't bring you back to the "buildings completed in this turn" -page after selecting one town from the list and closing the town-page. Doesn't sound that bad, but that extra click sure annoys me.
In battle units jerk just a bit in every two seconds or so now....
It sounds like a good idea to have the offspring to appear to the town where their father is, but it causes more work to hunt them down and because I don't have Ludus Magna in every town yet, I have to ship them to some town that has one for training.
Murmandamus
02-04-2005, 03:00
Where should I download it faster than at the official site? I mean, it's very slow, you see..
Repeat : Where?
http://www.3dgamers.com/games/rome/downloads/
Friendly fire is fixed but if you order the fire to be executed it works like it used to. So Hastati/Prinipes and legionaires will cause friendly kills if you right click because it sees it as you ordered fire onto an engaged unit. So altclick a unit unless it is not engaged.
Overlapped units seem completely immune to FF
They seemed to up the speed of javelins that are thrown.
Unfortanately the A.I. still tries to horde the gate when under fire during a siege.
Very hard campaign dificulty(normal battles) the A.I. attacks me across the bridge with 2 to 1 odds in my favour. A.I. should not waste an army against a bridge except on easy diff and maybe norm.
When A.I. uses cavalry against skirmisher it seems to be closely followed by melee units unless the skirmishers are isolated but that was only 1 battle.
So far I've only seen 1 Carthage ship and the rest are Romans. So it seems it's really toned down or at least in the early phase when troops are more important.
The patch seems good but I'm only a few turns in my campaign. I'll play more tomorrow and I am really impressed with the FF now, and The Temple of Zeus seems to be working now, I'm in 267 and still getting a wonder bonus everywhere.
Oh ya also the Minimal UI kicks ass and should default or easier to access for people who don't know how with the preferences.txt
Also I'm not sure if anyone else noticed but the unit card background is now grey and I really like it better than the white of before.
I'm very happy with the patch so far, many things are fixed or bettered.
Most of the small things i don't like can be fixed with modding, well done CA!
However, one thing that can't be fixed by modding that irritates me (and others from what i've read) is the lack of campaign battle replays.
Replays in custom game is a good thing, but i would much rather have it the other way around, replays in campaign but not in custom.
Or better still, replays in custom and campaign!!
Well it's tough to please everyone, thumbs up to CA for a job well done. :thumbsup:
Red Harvest
02-04-2005, 06:39
Adding to the "good" category:
It is good to see the AI armies fighting decisive battles vs. rebels and each other (rather than the old huge army chases little army...but never going in for the kill.) As a result, I'm seeing noticeably fewer rebels. Before the AI Bruttii always chased rebels into my territory as Scipii. They haven't done it a single time so far.
Navies are *much* reduced. And when the AI has a fleet, it uses it! I've been blockaded many times already.
Storms can be more of a threat than navies now. I've avoided any sea battles, but got nailed by a storm while launching a senate mandated naval invasion of Caralis. It took out 25% of my naval crew, but no ships, and no troops. Note: The lack of troop losses looks like a weakness of the sea storm implementation. Has anyone lost troops to a storm *without* losing any boats from the troop fleet?
Carthage has launched several naval attacks against me after I took away some territory.
AI armies so far are more likely to be led by a family member...although I'm still seeing some strung out AI armies.
The AI is smarter in sieges. I've even had it slam reserves into my flank from God knows where as I was heading toward the square. They were parked on a side street.
Potetial New Bug:
Sometimes the strategic map pathing "detours" to run into a unit you can't see. It looks like the mouse click is clipping the hidden banner of an army and then doing a 90 degree turn to intercept it. It has happened to me several times
Remaining weaknesses:
AI still uses bizarre formations like spearmen and phalangite units stacked in a column. Example: Enemy consisted of Carthaginian family member, two Libyan Spearmen, two Poeni Infantry. It stacked them with spearmen one in front of the other with Poeni behind? I advanced my javelins and remnant of a slinger unit and chewed up the spearmen. Then I advanced my 1 hastati and threw pila at poeni as the AI tried to change to line. At that point I charged with my single cav, single hastati, half size merc peltast, my velite, 1/4 size merc hoplite, and general to overwhelm the AI.
Carthaginian AI has been building stacks of crap troops (not the little army above.) Lots of town militia--reminds me of the early MTW version's peasant or ballista armies. Numidia has a lot of peltasts too in its stacks. For some reason the AI is not building its better troop types as often as it should. I'm hoping this is just a quirk of this campaign.
The AI is still suicidal about charging the player's skirmishers/archers with its cavalry. It won't just chase them back and withdraw, it charges right into the player's formation and loses its cavalry.
On the battlefield the AI is still bad about not consolidating multi-army forces before attacking. They need to be brought together and rested before attacking. The only time this wouldn't make sense is if they were forced to fight, or if they have the player sandwiched between them.
Orvis Tertia
02-04-2005, 06:48
A couple of positive things in my campaign game tonight (so far):
1. An enemy army that was between me and the city I was trying to lay seige to built a fort and blocked my path at a chokepoint while reinforcements came up to help. Almost turned the tide of battle, actually, because after I beseiged the fort plus its reinforcements, my army was almost too depleted to attack the city. Then, when I did attack the city, they tried to break my seige with reinforcements from another province. WEll done, AI! (hard/hard)
2. The increased movement for diplomats and spies ROCKS! It has a surprisingly significant effect on the pace of the game.
3. Overall, enemies are more aggressive and appear a bit smarter in battle, especially city defense.
Red Harvest
02-04-2005, 06:51
Friendly fire is fixed but if you order the fire to be executed it works like it used to. So Hastati/Prinipes and legionaires will cause friendly kills if you right click because it sees it as you ordered fire onto an engaged unit. So altclick a unit unless it is not engaged.
Overlapped units seem completely immune to FF
They seemed to up the speed of javelins that are thrown.
When they overlap they each shoot/throw fewer missiles to avoid FF. So it has penalties as well. First, impression is that they have gotten this part right. :sunny:
Not having to micromanage ranged units is a massive improvement. I'm still suffering some FF kills, but for valid reasons. :pleased: I am having a time adapting, LOL, I keep forgeting I don't have to do it all manually! It's like when you move the trash can from one place to another...you keep walking over to where it used to be...GAH! :wall:
I think you might be right about javelins although I didn't do a timing before the patch and after. My guys are actually using their allotment of missiles in combat...of course it helps that I can leave FAW on and allow them to do their job now.
Red Harvest
02-04-2005, 07:04
Something cool:
During a battle near Caralis I noticed that I could see ships sitting in the water where the AI fleet was. And all the extra trees and such visible in the distance is a nice touch. I am looking forward to fighting near wonders or volcanoes (especially during an eruption.)
Wonder if they fixed the "incredible shrinking boulders?" (Boulders that shrank from vehicle sized to small box size as you approached them.)
Question:
Are the battlefields slightly bigger? I feel like I have a bit more room to chase men down.
Lord Preston
02-04-2005, 07:20
just had a quick go and without going into to much detail the game just "feels" more complete, where before i'd get p****d off at it (like when the groups screw up and it launches my who army at a spearwall, yeah! thanks a lot you stupid GAME! *alt-f4*) it hasn't done anything "daft"......... yet
its the little things that make a huge improvement, this is what the game should of been to start with...
Lord Preston
02-04-2005, 07:21
"my who army" lol damn no edit. whole army i meant (its early in UK 6am, thats my excuse)
The AI does seem smarter, and in one battle I saw a port and my fleet in the background, a nice change of scenery ~:)
sassbarman
02-04-2005, 07:44
Just played about an hour with the new patch and I agree that it just seems like it's finished now, much more polished. However I do have a slight concern involving ai factions engaging in more subterfuge. With activities like assassination attempts being considered transgressions, I fear alliances will be much harder to maintain. This has been my experience so far in my current game as the seleucids, with my long time allies (pre-patch) Thrace twice ending our alliance with failed assassination attempts (post-patch) in only three turns. I hope this not going to be a regular occurance.
Uhhh...yeah...it actually works the opposite of that. Single unit match ups often melee much longer. Big battles happen fast and you don't get much opportunity to issue orders.
Guess it keeps those with short attention spans happy though.
Sheesh...
Of course "single unit match ups often melee much longer" than when large armies clash. It's because the single units don't get flanked.
Sheesh...
Anyway, the reason why battles are over so quick isn't the kill rate, it's the fact that low-valor units rout as soon as the other side seems to get the upper hand.
Big battles do last longer unless you don't have reserves or reinforcements thereby letting all your units rout at the same time. If you rally your routing troops and keep a second line with fresh troops the large battles last way longer than smaller ones.
They don't last as long as battles did in real life no, but then our armies are like one tenth of the size of armies back then...
The only kill rate that would benefit from a change is the one for routers but that's a different issue.
Colovion
02-04-2005, 08:53
one sweet thing that I noticed.
I grouped 4 units, told them to go somewhere. Then I pressed R.
THEY ALL RAN! Wheeee
Well, managed to manually put 1/2/3 back as the keys for speed. Annoying to be so much trouble, but at least it works.
On a positive note, it's nice to see that they put a toggle in for time limits on battles. Can turn it off before sieges, and turn it back on for 'normal' combat.
Also nice to see that the AI actually proposed a ceasefire with me in the game I was continuing (start pre-patch). Was less nice to note that they quickly followed up the ceasefire agreement (which I accepted) with a blockade of my port (starting the war back up). Also not nice to note that the Egyptians decided to go to war with me by blockading my port. Lots of blockades happening, which is good, I suppose, but also silly. I mean, I have 12 ships in harbour, and the Egyptians try and blockade it with 1 ship. Which, of course, I can't sink even with 12 ships. Gah. Naval stuff is still pretty poor.
I guess if the game shipped this way, I'd be somewhat satisfied with the knowledge that another patch was coming to fix some of the outstanding issues. Knowing there isn't one (barring an absolutely fatal error) makes it a somewhat bittersweet moment.
Bh
Kaldhore
02-04-2005, 09:22
I didnt play for long last night - but One thing I noticed that pleased me was when I sallied and attacked my beseigers with my normal archer-full army, the enemy didnt run into firing range and stand there while I cut them down with arrows. Instead they went to a hill further away from my castle - well out of arrow range.
Nice.
Although there was a problem with my archers on the wall. When routing they just got stuck on the wall and I couldnt help them - they wouldnt come out of the rout too, even after 5 mins of speeded up game time and no enemy nearby. (they should have ran to the town square and rallied.)
Mr Frost
02-04-2005, 09:40
...Grrr %$#@@#$! ....
I guess if the game shipped this way, I'd be somewhat satisfied with the knowledge that another patch was coming to fix some of the outstanding issues. Knowing there isn't one (barring an absolutely fatal error) makes it a somewhat bittersweet moment.
Bh
Remember , there is almost certain to be an expansion , that will not only bring a new dimension to the game {Mongol Expansion and Viking Expansion both proved worth having} but also another patch which might fix the remaining problems
*giagantic nudge to C/A : Campaign Battle Replays Please !*
IceTorque
02-04-2005, 09:40
just when i thought i was over my TW addiction along comes v1.2
minimal ui interface: love it
fatigue: has anyone noticed how quickly units recover, a quick smoko and they are ready for round 2, excellent.
smooth scrollin strat map: very nice.
the bad things: i don't care they are far outweighed by all the good stuff.
Sam Adams
02-04-2005, 09:55
seems like theres an annoying tendancy to zoom to units now when I click on them now.
when elephants run amok its really really bad for your army now. really bad.
the enemy uses their navy very well. Im actually having a hard time keeping my trade routes open and keeping enough cash.
The gauls are sitting on this damned hill with archers besieging my city. Theres nothing I can do. Go up the hill and die or sit in the city and starve. hmmm. its nice that the AI isnt stupid(sometimes) anymore.
AI diplomacy occurs much more often.
Siege time limit has increased a bit, thats nice.
whats UI meen?
Mr Frost
02-04-2005, 10:00
whats UI meen?
Underpants Insurance . Better to be safe than sorry !
One thing i wonder. They added a keyboard shortcut to select single units (as it were in MTW). I've missed this, and it's great that they fixed it.
But...
It's hardcoded to ALT+number 1 to 9.
Pressing ALT+ a number is a bit cumbersome, does anyone know if it is somehow possible to alter this?
I would very much like to use the number 1 to 9 without ALT.
It doesn't matter with the assigning part, which is CTRL+SHIFT+number, because you can do that before starting the battle.
I doubth it is possible, but no harm in asking.
Yes, I know about the expansion issue. I'm just not convinced that I should need to spend more money on the game to get things fixed.
And I suppose I sound like the patch is mediocre, at best, when in fact it's got a lot of things right. As I said, this is the way the game should have been released. It's just the fact that I know there won't be any more fixes until most likely October at the earliest (can't see the expansion coming out before then) means that I'll have to live with all of this unless it can be modded.
Bh
PetMonkey
02-04-2005, 10:17
This might be a little cynical... but does anyone else get the impression that the wrong game version got sent to the CD factories in the first place? After this patch it rather feels like we've been playing a beta these past few months.
It's happened before...
BalkanTourist
02-04-2005, 11:08
All in all I must say, I am disappointed.
1. Uber Peasants: I was attacking the enemy general with my general (17 bodygards). My general happened to meet some peasants while it was chasing the gen (it was an Eastern Gen) and lost.....10 bodygards to the peasants. I thought that was an exception, but then I lost my faction heir - 23 bodygards 7 stars, 3 bronze valor, scarred, to a unit of peasants and a unit of HA. BTW, I'm not new to the game.
2. I am playing the Seulecids and everyone wants to ally me, give me maps and even land (got Dumatha from Parthia). Also if you ask for let's say 2000 in 2 turns and they say - 450 in 8 turns, you can ask for 450 for 800 turns and they will agree!!! (The Transgression message appears).
3. Too many rebels who never retreat even with 7:2 odds. After I beat them I get 2 stars and numerous vertues and valor - in 3 years I had a 10 star and a 7 star general who started with one and 3 stars just by fighting rebels. When my gen retreats, instead of getting a bad vice, he gets the scarred virtue and has more hit points...
4. Battle A.I. is still dumb. Their gen will always head straight for your gen even if he is behind a wall of spears. The A.I. in MTW is better and gives me more challenge.
Sorry to be so scetchy but it is 5 am here and I got to get up at 8 so I am pressed for time. I will post some more to support my arguement later on today or tomorrow. But all in all, after so much waiting and anticipation, I am disappointed.
P.S. And I forgot to tell ya, that I had a CTD, which has happened only twice before since September.
Colovion
02-04-2005, 12:38
Oh yeah - note to other ORgers: Don't let the AI take control of your units.
I know I was foolish to do it, but I decided to trust the AI to control half of my forces to test them out. I gave them my Triarii, Merc Hoplites, Faction Leader and a bunch of Hastati. Now this is one of the first few turns so that's a pretty big army for that time. We had surrounded the enemy in a city - the computer got the bulk of the defenders on his side, but with his units he had the upper hand easily.
He lost almost every man - faction leader = dead - all the units totally annihilated, down to single digits on all of them. Oh and he inflicted about 30 total kills for his trouble...
I wasn't angry because I just now know that the friendly AI is still stupid and worthless; learning experience I call it.
Barbarossa82
02-04-2005, 13:18
Building is slower now, because the game doesn't bring you back to the "buildings completed in this turn" -page after selecting one town from the list and closing the town-page. Doesn't sound that bad, but that extra click sure annoys me.
Whoa, that's weird - for me it was exactly the opposite. Pre-patch, after visiting one of the towns mentioned in the "buildings completed" panel, and exiting that town's info panel, the "buildings completed" would not pop back up, and would stay at the side of the screen. Now it does pop back up, as does the recruitment scroll! :dizzy2:
Kyniskos
02-04-2005, 15:27
Building is slower now, because the game doesn't bring you back to the "buildings completed in this turn" -page after selecting one town from the list and closing the town-page. Doesn't sound that bad, but that extra click sure annoys me.
Experienced the same thing. Turn off the citydetail screen. Will fix it. Annoying though.
But I am very pleased with the patch! ~D
Even saw the senate build themselves an Urban Cohort and an Early first Cohort. It's going to be an intereesting civil war!!! ~D ~D
Mayfield The Conqueror
02-04-2005, 15:33
Played for two hours last night:
#1. AI is much better. Holds back generals and hits the flanks when you are engaged. I tried to just skirmish a garrison of two peasant units and the peasants attacked immediately. So many kudo's for inproving that.
#2. No more FF.. archers seems to not fire if there is something in front of them that they might hit. You no longer get the archers to fire continuous volleys and they are less powerful, but at least no more FF.
#3. Calvary charges in the flanks are no longer as devastating as they were.
#4. Smarter rebels.. they are actually attacking me instead of just standing there waiting for my 1 star general to get some practice.
#5. I did not see this in the previous version, but you can now cycle through all of your special units (generals, spies, and diplomats). Just click on the general in the town screen and then cycle using the arrows at the top. Brilliant!
I am much, much happier with the game now in its initial stages.. lets see how squalor gets you in later stages of the game now.
THANK YOU CA VERY MUCH!
I am much, much happier with the game now in its initial stages.. lets see how squalor gets you in later stages of the game now.
From all the reports from people who have been resuming their old save games after installing the 1.2 patch, the squalor issue is all fixed now. People had save games where their cities were revolting all over the place due to squalor. After they installed the patch and reloaded their games, all their squalor unrest problems were gone.
Bodes well, I think.
Colt.
From all the reports from people who have been resuming their old save games after installing the 1.2 patch, the squalor issue is all fixed now. People had save games where their cities were revolting all over the place due to squalor. After they installed the patch and reloaded their games, all their squalor unrest problems were gone.
Bodes well, I think.
Colt.
Was it really the squalor that was causing the revolts? In v1.1 I had more problems with distance to capital and general unrest than I did with squalor itself. My problems will probably be solved with the Zeus fix, at least until I play a faction where the temple is too far to bother with.
#5. I did not see this in the previous version, but you can now cycle through all of your special units (generals, spies, and diplomats). Just click on the general in the town screen and then cycle using the arrows at the top. Brilliant!
Yes, it was there in vanilla.
But still, it does seem like the game that should have been released! :D
_Aetius_
02-04-2005, 16:29
The patch has made some good improvements but then, modders made those improvements in half the time it took these guys to release this patch ~:confused:
Just seems like they put some effort in but failed to get to the point, the battles are as many! have pointed out ridiculously short, and the battles are what are supposed to make this game great, its what makes it better than previous games of this type yet theyve failed to even come close to using this asset to its max.
I feel abit like the way i did when i first played the game awestruck but disappointed.
The readme with the patch said that squalor penalty to public order is now capped at 100%. Before the patch, it was either 120% or 125%, I forget which at the moment. That extra 20-25% will make a huge difference at the upper end of the population figures.
Rosacrux redux
02-04-2005, 17:28
I have finally downloaded the bugger (after unsuccesful efforts for the last 24 hours - darn, there is something wrong with living in Greece methinks) and am going to give it a go tonite.
One question: has the phalanx side-stepping issue been adressed? (yes, I know, everybody has his own pet issue... and that's mine ~D )
Rosacrux redux,
The phalanx side stepping has been addressed, and the phalanx will engage much better now when in guard mode.
Aetius,
I think the quick fighting is due mostly to low morale on the units. The combat cycle itself seems to be much longer than it was in MTW. CA seems to want a large range on morale from very low to very high in order to leave lots of room in the system for upgraded units, battlefield upgrades and effect of the general's command stars. You could raise morale on the units by modding the unit descr file, and I think that would make the fighting last longer especially with large unit size rather than normal unit size. We've been asking for a morale slider or at least a 4 or 5 step selectable level in the options for 4 years now, yet the game, now in its 5th incarnation, still only has a morale on/off option. We are up against a philosophical difference of opion regarding more options in the game settings with CA. Their objection is that too many options would make the game overly complex for the average gamer.
screwtype
02-04-2005, 18:02
One question: has the phalanx side-stepping issue been adressed? (yes, I know, everybody has his own pet issue... and that's mine ~D )
From what I've read, I believe it has. In fact I've read that phalanxes are a lot smarter now, and will maneouvre to best advantage when attacking a unit.
A couple of things I have noticed: first, the experience point thing seems to have been fixed. I sure hope so, because it seemed totally random before and it really, really bugged me.
This time, my units seem to be getting xp points from doing lots of killing, or from winning against odds, which is how it used to be in the earlier games. Also because of this, they appear to be picking up xp points quicker. It was taking me an absurdly long time to get xp points with version 1.0.
Another apparent positive is that scrolling around on the battle map appears to be MUCH smoother and crisper on my near-minimum spec machine - almost as good as STW! Mind you, I've only played a few smallish battles thus far, but I don't recall maneouvring around the battlefield to be anywhere near as easy as this. In fact, I've really enjoyed the few battles I've played, whereas previously it was a real pain trying to control the camera.
On the down side, I've been blockading a greek port with one of my ships for a number of turns and no greek ships have attacked it. Maybe it's because they're not as numerous as they used to be and they have other things to do, but it will be a bit disappointing if you can still blockade without being challenged.
Overall though, I have to say at this early stage I'm pleased with what I've seen so far.
deafcadet
02-04-2005, 18:21
Does anyone know what this means from the patch readme:
Bribing settlements and characters is now a transgression.
So what, do we get penalized for doing that now?
Sparticus
02-04-2005, 18:48
Can the game run in 1280x1024 yet? I'm stuck with 1024x768 post patch. I have'nt had the chance to snag the patch yet.
Red Harvest
02-04-2005, 19:18
Aetius,
I think the quick fighting is due mostly to low morale on the units. The combat cycle itself seems to be much longer than it was in MTW. CA seems to want a large range on morale from very low to very high in order to leave lots of room in the system for upgraded units, battlefield upgrades and effect of the general's command stars. You could raise morale on the units by modding the unit descr file, and I think that would make the fighting last longer especially with large unit size rather than normal unit size. We've been asking for a morale slider or at least a 4 or 5 step selectable level in the options for 4 years now, yet the game, now in its 5th incarnation, still only has a morale on/off option. We are up against a philosophical difference of opion regarding more options in the game settings with CA. Their objection is that too many options would make the game overly complex for the average gamer.
If CA would explain what morale does in RTW it would help. If morale increases both defensive skill and attack then it should offset in melee. If however, it just increases attack, then that would produce faster kills. Increasing combat speed alone (or effectiveness of strikes) would tend to produce faster kills. One thing I notice is that custom battles tend to be slower than in the campaign. So I wonder if it is because of the lack of an experienced or otherwise pumped up general to influence morale. And I don't know how any of the morale boosts work for generals being near (range based?)
My suspicion is that CA set the increment too high for attack. For example, if you set missile attack to "1" it will still kill at a substantial rate at full range vs. unarmoured opponents. And that is the absolute lowest you can go with the value (anything less is treated as zero, no missiles available.) To my way of thinking the absolute worst missile units should be no worse than flies at long range. Yet we have archers built with 14 missile attack and with upgrades and experience they can easily hit 18 to 20. I suspect the same sort of problem is happening with combat values.
Something cool:
During a battle near Caralis I noticed that I could see ships sitting in the water where the AI fleet was. And all the extra trees and such visible in the distance is a nice touch. I am looking forward to fighting near wonders or volcanoes (especially during an eruption.)
I happen to control six of the wonders in my current Seleucid campaign. They can be seen at anytime on the battle map,f rom a distance at least, by zooming in on the nearby cities. From Halicarnasus you can see two of them well and a third far off on the north west horizon! The lighthouse looks great from Alexandria.
Does anyone know what this means from the patch readme:
Bribing settlements and characters is now a transgression.
So what, do we get penalized for doing that now?
I believe it means that when you bribe an army then it is treated as declearing a war on the country that previously owned the army.
Rosacrux redux,
I think the quick fighting is due mostly to low morale on the units. The combat cycle itself seems to be much longer than it was in MTW. CA seems to want a large range on morale from very low to very high in order to leave lots of room in the system for upgraded units, battlefield upgrades and effect of the general's command stars. You could raise morale on the units by modding the unit descr file, and I think that would make the fighting last longer especially with large unit size rather than normal unit size. We've been asking for a morale slider or at least a 4 or 5 step selectable level in the options for 4 years now, yet the game, now in its 5th incarnation, still only has a morale on/off option. We are up against a philosophical difference of opion regarding more options in the game settings with CA. Their objection is that too many options would make the game overly complex for the average gamer.
Just wondering if having "standard options" and "advanced options" could be the solution - same as many other programs have standard setting for people who "just want to get on with it" and an advanced setting for those "expert users" who want/can spend time tweaking and optimising their personal settings.
Just a thought
Nigel
IIRC the benefit from a general goes only to added attack. So custom battles with no generals would mean fighting lasts longer as units dont have so high attack values.
CBR
screwtype
02-04-2005, 19:58
Does anyone know what this means from the patch readme:
Bribing settlements and characters is now a transgression.
So what, do we get penalized for doing that now?
I think "transgression" means the faction will declare war on you if you do either of those things.
Colovion
02-04-2005, 20:04
A couple other things:
1. the computer AI for diplomacy + campaign map seems much improved - the Gauls were messing with me for a bit so I took one of their cities and they laid back for a while and didn't even put an army into the field but hid in their settlements near me. I brought my largest army yet assembled to take down their settlement and was caught off gaurd by two Gaulish armies converging on my spot to intercept me before I reached the city - very cool. Also, Carthage is doing poorly... which I'm guessing because I took over their settlement on Sardinia and that gave the Scipii the edge on Sicily. A few turns later Carthage sent a diplomat up to talk to me in Sardinia. They wanted trade rights and a ceasefire - I counter offered that they would ALSO pay me 2000 or I would attack... They accepted! I was so suprised that threatening attack on a weaker faction actuallly gave me a believable response.
2. The battles turn into meat grinders. On battles where the enemy routs first they're prettymuch all dead; I suppose that is realistic as the side that routed first would get the majority of the casualties, but I guess it's the kill speeds which throw me off. Anyway one thing that was awesome to see last night was the Gauls had their fancy Swordsmen put on the front of their troupe as they barrelled into my Hastati. We clashed and fought for a bit - both sides piling soldiers on their side - then once they stared actually fighting I heard the enemy enable the "Warcry" feature and WOW! they started cutting their way through my guys like nothing! It was as it should have been from the beginning.... kinda.
Red Harvest
02-04-2005, 20:23
Carthage is making lots of useless town militia in their stacks...and Numidia is making lots of javelinemen rather than cavalry. Carthage really takes it in the shorts with respect to infantry because the next level up is Iberian infantry (7 attack, 8 defense, 4 morale) at which point Rome has hastati (7 attack, 14 defense, 6 morale.) They will get absolutely slaughtered early in the game in autocalc. Then it is libyan spears vs. principes. I think I'm going to have to mod Carthages secondary cities with better barracks so that they at least can build low level Iberian infantry in a few places, rather than hordes of useless militia. Also, the Iberian stats deserve some slight adjustment--they are being short changed relative to hastati with respect to armour and shield when you compare graphics. (Or consider their armour vs. the desert axemen.)
Personally I'm glad they didn't change the kill speed. If you want the battles to last longer bring more men to the grinder...
Sorry, that comment was just stupid.
Red Harvest
02-04-2005, 20:51
IIRC the benefit from a general goes only to added attack. So custom battles with no generals would mean fighting lasts longer as units dont have so high attack values.
CBR
That would fit. And supposedly CA has VH adding only to AI attack. So in combination we have extremely high kill rates in the campaign. If only they had granted split the bonus between offense and defense...as in previous TW games.
It is ironic that those of us who most want a tougher game and better AI also are the ones who most dislike the killing speed of the vanilla game. So we get double whammied.
I think general's stars added to attack, defence and moral, not just the attack.
Bob the Insane
02-04-2005, 21:01
I think "transgression" means the faction will declare war on you if you do either of those things.
A transgression is a basically carrying out a diplomatic no-no and getting caught at it...
Stomping your troops around other nations lands can do it, dogdy diplomatic deals can do it and now bribing does it...
Basically it sends the other faction's (and possibly their allies) opinion of you down the scale...
So bribe enough of a factions troops and not only will you rapidly run out of cash now you will also actually really piss them off... (no allying with someone and then slyly bribing their army away to nothing with no consiquences...
My only problem with the changes to bribing is that it make picking up those rebel generals that turn up not really worth the money...
Additionally - I can't believe no one else has mentioned the minimal UI... Full Screen RTW... It is fantastic...
Old Celt
02-04-2005, 21:07
It says right in the manual that generals add to your troops morale and detract slightly from the enemy. I know from many hundreds of battles that having any general is better than a captain led army, and morale is much better with a general.
Yes morale too sorry.Was just thinking about combat power only. By adding to attack only it changes combat speed compared to MTW as generals added to both attack and defense.
edit: Im pretty sure Jerome mentioned it in a post that it was attack only and nothing extra on defense.
CBR
A list of issues/items that really make me take notice...
THE GOOD:
- Friendly Fire Fixed - Missile troops are much more careful with their targeting and as a result there are far fewer FF casualties than before! Great!
- Missile units - Missile troops now take less time to prepare and fire their missiles. This is especially noticeable with javelin/pilum equipped units who can now get off a round in the face of an advancing/charging enemy.
- No more weapon switch animation 'pause' for pilum equipped units when ordered to attack. This is GREAT! I noticed this in a few custom battle last night. Sent an early Legionary Cohort which had expended all its pilae earlier on in the battle to take care of an advancing Seleucid Pikemen unit, they charged as soon as I gave the order. ~D
- Phalanx units - Aside from their increased turning efficiency and the elimination of the phalanx shuffle I could swear that units in phalanx formation march faster now. Phalanx units are much more dangerous in 1.2.
- Shipbuilding Fetish Cured - The strategic AI now builds far fewer ships, the result of which is the presence of healthier army stacks roaming the map in the early game. Personally I'd prefer it if even fewer ships were built by the not-so-wealthy factions but it seems to ok so far.
- Tactical AI - Haven't played enough to really get a good idea of just how much it has improved but it does seem a tad wiser in some areas. I could swear enemy generals aren't as suicidal and enemy cavalry in general seems to take greater care so as to not frontally engage your front line (especially if they're spear equipped units). I've seen heavy cav chase my skirmishers running back behind my pike units only to stop and head back to the flanks! Really good news is enemy AI armies keep a respectable distance from city walls when fighting sally battles!
THE BAD:
- Minimal UI option is good... and bad. The only reason it's bad because now the Orders and Formation buttons are at the top which means unless you know all the keyboard shortcuts your eyes and your mouse has to travel farther to see what you're doing and get things done and that means longer delays in battle. I would have preferred it if the orders/formation buttons were stacked directly on top of the single row of unit cards at the bottom. Not a big deal though. I'm sure it won't be long before I memorize all the hotkeys and enjoy the less restricted view.
- Elephant units are still way overpowered.
- Roman cavalry is still overpowered, especially the Marian reform era medium and heavy units which are HUGELY overpowered!
- Insufficient consolidation of AI army stacks on the strategic map. I think CA improved on this but I don't think it was enough. The same kind of consolidation tweaks that were applied to AI fleet behavior should be applied to army AI behavior. As a general but not all encompassing rule army stacks should instinctively seek to combine with others in the immediate vicinity whenever possible.
THE UGLY:
- Unit cards still do not auto sort by type and experience on the strategic map. The haphazard stacking of unit cards makes armies look messy. How difficult would it have been to incorporate an auto-sort routine?
- The tactical AI still needs schoolin' - It's still pretty bad at handling Roman legions and still loves to break up an imposing wall of pikes. For whatever reason the tactical likes to put its less effective Auxiliary Infantry in the front row instead of on the flanks or in the rear! Part of the problem is the AI's reliance on the the multi-row formation for Roman armies. If it would only spread the line out into one or two rows it would have a much better chance of overlapping and outflanking your line.
- The tactical AI can still be too reluctant to commit fully when attacking and is a tad too passive when defending with an attack oriented army (read 'european barbarian'). Gauls, Britons, Germans, Dacians, Thracians are laden with impetuous, high attack/high charge, low defense units and to see them stand around getting impaled by arrows or javelins and waiting for your units to engage them can be frustrating. The worst thing the AI can do with units like those is sit back and play defense, especially on relatively level ground!
- Phalanx units still break formation and give chase to skirmishers and cavalry units... in phalanx formation! ~:rolleyes:
- Marian Reforms date trigger - Well we now have a 'never before' date for the reforms. That's good.... then again maybe not. According to Obake Date at the Com...
...the trigger for the Marian event is the building of an Imperial Palace in Italy. My take on that is that it must be on the penninsula, and not just by a Roman faction. In other words, that Imperial Palace MUST be built in one of the STARTING Roman provinces.
In addition there IS a date trigger that has been added to the Marian event. The Reforms of Marius now should not occur any EARLIER than 220BC. So even if you are able to build an Imperial Palace in Tarentum by 250BC, you've still got another 60 turns to wait before you can start using Legionaries.
My personal preference was to have the Reforms happen no earlier than 150BC to keep it more in line with historical reality, but I got blatantly ignored on that one!
220 B.C.?!? Who's bright idea was it to use such an early trigger date? Modding alone can prolong the Marian reforms for some time simply by requiring the presence of additional buildings before an Imperial Palace can be built! What a terrible decision! ~:confused:
Grey squares around coastlines....
Yuck, they look horrific, how did they miss this. Would it have been so hard to test the patch before releasing it?
A temporary work around is possible by moving settlements away from coastlines e.g Lilybaeum > 1 pixel on regions.tga in Base folder, but you will need to move occupying forces in desc_strat also...
Pretty quick to do, but there are a lot of settlements affected by this, though the real problem would probably be an easy fix in adjusting tile size or layer order etc, however a mini patch for that would probably take CA another 6 months :)
Is this fault ubiquitous or are somepeople not seeing it, in which case a graphic setting moght solve it...
Carthage is making lots of useless town militia in their stacks...and Numidia is making lots of javelinemen rather than cavalry. Carthage really takes it in the shorts with respect to infantry because the next level up is Iberian infantry (7 attack, 8 defense, 4 morale) at which point Rome has hastati (7 attack, 14 defense, 6 morale.) They will get absolutely slaughtered early in the game in autocalc. Then it is libyan spears vs. principes. I think I'm going to have to mod Carthages secondary cities with better barracks so that they at least can build low level Iberian infantry in a few places, rather than hordes of useless militia. Also, the Iberian stats deserve some slight adjustment--they are being short changed relative to hastati with respect to armour and shield when you compare graphics. (Or consider their armour vs. the desert axemen.)
Is this just for one campaign or have you noticed this in a few different campaigns? Call me crazy but perhaps the AI is spending most of its money on improvements and whatever's left over on whatever infantry units it can afford for as many cities as it owns? I recall seeing a similar situation in a few modded campaigns with the 1.1 patch; the occasional Brutii army comprised almost entirely of Velites or Light Auxilia or Macedonian armies comprised almost entirely of Lancers. Other than to unlock the other factions I haven't explored the descr_strat.txt file yet so I couldn't tell you what AI variables are affecting Carthage's build & recruiting queues. Keep in mind these definitions...
balanced - biasses towards growth, taxable income, trade level bonusses (roads), walls and xp bonus buildings
religious - biasses towards growth, loyalty, taxable income, farming, walls and law
trader - biasses towards growth, trade level, trade base, weapon upgrades, games, races and xp bonus buildings
comfortable - biasses towards growth, farming, games, races, xp bonus and happiness
bureaucrat - biasses towards taxable income, growth, pop health, trade, walls, improved bodyguards and law
craftsman - biasses towards walls, races, taxable income, weapon upgrades, xp bonusses, mines, health and growth
sailor - biasses towards sea trade, taxable income, walls, growth, trade fortified - biasses towards walls, taxable income, growth, loyalty, defenses, bodyguards and law
These are then combined with a troop production personality, as follows:
smith - exactly level
mao - biased towards mass troops, light infantry
genghis - biased towards missile cavalry and light cavalry
stalin - biased towards heavy infantry, mass troops and artillery
napoleon - biased towards a mix of light and heavy infantry, light cavalry henry - biased towards heavy and light cavalry, missile infantry
caesar - biased towards heavy infantry, light cavalry, siege artillery
The_Mark
02-04-2005, 22:24
So... We all know that AI gets humongous bonuses to attack and defence on VH. Not anymore. I have tried fighting 1v1 with triarii against AI on VH, won three times in a row. Apparently AI is only smarter on harder difficulty levels, but without bonuses. At last.. ~D
no one seems to have mentioned multiplay so i`ll have a go. i never had any problems with multiplay before but now its just shit im afraid. the new chat options all seem shagged, if i host a game and decide to cancel i get kicked from the lobby by gamespy, if i host a game and we all load up i get dropped by gamespy again and so the other players are all left in limbo wondering what the hell has happened to me. this has happened to everyone in my clan by the way, we havnt managed to play a single multiplayer battle since downloading the patch. another chat thing is when i log off and log back on if i host a game nobody can see what im trying to say, especially the idiots who join a 2v2 ant cant see me yelling at them to switch their team number to the same as their prospective allies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The_Emperor
02-04-2005, 22:42
I happen to control six of the wonders in my current Seleucid campaign. They can be seen at anytime on the battle map,f rom a distance at least, by zooming in on the nearby cities. From Halicarnasus you can see two of them well and a third far off on the north west horizon! The lighthouse looks great from Alexandria.
I had a battle in Rhodes today and I could see the top of the Halicanasus wonder from the other side of the water...
I didn't see the colossus, but I was at the wrong end of the island with a hill blocking any possible view. ~;)
Oh yeah Minimal UI rules... Suddenly everything is back to classic TW, with the F keys to hide the icons!!
Excellent job on that CA!! ~:cheers:
Colovion
02-04-2005, 22:50
Still problem:
Enemy STILL doesn't have Generals in their big stacks! They also still have many small bands of troops wandering around (not as much, granted, but they're still there). I have so far fought 3 full stacks of Gauls invading into the Italian Penninsula that were leaderless! This wouldn't be such a bad thing if my spies hadn't noticed that there are settlements and stacks of units with simply the General and maybe one or two other units. This is unacceptable, I thought it was one of the main things on the list...
>:(
Personally I'm glad they didn't change the kill speed. If you want the battles to last longer bring more men to the grinder...
Sorry, that comment was just stupid.
Wouldn't it be better to explain why you think it's stupid instead of making a stupid comment of your own?
Colovion
02-04-2005, 23:16
Oh I guess I should say the things I noticed while playing today that were pretty cool:
1. Saw my first storm over Southern Italy :D
2. The Computer on the Strat map seems to be much more intelligent as in knowing when you're outclassed by other factions; they go and find allies to repell invaders etc. Such as when the Brutii usually walk all over Greek Cities - this time those Greeks allied with the Macedonians and now the Brutii have been steadily halted in expanding that way - they've had to head a little north and are now pestered by the Gauls and Dacia while Greece and Macedon build up their strength (Greece also found and allied with Egypt). Remember how quickly the Seleucids would get knocked out? At the moment they're the richest faction!
3. Numidia sent an expiditionary force from Iberia all the way into Northern Italy, where I setup some trade rights and an Alliance with them, before they kept heading North East and I don't know what they're doing now - some strange family member that was...
Colovion
02-04-2005, 23:18
Wouldn't it be better to explain why you think it's stupid instead of making a stupid comment of your own?
If you don't know the reason for it being an ignorant comment then there's more problems here than your comment being overused and thoroughly disproved.
If you don't know the reason for it being an ignorant comment then there's more problems here than your comment being overused and thoroughly disproved.
There are more problems? Like what?
Besides, feel free to quote the post where my comment is "disproved". One would think you'd be hard pressed to "disprove" someone's *opinions* but maybe that's just me...
Colovion
02-04-2005, 23:36
Ok let's look at the facts here - obviously bringing more men to a battle will extend the fight... kinda. The problem is that I have yet to see a battle take place that had any kind of tactics in it. Basically both sides are rushed at eachother, a bunch of death takes place in less than ten seconds and the other side is running for the hills. The chain rout thing is a double-edged sword. For one it is nice ot see that units will rout when the rest of their army has decided it's a worthless cause - but it makes for extremely short and boring battles. Once you have superior forces, the enemy can't beat you. All you need to do is pinpoint a weakness in their line - send your elite troops there and suddenly you've won the battle. If there was more time the teh enemy AI to show that they can do more than rush at your troops, then perhaps the enhancements CA says they've made to the Battlefield AI would show through.
It doesn't matter a whit if you have more troops on the field, as battles with 200 men end 3 seconds after initial melee begins, and battles with full stacks end with 10 seconds into melee. More time? Yes. But enough time? Not in the slightest. Your comment doesn't address the problem, it just tells us something we already know. The 10 seconds is not enough time to fight a satisfying battle.
Honestly, I can't see why anyone would enjoy the way battles are currently in vanilla RTW, but if you do that's great.
I do enjoy them. I'd enjoy them more if it was possible to fight 50,000 vs 50,000 battles that would last half an hour but until we have computers capable of that I'll settle for what I have. IMO it's better to have realistic kill speeds than to nerf them to simulate that each unit is 10 times larger than it is...
220 B.C.?!? Who's bright idea was it to use such an early trigger date? Modding alone can prolong the Marian reforms for some time simply by requiring the presence of additional buildings before an Imperial Palace can be built! What a terrible decision! ~:confused:
Probably someone who realized that a full 75% of the people who play this game don't care (or even know) about historical accuracy and just want to build the best units they can and romp all over the Mediterranean.
If you are so concerned about historical accuracy AND you think it's so easy to mod... then do it!
Not intending to hijack the thread here, but how many of your games have gone past 150 BC? Anyone? Rarely do mine make it that far. I think 220 BC is still a bit early, but I think 150 will result in many campaigns finishing before the reforms. I haven't had time to play with it yet, but that might wind up being better. We'll see.
Can the game run in 1280x1024 yet? I'm stuck with 1024x768 post patch. I have'nt had the chance to snag the patch yet.
The game could always run it. It just doesn't give you the option. You can manually set it at that resolution in the preferences.txt file.
Bh
LordKhaine
02-05-2005, 03:56
Loving the new patch so far. Though I found an easter egg that I've never heard of before (if you can call it that, it's not exactly hidden). Egypt demanded I become a protectorate, and the Pharoahs words were, and I quote, "All your base are belong to us". Also noting a scarred trait too that I never saw before. One of my generals is now "cruelly scarred", and he's now known as Demetrius "Scarface" :dizzy2:
Red Harvest
02-05-2005, 05:01
So... We all know that AI gets humongous bonuses to attack and defence on VH. Not anymore. I have tried fighting 1v1 with triarii against AI on VH, won three times in a row. Apparently AI is only smarter on harder difficulty levels, but without bonuses. At last.. ~D
I can't figure out what is going on. It is bizarre. It almost looks like skill level doesn't "take" for custom battle. I also won easily with triarii vs. triarii on VH. I've tried cav vs. cav and was winning, then my unit suddenly routed despite losing only about 20%. I fought one triarii vs triarii on easy and the battle took a longer time, but was very even. Did some other tests from easy to very hard and saw very scattered results.
I really wonder if this works the same way in campaign mode.
CBR, any idea what is behind this?
I wish I had something clever to say...but I have no idea if there is a difference between custom battles and campaign. ~:confused:
Anyone tried some campaign battles at VH?
CBR
Quote:
Originally Posted by GFX707
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeWee
Personally I'm glad they didn't change the kill speed. If you want the battles to last longer bring more men to the grinder...
Sorry, that comment was just stupid.
Wouldn't it be better to explain why you think it's stupid instead of making a stupid comment of your own?
GeWee. You got to understand why a lot of peeps are frustrated as heck. First of all, the word "grinder" is not what is normally associated with tw games (pre-RTW anyway). There's no more tactics in RTW, it's basically the best units vs. the best units. I enjoy using balanced armies. With this "grinder" battles, it's not doable and practical any longer. One heavy cavalry easily rout 5 of my units! They basically erased the Rock-Paper-Scissor balancing. Also, cavalry jump and swish all over like there is no gravity, momentum or friction. They move like fish! Try defending your archer units with your Spear units. Watch those cavalries either penetrate or skirt between your defenses. It degenerates to a quick and mindless melee.
@topic. I'll give this another "shot", although I'm already sick to my stomach :embarassed: Last time I did try was early december, and I literally stopped after one battle.
Jacque Schtrapp
02-05-2005, 05:59
Fascinating development. I started my first post patch campaign as the Julii. I've sent diplomats all over the map trading maps and signing alliances. I was surprised to see the Seleucids still in possession of all of their territory two dozen turns in. I was even more surprised to find them allied with Egypt. Anyway, I'm now over 70 turns into the campaign and Armenia declared war with the Seleucids and for some reason Egypt sticks by the Seleucids. This starts me to wondering just who the Egyptians are fighting. In west Africa they share a border with Carthage with whom they are not at war. To the North their territorial borders are below the Seleucids. They border no other factions. Now I'm really curious so I pull up the diplomacy screen and go look to see who the Egyptians are at war with. The answer? No one. They have only one ally: me. But wait, what about the Seleucids? Well, it would seem the Seleucids are a protectorate of Egypt. That's right, the Seleucids, still in control of every single one of their original provinces and with massive stacks of troops all over Asia Minor, are a protectorate. Weird. ~:confused:
Well, back to the :charge: :duel: :charge: :duel:
Gawain of Orkeny
02-05-2005, 06:16
I dont care about all this stuff. What has it done for MP? I refuse to buy the game again until its playable like MTW.
Locklear
02-05-2005, 08:12
Also noting a scarred trait too that I never saw before. One of my generals is now "cruelly scarred", and he's now known as Demetrius "Scarface" :dizzy2:
One thing I've noticed is that the scarred trait is MUCH easier to get now. All of my generals, if they do ANY fighting, become scarred, it's bizarre (but not bad, I guess).
Colovion
02-05-2005, 08:28
I do enjoy them. I'd enjoy them more if it was possible to fight 50,000 vs 50,000 battles that would last half an hour but until we have computers capable of that I'll settle for what I have. IMO it's better to have realistic kill speeds than to nerf them to simulate that each unit is 10 times larger than it is...
Ok. The current kill speeds are not realistic. Read that again. not realistic.
Remember all the battles in ancient/medieval times which took hours upon hours and sometimes even went into the night time? No? Well, maybe you need to do some research. :bow:
Colovion
02-05-2005, 08:29
One thing I've noticed is that the scarred trait is MUCH easier to get now. All of my generals, if they do ANY fighting, become scarred, it's bizarre (but not bad, I guess).
I get the same thing. As long as this happens with the enemy then it's fine by me.
oh wait, the enemy still doesn't have generals leading their armies... ~:handball: :help:
Egypt demanded I become a protectorate, and the Pharoahs words were, and I quote, "All your base are belong to us".
Heh... that was in the original game.
One of my favorite parts of the patch is that Hoplites can now take on Hastati and the like with 2ndary weapons in a fair fight. I did some controlled tests yesterday, and Hoplites vs Hastati, with the Hoplites having both guard and phalanx turned off, were quite effective vs the Hastati. Didn't test other troops, but it appears that the Hastati using the pila stats for h2h combat put h2h combat more in line with them. I never quite believed that the Greeks would not train their soldiers to fight with the sword and shield. I'm guessing that either the attack bonus Hastati got for using the pila stat, or the spear was labelled as the 2ndary weapon for Hoplites and had a lower attack value (thus meaning the attack value for the Hoplites were lower in swordfighting thatn it should have been). Either way, it's much better now.
I'm wondering how the Barbarian units will fare vs early Roman infantry now. I might have to do a Julii campaign again just to see.
The game could always run it. It just doesn't give you the option. You can manually set it at that resolution in the preferences.txt file.
Bh
How? I change it but it just changes back...
:book:
Dutch_guy
02-05-2005, 12:30
well barbarians still rout in about 5 seconds after melee starts against Roman hastati, but still I was pleased to see that the Romans actually used their cavalry to atttack my sides which caused an instant rout in some of the battles( versu warbands vh/h )
and I now know what a storm looks like. ~:)
and is it me, or is the senate a little more active, 5 years in to the game (as gaul ) I attacked/beseiged the last remaining Julii settlement with my army ( mostly warban with 2 units of swordsmen ) and the senate army actually attacked me...
however don't know if that is new , never played a barbarian faction before.
thank god the FF has been tuned down... was really decimating my own armies in my pre-patch Julii campain.
The_Mark
02-05-2005, 12:48
Well, Roman infantry doesn't seem to be doing anything else than running as fast as they can when against Gauls, on VH. Seems that they removed those diff bonii from AI in custom battles but didn't touch campaings.
Tested this against brigands, they had 1 hastati, 1 velites and 1 peasants. I had 5-6 hastati, some archers, velites and a 1* general (forgot him in the stack). So I tried to pit one of my hastati against theirs, trying to get it as fair as possible. Results:
Closed on enemy hastati with mine, waiting for pila exchange. Enemy closes in to firing distance. My pila fly, enemy sits there. My hastati charge, enemy runs 30 metres backwards, tries to face my charging hastati, got caught half-way the turn in one big lump. At this point the odds were 135 to 160 for me. Then a short melee ensues, my hastati rout with ~100 men left. At the same time my 3 other hastati, who were keeping their peasants and velites from joining the melee slugfest, rout. End of battle with my general charging right through them all. Battle resolves in a clear victory for me, with them killing ~240 of my men.
Another battle report, but not as "scientific" as the above one.
I had another "quick rout"-battle against the Gauls the turn before. Numbers were quite equal but my general had a few stars versus enemys 0. Gauls were defending in some woods near Patavium.
First the Gauls close quite conveniently just inside my archers firing range, a few warbands, 1 barb cav and their general. They were still partly in woods, and at this point I can confirm that keeping units in woods protects them almost completely from missile fire. Not having caused ANY significant casualties (1 killed bodyguard, 1 barb cav, ~30 spearmen, which were just outside of the woods, and 1000 of my soldiers with me killing only ~200. I'd be pleased if they'd won me with an ambush or some other *tactic*, but them charging frontally through hastati and triarii isn't something that I'd like to see.
It's bizarre, as previously stated.
Conclusions: VH AI bonii apply still in campaings, or a morale penalty is applied to your units. Unless, of course, these battles had something in them that I didn't notice.
i would just like to apologise for my rant about the new patch ruining multiplay, as it happens ive been told by numerous people that all the problems i experienced when trying to play online last night were due to Gayspy being, well.... GAY!!
Had an enemy spy open the gates of one of my cities for the first time. Haven't seen that before.
Carinus
ok im now retracting my apology. i still cant get any games to work but i can see plenty of other people playing happily enough and they all have the patch. this is all very frustrating!
I just started a new game to try out the patch: So far it has rekindled some interest in this game.
Some preliminary observations (VH/VH):
Pros:
-Saw AI build a fort. Oh yes.
- Extra graphics in adjacent regions (although, with those soreeyes gray area in seashores).
- Minimum interface is a nice change (with drop down controls).
- AI doesn't seem to charge as much ~:) (Although I'm being cautious since I'm playing Brutii. I've attacked a stack of Germans in my old Julii save game (after patch 1.2) and it didn't attack until I got close as well).
- some minor bug where fleeing enemy unit get stuck inside an alley, and the siege never ends, until they die. It can't be reached by my skirmishers. I eventually killed the guy with my horse whom eventually managed to fit in there. This probably dates back to 1.0.
- Scrolling through the campaign map is smoother now.
- AI actually exchange maps now.
- Ships have longer range (which is good for transporting units).
Cons:
- HORSES are still way overpowered! They have a sick charge and still penetrate through my defensive units (Hastati and Triarii). :dizzy2: If they get through, at least half should die. Instead, whole units are nearly intact....
- Machine-gun towers are still overactive. Even the sound is irritating.
- It is still difficult to navigate units that are in loose formation (i.e. Velites) on the streets and alleys.
- Units still rout too quickly.
- Pause button is hard to select. I click and it pause and unpause at the same time. When I try to unpause, the same thing happens.
- Build points seem to be disabled.
- I tried the widescreen option and It is very hard to click on anything! (anybody know how to use 1280 x 800, just holler).
- The AI general actually parks upfront during siege but they move when you shoot them.
I'll have to do some more battles to see if it is still unplayable to me.
How? I change it but it just changes back...
:book:
The trick is to make sure it's the last thing that you do. That is, if you need to modify the video settings at all, do that first. Then exit the game and modify the video settings in preferences.txt. Make sure that you don't modify video settings in the game again, or it'll change it back. Seems to be because the video settings doesn't "recognize" 1280x1024 as a viable setting. But that's what I've been playing at since the beginning, so I know it works.
Bh
I installed patch 1.2 last night, and fired up a new Greek campaign Vh/Vh/huge unit size.
The first thing I did was that I marched the initial army in Syracuse, Sicily against the Scipii armies, with two units of mercenaries. This is what I would do in a Greek blitz campaign.
I layed my archers out and try to shoot at some hastati. The AI Scipii marched their archers forward. I thought they were trying to start an archery duel. In the pre-patched version I could almost 100% expect a duel happening next, so I spread my formation wide and get ready to enjoy my height advantage.
Yet these blue archers never stopped marching uphill. They walked so fast towards me that I thought I wouuld have no time to fire. So I quickly ran my Artemis's bowmen behind my phalanx line and turn fire at will off.
These Roman archers walk straight into the pikes, all the way from way downhill! Their number reduced from 160 to 23 in 3 seconds, and started to rout. They were soon followed by the rest of Roman army, all walked uphill and eventually clashed with my pikes. (I had to walk into them so they would fire only 1 or 2 shots of pila)
There is something really wrong with the patch 1.2 AI. At the start of the battle I am weaker, but the AI shouldn't just walk everything towards me. That's not a good improvement...
~:)
Red Harvest
02-05-2005, 21:50
Maltz,
Yes, the RTW AI is still a bit stupid with archers. It seems to think the best employment of them is in hand-to-hand because it sends them way too close. Too bad we can't create some sort of match between the MTW AI and the RTW AI. That would be a riot. The little MTW 2D sprites would byte it to pieces, spit out the broken pixels, then dance over the little 3D RTW corpses.
Why couldn't they just have uppdated the it to 3D, check the move speeds to be realistic and developed the AI? :cry:
Good:
Diplomacy -Gauls will do just about anything to secure a ceasefire from my Julii.
After a periodic payment for ceasefire ends, diplomat comes back for a renewal ~:)
Battlefield maps -There's a sun now. Lens Flare too.
Terrain seems less bland.
Stuff in the distance is great.
Phalanx shuffle -Gone! ~D
Min UI -mostly good
Speeches & loadscreen quotes -seems to be a wider variety
Bad:
Min UI -No gamespeed indicator.
Popup buttons at top are a pain for me since I use the mouse for camera movement. Would be nice to have an option for permanently on.
Battlefield maps -That grey sea bit...
Kill Rate -still too high
Left/right click -still no option to go back to the better way of STW & MTW ~(
Grouping -still doesn't order groups by first made, 2nd made etc like STW & MTW. Units still leave their group when routing
Auto preferences -still there, still stupid, still won't let me use 1280 * 1024 without altering the file :furious3:
All up, fixes a whole bunch of things & fleshes out some barren bits.
Still leaves a bunch of things that need fixing though.
I still expect that after the expansion patch its gonna be a damn fine game ~:cool: but I wish they'd managed to be closer to the refinement of VI by no so that patched RTW expansion would be even better...
I started a Julii campaign on med/med and found it better. The AI is putting up a better fight - perhaps because it saves money not buying excess boats. Plus the Iberian infantry seemed a better match for hastati - presumably, as due to getting rid of the missile attack in close combat bug. [Confession time: the Spanish intervened to aid the Gauls and wiped out my second army. Never had my butt kicked pre-patch.] AI diplomacy was more active too. I really appreciated the check box to control your own reinforcements.
On the minus side, all my combat generals get cruelly scarred. Also extermination or enslavement may still be smart - an occupied Alesia was a bear to keep loyal, so I abandoed it to face the Spanish. (But then again, I suspect Caesar did enslave or even exterminate Alesia).
I'd given up on RTW as it lacked challenge, but with the patch, I'll give it another go.
Theres no line in my preferences.txt to minimise the GUI
I have patched the vanilla version of the game from 1.1 to 1.2
Has anybody else had this or is there a line I could add myself ?
Cheers ~:)
monkian:
Try and delete the file and then run Rome again. It should make a new pref file with all the new lines in. If not you can add them but try deleting it first.
hoom:
The buttons at top can be made to stay: just hit F6 once when deployment/battle starts.
CBR
OK, I've finished the GCS game I was running before I updated to v1.2.
The AI is definitely more aggressive. I've fought off more blockades and sieges in the past 4 hours than I have in the last 4 months. The sieges were actually using real armies. Unfortunately, the blockades were 1 or 2 severly depleted ship fleets. Does the AI send units for retraining? It would seem not.
The AI is using it's agents hard!!! I've had more spying missions than I know what to do with.
My main complaint is that you can't keep the city details open when clicking through the unit & city completion screens. It's very easy now to miss a city going into revolt because I have to explicitly click to open and close the city details. This is most definitely a step backward.
Macattak1
02-06-2005, 06:42
I have not read this whole thread as yet. Just the first page.
But I can not even play now since I installed. Had to uinstall all and then re-install to get it to play fro a 15 turns of a new Camp. Then I went to bed, got up and did the same thing it originally did.
Loads to Task bar but never splash screen. Whether I put in the CD rom to initiate the auto play or just double click. No go.
I uninstalled, wiped C:\, checked in Reg HKLM\SW but nothing there. Then did fresh install. I hate this!
I updated my 9600 drivers. Defraged again. Tried compatibility mode. NOthing works. SP2? Been on their for a while.
P4 2.8, 1 gig, 9600 on a fairly fresh build with only 5 games and MS office and thats about it...
Any help appreciated. Buyt that is my thoughts and experience on the patch.
That there does not seem to be an Add/Rem for the patch is odd...
My main complaint is that you can't keep the city details open when clicking through the unit & city completion screens. It's very easy now to miss a city going into revolt because I have to explicitly click to open and close the city details.
Left click on the Cities tab to get a list of all your cities.
Right click on the heading "Public Order" twice.
That will sort the cities by Public Order, starting with the lowest.
Just downloaded and installed the patch but am too busy at the moment to restart a new campaign. :(
Will be going back in a day or two for holidays and my old home computer can't install R:TW. :sigh:
I've been following the discussion though and that bit about horse archers not firing properly doesn't look good. Also read that the exploit of giving away your province as a gift and taking it back immediately is still very much possible.
Would like to have a general consensus on cavalry as well. Been reading odd reports on the official boards that cavalry can attempt a frontal charge and still beat phalanxes. So are they still overpowered? More overpowered than before the patch? Or are they now Ok?
AI was a big issue pre patch. CA only mentioned that generals would be less suicidal. I didn't really see anything else pertaining to the AI. Come to think of it, on a brief perusal of the readme, it's appears to be exactly the same as the one posted earlier by Shogun. I was hoping for more details, but oh well... I suppose we'll have to work out the rest for ourselves.
monkian:
Try and delete the file and then run Rome again. It should make a new pref file with all the new lines in. If not you can add them but try deleting it first.
hoom:
The buttons at top can be made to stay: just hit F6 once when deployment/battle starts.
CBR
A thousand thank yous CBR :bow:
SpencerH
02-06-2005, 15:21
Two quick comments since I havent played yet (see number 2).
1. I loaded a 1.0 campaign (that I hadnt bothered to finish) took a quick look at the finances then loaded 1.2 and looked again. My net cash in a brutii empire covering most of the map except iberia, africa, and some of the ME had dropped from ~29000 to ~12000. I assume its some change to the squalor calcs.
2. I'm definitely pissed-off by the reports that HA are now virtually useless. What other bugs will we run into 50-100 hours into a game? I dont have that much free time and I'm not willing to 'beta test' any more games. If a game or patch isnt ready then dont sell/publish it. Dont waste my time. I will NOT BUY an expansion till this version leaves beta and I will try to convince as many people as I can to do the same. Its the only lever we can use in order to get the quality product we deserve.
Red Harvest
02-06-2005, 17:09
The HA's aren't useless, but they are hampered quite a bit. They can't cause any casualties when withdrawing in skirmish in campaign. The AI cav are all over them now without taking any casualties in the pursuit. So I'm having to use them as light cav who happen to have bows.
Vlad Tzepes
02-06-2005, 17:34
Talking 'bout first thoughts: the game now seems to be better, closer to what I first expected. Still, the AI seems to be inferior to MTW (even though now, with 1.2, there are some hopes).
Strange thing happened yesterday, while assaulting, as Chartage, a Roman settlement. Some infantry climbing the walls with ladders. The first men reach the top and, as usual, I order them to run towards the closest tower. It worked smoothly until now, in 1.0, but now all the guys still on the ladder threw themselves over, yelling as they crush on the ground. wow that was cool, half the unit gone in 1 second. Never seen that before.
Left click on the Cities tab to get a list of all your cities.
Right click on the heading "Public Order" twice.
That will sort the cities by Public Order, starting with the lowest.
Thanks, I'll try that.
Does the same type of thing work for the armies & agents? That would be sweet.
The Stranger
02-06-2005, 17:54
you cant say ai is inferior cause in mtw they just massed armies in one army and let all of their borders unprotected oke all those small captain led armies arent much of an threat but what about those mass peasant armies in mtw while they could already build elite units int rtw they start building them and abandon those weak units as fast as possible
Vlad Tzepes
02-06-2005, 18:09
you cant say ai is inferior cause in mtw they just massed armies in one army
well yes this is true but still in MTW enemy armies were a threat, that was challenging.
Sorry, that was off topic, I know. Hail the Patch, to get back ~;)
Come Together
02-06-2005, 19:33
Is it just me, or is the squalor bug still there ;/. My capital has roughly - 10000000000000000000% to public order due to squalor, and i really don't feel like exterminating the population and starting over.
Bob the Insane
02-06-2005, 20:38
I few little tests with peasants in the custom battles I think is revealing...
Given their A1 and D1 stats any changes should be a little more dramatic for them... Testing Roman vs Roman peasants on VH shows no real difference in the kill rates between the two units. They appear to lose man at about the same rate as each other... But morale is different, the AI unit is must be simply getting a morale boost as in the few tests I ran even when my guys where winning (i.e. kill ratio was in our favour) our morale was always worse...
My guys would hover between shaken and wavering, where as the AI would stay between steady and shaken until my guys eventually broke...
It will be interesting to know if the AI acts more tactically on hard or very hard compared to medium...
KyodaiSteeleye
02-06-2005, 20:48
you cant say ai is inferior cause in mtw they just massed armies in one army and let all of their borders unprotected oke all those small captain led armies arent much of an threat but what about those mass peasant armies in mtw while they could already build elite units int rtw they start building them and abandon those weak units as fast as possible
Puncuation would have made your post a little easier to read emperor.
you cant say ai is inferior cause in mtw they just massed armies in one army and let all of their borders unprotected oke all those small captain led armies arent much of an threat but what about those mass peasant armies in mtw while they could already build elite units int rtw they start building them and abandon those weak units as fast as possible
Yes but in MTW modders had the ability to change the AI build priorities for specific units and buildings, thus eliminating the chance that those stacks of peasants and/or worthless units would ever be built. Those mass peasant armies were turned into well balanced stacks thanks to careful modding and as a result the AI would put up a much better fight. Unfortunately in RTW build probabilities for specific units or buildings are now hard coded and we can't anything about it.
So while RTW's strategic AI may be better than MTW's in some ways it is still weaker in others.
Theres no line in my preferences.txt to minimise the GUI
I have patched the vanilla version of the game from 1.1 to 1.2
Has anybody else had this or is there a line I could add myself ?
Cheers ~:)
MINIMAL_UI:TRUE
Add that to the pre file ~:)
I love that they have added this... But I wish i could carry on my British campaign.. is there a way to unlock at the fractions yet with 1.2 ??
Great looking game...
:charge:
Bob the Insane
02-07-2005, 00:24
I take back what I said before about VH... Further "peasant tests" have shown the following I think...
Medium is evens. Both unit lose men at the same rate, random chance which on loses.
Hard is slight morale boost to the AI. Again losing men at the same rate, but the player's morale state is always worse right from the start of the fight)
Very Hard is morale boost to AI, morale penalty to player and slight combat boost to AI (attack and/or defense unknows). Player loses men faster than the AI (in fact AI hardly loses any men so I suspect the combat boost is to the defense value), AI's morale does not drop below eager while the players morale drops immedately to shaken and then quickly to wavering and to broken...
Now if the AI uses enhanced tactics under Hard (as compared to medium) I think it will be my new chosen battle difficulty... As the player you will be under the pressure of knowing that in a equal battle victory is dependant on you, but you don't have to deal with unbreakable, supermen AI soldiers...
screwtype
02-07-2005, 04:30
One thing I've noticed is that the scarred trait is MUCH easier to get now. All of my generals, if they do ANY fighting, become scarred, it's bizarre (but not bad, I guess).
They don't even have to do any fighting. One of my generals got the "scarred" trait after two battles, in neither of which his unit was commited to the fray.
Not only that, but one of my administrative generals has also recently picked up the "scarred" trait, and he's spent the whole game sitting in my home province of Croton. I'm pretty sure he hasn't fought in a single battle (although I do recall fighting a battle with two or three units against a rebel army in that province early in the game).
screwtype
02-07-2005, 04:41
Enemy STILL doesn't have Generals in their big stacks! ...I have so far fought 3 full stacks of Gauls invading into the Italian Penninsula that were leaderless! This wouldn't be such a bad thing if my spies hadn't noticed that there are settlements and stacks of units with simply the General and maybe one or two other units. This is unacceptable, I thought it was one of the main things on the list...
>:(
I don't necessarily see this as a problem Colovion. After all, generals do not necessarily add much to a stack unless they have stars. On the other hand, settlements get bonuses for having administrators. So I see nothing wrong with the AI choosing to put its generals into admin rather than combat.
What is really wrong is seeing generals wandering around by themselves, neither governing a province nor commanding a decent army. I haven't seen that in 1.2 so far.
Ive pretty much enjoyed the patch...
I enjoy how the computer has actually blockaded my ports when Im at war with them and not just randomly to break an alliance and then sail away, the AI is slightly better... although I had a general come in as a reinforcement and suicide himself against 2 units of British Warbands
Its nice to see storms but wasnt there a mud slide disaster too? I thought I saw that once on my old game, and aren't there anymore earthquakes in the world?
All in all I think its a good patch
screwtype
02-07-2005, 04:52
The Computer on the Strat map seems to be much more intelligent as in knowing when you're outclassed by other factions; they go and find allies to repell invaders etc. Such as when the Brutii usually walk all over Greek Cities - this time those Greeks allied with the Macedonians and now the Brutii have been steadily halted in expanding that way - they've had to head a little north and are now pestered by the Gauls and Dacia while Greece and Macedon build up their strength (Greece also found and allied with Egypt).
I don't know about that. In my latest campaign as the Bruti I KO'd both Greece and Macedonia very early in the game, in spite of the fact they both declared war on me at the same time. By turn 24 I was already by far the largest faction, and this bothers me, because it just seemed too easy. I think that when your faction (or maybe any faction) becomes the front runner, all the other factions you share a border with should make an alliance and declare war on you. And they should continue to make war on you until you've been at least been beaten back to average size. After all, any faction that starts to outpace the others is ultimately the major threat to every faction.
BTW I'm currently playing on H/VH (campaign/battle) so possibly a VH campaign would be harder, but judging by the ease with which I win battles on VH, I doubt it would be that much more challenging.
screwtype
02-07-2005, 05:56
Okay I've been playing 1.2 for a while now and I thought I'd post about my biggest disappointment in this game, which was the same in 1.0, and that is the extraordinary lack of control of your units in battle.
First of all there is the problem with charging. When I charge with a unit, whether it is a cav unit or infantry, the unit will immediately break ranks and charge willy-nilly into the fray in two's and three's. They then often seem to end up all packed tightly into a little bunch while the enemy unit envelops their flanks.
What I find particularly annoying about this is that I'm playing as the Romans, and Romans were renowned for nothing if not the tight discipline and training of their troops. *That* should be the Roman edge - and yet Roman legionaires behave exactly like MTW peasants when charging. I really hate the way units don't stay in formation in RTW.
Another problem appears to be that the pathfinding is still broken in cities. I recently had a battle against a greek city, broke down the gates and there was an enemy phalanx waiting at the crossroads. I ordered a unit of hastati to run in the gate to the side on the grass, so what did they do? Ran straight into the pointy sticks and immolated themselves. Finally managed to extract them by clicking on the road, and what did they do? Tore off at a frantic pace up the road and refused to respond to any orders to stop. And no, they weren't broken.
So then I ordered a unit of cav to run through the gates and wheel left onto the grass, but of course they too had to immolate themselves against the phalanx at the crossroads first.
Later on, I was having a battle on the town square, I was meleeing a phalanx with hastati and maneouvred a cav unit directly behind the phalanx to deliver the coup de gras. Ordered the the cav to attack and what did they do? Oh well it would have been just too easy to charge straight into the rear of the enemy phalanx, so they went for a 360 degree romp around the rear of my hastati unit(!) then came back to the same place they began, at which time they started attacking. By this time my hastati has broken.
This lack of unit control is just so annoying, it turns the whole game into a bit of a joke if you ask me, sometimes I just sit there and laugh at the moronic way my units behave, because there is nothing else you can do. But it detracts enormously from game satisfaction for me, and was the primary reason I put my mouse down the last time.
Oh, and a couple of other gripes I have (playing on VH) - when I charge through the gates of an enemy city to attack a unit, my units seem to rout almost immediately with heavy losses. I charged three full strength equite units into a stationary Greek cav unit (which was not heavy cav, but I don't recall which type it was) defending at the city gate crossroad, and all three of my equities routed within seconds with heavy losses! (And my army has a six or seven star general). This has happened to me several times. And BTW, I'm talking about a city defended with a palisade, so it's not from fire from the walls.
The other gripe is a campaign map gripe and that is that AI armies are still sieging my cities for a turn or two and then wandering off for no apparent reason.
Chelifer
02-07-2005, 06:22
Very Hard is morale boost to AI, morale penalty to player and slight combat boost to AI (attack and/or defense unknows). Player loses men faster than the AI (in fact AI hardly loses any men so I suspect the combat boost is to the defense value), AI's morale does not drop below eager while the players morale drops immedately to shaken and then quickly to wavering and to broken...
What is the point to play on VH battles then? Based on this description, I reckon you would have to have a huge numerical superiority in every battle, if you are going to win one, that is :)
Colovion
02-07-2005, 07:49
I don't know about that. In my latest campaign as the Bruti I KO'd both Greece and Macedonia very early in the game, in spite of the fact they both declared war on me at the same time. By turn 24 I was already by far the largest faction, and this bothers me, because it just seemed too easy. I think that when your faction (or maybe any faction) becomes the front runner, all the other factions you share a border with should make an alliance and declare war on you. And they should continue to make war on you until you've been at least been beaten back to average size. After all, any faction that starts to outpace the others is ultimately the major threat to every faction.
BTW I'm currently playing on H/VH (campaign/battle) so possibly a VH campaign would be harder, but judging by the ease with which I win battles on VH, I doubt it would be that much more challenging.
I'm talking about AI vs AI.
Obviously whatever faction the human plays will win, there's no challenge.
screwtype
02-07-2005, 09:08
Oh sorry, Colovion, obviously I completely missed the point of your original post.
I still think something needs to be done to lessen the "steamroller effect" though, which is why I suggested the AI gang up on you when you start winning.
Wh1teWolf
02-07-2005, 09:48
This is one hell of a good patch, The guals gave me a run for my money by attacking me straight off and not waiting for me to come to them while Dacia hit me from the other flank.
Another great thing is that during battles on the battle map, you see yours or enemy ships off the shore that you put there on the campaign map and I am hoping to see volcano's as well as wonders when I am close by them on the battle map, also using Fire arrows and artillery is awesome now and no frame rate drop (Unless your computer sucks ass).
Going back to the AI besides Screwtypes constant bitchin and complainin on every dumbass post he makes, the AI now blockades ports, I have lost many diplomats to assassins, in battle the enemy sallied forth while I was besieging there settlement with reinforcements behind me and crushed me, The AI is making watch towers as well as attempting to ambush me. All in all its a great patch and makes for great campaigns it's like a totaly different game then 1.1, WELL DONE CA!!!!!!!!
I liked R:TW before the patch, and I loves it after.
I disslike reading about people who just complaining, complaining, complaining all the time, BUY ANOTHER GAME if you don't like it!
All talking about the fast kill rate, have you ever lived in those times in real life? Do you think its hard to kill humans? Everything isn't just hollywood movies there the good and evil guy fights forever. I am the only one that thinks the battle is to slow? They stand and smashing on each other and never dies. And I don't play arcade style. And I'll never will.
And remember it is just a game, stop whine!
I adore CA for making impossible games come true!!
Start hate me, I still play R:TW with a enjoyable smile. I love the game!!
Be safe, and happy gaming!
Kaldhore
02-07-2005, 10:54
I have to say that I have noticed a great deal of more inteligence from the AI - Ive had to adapt my strategies ALOT to compensate - which is cool.
Ive lost several - very cool - battles that I sigh at because of the lack of campaign save replay (still a sore point).
E.G. I landed an extremely professional Army - consisting of Praeoritan Cohorts, Archers, Legionary Cav and h/onangers outside carthage to beseige my scipii brother during the final stages of my Julii campaign last night.
My forces total was about 1300. He stormed 3x 1300 (2 gens and a captain) into assault me before I could move. Not only that - but they all came from different directions. I managed to wipe out 1 of the 1300, and then reformed - only to see the other 2 forming up together in the distance. When they got closer I saw legionary cav and Urban cohorts en masse heading my way. Great. I got slaughtered, but I took another 1500 with me. GOD how I wish replays worked.
Another time I was doing a simpler sige battle v the brutii at colon(?) and I was very very suprised to see my Onangers suddenly get hit by a flaming meteor taking one of them out. I zoomed over to see 2 sets of enemy onangers firing from behind the wall - priceless.
I've had a few nicer battles now too, especially since you can't sally endlessly and whittle the enemy down.
I had 3 units of militia hoplites and 3 units of hoplites defending against an attack by the Thracians. 4 Falxmen, one unit of jav skirms and 2 generals. I let them take the gate down and guarded the routes to the center with the hoplites. 2 of the militia and 1 regular guarded the main route, one militia was in the square (the captain), and the other 2 regulars guarded other approaches.
Well, the javelins decided to charge, and got butchered pretty badly. The Falxmen charge in after and manage to flank around the left side. I pull one of the regulars in to cover, as they are all attacking one point. Before they get there, the general charges and breaks through on the left. Suddenly we are taking massive casualties. The 2 militia rout and the regular is cut down. I move in with the captain and the regular that was enroute, and force-march the other regular in. Their general ends up caught between my first regular hoplite who is getting butchered, but still standing, and my captain. Almost all of the general's unit is destroyed, and they flee. The other hoplite gets to the street, and my front is stable again. In come the reinforcements (other general and a unit of Falxmen). The line barely holds, but the general is cut down, and the Falxmen rout.
Total losses were higher for my side, but I had more men. Had I not already been moving in the unit of hoplites to reinforce the lines, they would have broken them open and I would have lost. Very close, but a fun battle (and yes, it'd have been nice to save it).
Bh
Overall I'm edging towards being disappointed with the patch.
That enemy units now have a tendancy to go after missile units that're targetting them is good, but they're still just as easily destroyed as when they just stood around dumbly watching each other get killed. It's very easy to the extent of being childishly simplistic to bait an enemy unit. They'll then happily charge straight into an ambush even to the extent of totally ignoring the units charging their flanks in their lust to catch the missile unit.
One issue that does need to be watched is that the bait unit seems to need to retreat a lot sooner than pre-patch. The slow response to my orders to stop shooting and run for it has been painful to watch at times. It does make me wonder if this is a deliberate change to try and counter the easier baiting. As a note, it doesn't seem to be linked to the distance from the general - ie. a reasonable command delay - since I saw the same sluggishness when my general was practically breathing down my archers' necks.
Pathfinding appears to have been amended, but I'd hesitate saying fixed...
Cavalry was always a little awkward to use in cities, but now at times it gets really bizarre and I often get 2 or 3 troopers riding off in the opposite direction to where I clicked! They eventually turn around and rejoin their unit, but it's still a very irritating problem.
This interesting pathfinding also extends to the campaign map: I had a general-led army just south of the bridge south of Mediolanium that I wanted to send to Segesta. Just to the west of Segesta was a single Hastati out of movement points. I selected my army, Segesta obviously showed up as well inside the green movement range. I click to move, but instead of heading directly south-east and into the settlement, the army heads direct east, heading around the mountain range just north of Segesta and tries to approach from the east, but runs out of movement points! I was not amused.
I reloaded the game despite that meaning I'd have to refight 2 big battles and a sally and did some experimenting. It appears that the pathfinding AI was treating the Hastati with no movement points just to the west of Segesta as a barrier. Even if I first moved my army just to the west of the Hastati and then clicked on Segesta, it still tried to circle around the mountains to enter the settlement from the east. In the end I had to merge units and then select my original army from the combined stack to get them to move onwards. I've never seen this behavior in v1.0 and so can only assume it's due to the patch.
frogbeastegg
02-07-2005, 13:57
Has anyone else found that Gaul is now obsessed with warbands? It is practically the only unit they build now. In 1.1 and 1.0 I encountered mixed armies with plenty of swordsmen and skirmishers, but now it is warbands, warbands, warbands, warbands, warbands and maybe a single unit of barbarian cavalry. I have seen maybe 8 units of skirmisher warband tops, and they were all ground down to less than 30 men by some AI versus AI battles. I have seen a few units of general's bodyguard cavalry, but that is not a build decision. A single unit of druids rounds out the tally.
I have sat on my hands until around 240BC to let the AI build up and make for a challenging game (or so I hoped), so I cannot even say I have battered the AI so badly it can only use warbands. I'm the Julii and I only have 6 cities; the two starters and those on the Italian side of the Alps plus Segestica. The Gauls, according to my scouting, hold all of modern France. My scouting has also revealed every town garrisoned with warbands, and every army packed full of warbands. That unit type makes up about 99% of the faction's forces.
Has anyone else found that Gaul is now obsessed with warbands?
Not so far; the Gauls my Julii face include some swordsmen, skirmishers and cav, but also some wardogs which I had not seen before.
Red Harvest
02-07-2005, 16:48
Has anyone else found that Gaul is now obsessed with warbands? It is practically the only unit they build now.
This is not just Gaul. Carthage is doing the same with town militia. Numidia is doing it with javelinmen. Some have said the Romans are building a lot of town watch. There is something borked in the way the AI now decides what units to build. The suggestion I have heard is to increase the cost of the crap units, so that the AI starts building some better troops. At present it seems to think base level militia type/infantry are a bargain, so it builds them rather than decent units.
An interesting approach to a game, RTW is...sort of like assemble it yourself furniture...but without the instructions. Hopefully, we can figure out what controls a lot of this and adjust so that we get proper armies.
SpencerH
02-07-2005, 17:05
So far (as Carthage) I've faced fairly mixed Roman armies including hastati, cav, missles (cant say what type since the battles were so fast), and even roman wardogs. Its possible that they were the starting units rather than built-fresh though.
I'm definitely seeing more use of AI fleets to blockade ports.
Land battles have been very fast due to enemy routing. Hopefully that will change as I face more experienced armies with better morale.
My alliance with the Gauls fell apart when I suggested we exchange maps!
Etna erupted killing a high percentage of all troops nearby. I've always liked a few random disasters ever since Civ (I).
Pathfinding in cities does not appear to be improved.
The_Mark
02-07-2005, 17:48
Has anyone else found that Gaul is now obsessed with warbands?
Now, I haven't seen any mass warband-armies as of yet, they all were quite mixed troops that I've seen. Could it be that while you waited for them to build up their troops, they actually built up their troops. But as warbands. Lots of 'em.
If you weren't fighting them, thus them not having any big battles that'd sorta "remove" their out-dated troops from circulation in favor of newer ones, and AI not disbanding units, wouldn't that lead to massed armies of WBs because they couldn't build anything else back then, and now, 'cause of their income's flowing right to the hands of WB armies, they don't have the money to build better ones.
Well, that's my theory.
Sid_Quibley
02-07-2005, 17:52
RTW is...sort of like assemble it yourself furniture...but without the instructions.
ROFL
As for the patch, the speed at which units rout is still my main reason for not playing this game seriously.
Ellesthyan
02-07-2005, 18:00
EDIT
Ellesthyan
02-07-2005, 18:01
Can we add new campaigns without adding a new installation of Rome?
There is a mechanism for this, however it is not yet ready for prime time. It will be exposed in a future patch and detailed in the guide.
This is a Q/A answered by Jerome Grasdyke. If I understand correctly, this mechanism is not yet exposed, so should we assume that more patches will follow?
frogbeastegg
02-07-2005, 18:10
If you weren't fighting them, thus them not having any big battles that'd sorta "remove" their out-dated troops from circulation in favor of newer ones, and AI not disbanding units, wouldn't that lead to massed armies of WBs because they couldn't build anything else back then, and now, 'cause of their income's flowing right to the hands of WB armies, they don't have the money to build better ones.
Not a bad idea. I have destroyed quite a few armies with 7-10 warbands a piece in them when the Gauls sent them to attack my territory; every Gaulish army I have encountered has been a mass of warbands and the AI has been admirably agressive in attacking my borders and raiding my farmlands. As far as I can tell each of those warband armies was replaced by another warband army, and certainly the Gaulish lands are packed with more warbands. It is hard to tell exactly what the AI does with its build orders though ...
I shall go on the offensive to kill several thousand hairy barbarians and see what crops up to replace them :charge:
HoreTore
02-07-2005, 19:40
Can't really understand why people don't like the routing... That's what happened in real life. They didn't hack each other to the death, they charged at each other, hacked a little, and then the one getting the worst beating fled... It didn't take a long time, and certainly not enough time to order units about, as one complained about not being able to do...
Humans aren't really as brave as some like to think when it comes down to dying...
Strange thing happened yesterday, while assaulting, as Chartage, a Roman settlement. Some infantry climbing the walls with ladders. The first men reach the top and, as usual, I order them to run towards the closest tower. It worked smoothly until now, in 1.0, but now all the guys still on the ladder threw themselves over, yelling as they crush on the ground. wow that was cool, half the unit gone in 1 second. Never seen that before.
I had a simillar problem with a siege tower and (I think it was) a large stone wall. The men came out from the tower right, but after I ordered them to run, the rest fell down one by one, dissapearing inside the wall. I ended the battle, loaded and tryed again: same thing happening again. Haven't seen it since, though.
SpencerH
02-07-2005, 19:51
For my part, its not that I dislike the routing itself (I like the idea of more morale levels in 1.2) , its that the early battles I've fought are too quick and require almost no command and control to win.
Red Harvest
02-07-2005, 20:22
I don't mind the tendency to rout. I find it more representative. The problem is the kill rate...not the tendency to rout. High kill rates make the action too quick.
nickersonm
02-07-2005, 23:04
Popup buttons at top are a pain for me since I use the mouse for camera movement. Would be nice to have an option for permanently on.
There is that option. Pressing the appropriate F button will switch between 3 options - hidden, auto-roll, and stuck. I believe CBR posted this before me, but in fewer words ;).
Auto preferences -still there, still stupid, still won't let me use 1280 * 1024 without altering the file :furious3:
In my experience (using funny resolutions and such on my widescreen monitor), RTW reads from the graphics driver. So, if I add a custom res in the driver's control panel (I have an nvidia, not sure if ATI supports custom res's although it would make sense), it will be selectable in RTW.
I love that they have added this... But I wish i could carry on my British campaign.. is there a way to unlock at the fractions yet with 1.2 ??
The faction unlocking mod still works with 1.2. None of the faction descriptions were changed.
As for the pathfinding issue in cities, it is most annoying when your unit gets spread out on a street and you need to attack an enemy. The unit will attempt to attack the center (average position? flagbearer?) of the enemy unit, so my men on the ends just walk past the enemy (who is attacking them) in an attempt to reach the center. With the pathfinding, they may end up going around several blocks before they get to their destination and start attacking. This has been a problem before, but it seems to be worse in 1.2.
Overall, though, I am extremely satisfied, especially with the campaign map improvements and editors.
- nickersonm
Simetrical
02-08-2005, 02:20
Do not install any 1.1 "unlock all factions" mod. Such mods edit the file descr_strat.txt, which was also modified in the 1.2 patch. You will lose some of the patch's additions if you overwrite that file. Instead, modify it by hand—go to Rome - Total War\data\world\map\campaign\imperial_campaign\descr_strat.txt, look for the lists of factions at the very top, and add all factions you want to unlock to the "playable" list. If you want the maps, get them from a mod that unlocks all factions, but be sure not to overwrite descr_strat.txt.
EDIT: Turns out I was wrong. descr_strat was not affected by the patch.
Anyway, the pathfinding is distressing, but there are no glaring bugs other than that. If only something close to this were the original product, and CA's two patches could've dealt with pathfinding and opening up the game more to modders, RTW would be perfect.
-Simetrical
One good thing... the Scythian females no longer look like their faces were painted by Picasso...
Colovion
02-08-2005, 11:09
Alt - Click.to.move Works
Lord of the Isles
02-08-2005, 14:53
Can't really understand why people don't like the routing... That's what happened in real life. They didn't hack each other to the death, they charged at each other, hacked a little, and then the one getting the worst beating fled... It didn't take a long time, and certainly not enough time to order units about, as one complained about not being able to do...
Humans aren't really as brave as some like to think when it comes down to dying...
Morale and routing are important, sure. I'm even happy to accept that a raw, untrained army might not last for long against a much better one. But do you really think it happened in seconds, as it does in unmodded RTW? I've had battles where 5 seconds after melee started the first unit routed and 5 seconds after that a chain reaction 90% of army rout was in progress.
I refuse to believe it happened that quickly in real life. Take a battle like Cannae, where both armies were composed of troops either seasoned, trained or well equiped (as opposed to raw "javelin fodder"). There was enough time for maneuvering, clashes on both wings to be resolved and for the Carthaginian wings to return to attack the roman centre from behind.
Now, imagine the RTW engine producing a battle like that. I can't. The unmodded game at least; all hail those wonderful modders who have gone some way towards making the game playable.
SpencerH
02-08-2005, 16:24
Morale and routing are important, sure. I'm even happy to accept that a raw, untrained army might not last for long against a much better one. But do you really think it happened in seconds, as it does in unmodded RTW? I've had battles where 5 seconds after melee started the first unit routed and 5 seconds after that a chain reaction 90% of army rout was in progress.
I refuse to believe it happened that quickly in real life. Take a battle like Cannae, where both armies were composed of troops either seasoned, trained or well equiped (as opposed to raw "javelin fodder"). There was enough time for maneuvering, clashes on both wings to be resolved and for the Carthaginian wings to return to attack the roman centre from behind.
Now, imagine the RTW engine producing a battle like that. I can't. The unmodded game at least; all hail those wonderful modders who have gone some way towards making the game playable.
I agree that routing occurs too quickly in the early battles, but to some extent you've answered your own point. Cannae was fought by two armies of seasoned troops. My battles with 1.2 so far have not matched two such armies so I'd expect troops to rout when flanked by cav and facing a much superior general. Hopefully though, the battles will require longer engagements as the unit morale rises.
Claudius Maniacus Sextus
02-08-2005, 16:36
its good for such an buged game,especialy the later marian reforms,and better ai.to bad for the HA!
~:cheers: CHEERS ~:cheers:
screwtype
02-08-2005, 17:48
Going back to the AI besides Screwtypes constant bitchin and complainin on every dumbass post he makes...All in all its a great patch and makes for great campaigns it's like a totaly different game then 1.1, WELL DONE CA!!!!!!!!
While I don't appreciate your gratuitous rudeness whitewolf, having had the opportunity to play this game solidly for the last few days, I think maybe I've been a bit too hard on it.
I was deeply disappointed with the initial release of the game, it had so many bugs on my PC it was almost unplayable. Since I got the patch, I've had only one CTD (when I right clicked on a portrait on my family tree) and I've had more time to get into it.
And I must admit, despite the flaws, I'm having fun with the patched game, and I'm coming to appreciate and enjoy some of the design decisions that I was quite critical of before.
I'm now coming to the same view as many of the other posters on the RTW forums, that probably the thing I'd most like to see is an improved campaign and battle AI, because the game is still too easy to beat, and I can see myself losing interest over time. But right now, I'm having a bit of a blast, in spite of the niggles there's obviously a huge amount of effort that went into making this, and I think CA deserves our appreciation for what they have achieved.
Now guys, all I ask is that you keep improving on what you've already done until you've built a game we just can't stop playing ~:)
Do not install any 1.1 "unlock all factions" mod. Such mods edit the file descr_strat.txt, which was also modified in the 1.2 patch. You will lose some of the patch's additions if you overwrite that file. Instead, modify it by hand—go to Rome - Total War\data\world\map\campaign\imperial_campaign\descr_strat.txt, look for the lists of factions at the very top, and add all factions you want to unlock to the "playable" list. If you want the maps, get them from a mod that unlocks all factions, but be sure not to overwrite descr_strat.txt.
Crud, I didnt think about this. If someone could send me the descr_strat.txt, it would save me a reinstall, and make me oh so very happy. Either a PM would work. Thanks.
This patch completely ignored tons of posts regarding the hyperspeed killing rates during battles. There is almost no tactical skill that can be exercised when a battle lasts under 60 seconds. I have to cut the swing rate to 50% just to get an enjoyable pace.
Another thing that i have noticed that is unchanged in the patch is how troops still fall down at random at the start of battle. while this isnt much of a problem on flat terrain, on a city wall it is quite damaging. perhaps my biggest irritation with the game.
_Aetius_
02-08-2005, 23:14
The depressing thing is that im really excited when battles last over 1 minute..... Medieval was never like that unless the enemy was utterly useless, you could enjoy and watch the battle unfold make tactical decisions changes, alterations in battle and see the difference Rome is just send infantry in they charge if the enemy doesnt run one cav charge inthe side and they all run after only 25% casualties.
Ok, I don't know if this is just my system (which is buggy at the moment), or added in the patch, but disbanding troops no longer adds to city population in my game. I made a few units of peasants to shuffle over to a city I wanted to quickly boost to the 2000 mark, disbanded them, and the population was still the same. Is anyone else experiencing this?
screwtype
02-09-2005, 05:20
No, I'm not experiencing that Quillan. I've been frantically churning out peasants to add to the pitiful populations of cities I've exterminated and they are all definitely adding to the pop. when disbanded.
screwtype
02-09-2005, 05:24
This patch completely ignored tons of posts regarding the hyperspeed killing rates during battles. There is almost no tactical skill that can be exercised when a battle lasts under 60 seconds. I have to cut the swing rate to 50% just to get an enjoyable pace.
What do you mean "cut the swing rate to 50%", and how did you do that?
I've been thinking about adding an extra hit point to all units to make the battles last longer, but I want to play one or two campaigns right to the end before I start making changes.
SpencerH
02-09-2005, 17:52
I havent fought the Numideans before but in light of the warband issue I'm wondering if the strange makeup of the armies I faced was the same 'bug'. The numidean army I crushed was 10 units of skirmishers with some (very effective) heavy cav that were probably family members.
ToranagaSama
02-09-2005, 19:22
Of course "single unit match ups often melee much longer" than when large armies clash. It's because the single units don't get flanked.
Sheesh...
Anyway, the reason why battles are over so quick isn't the kill rate, it's the fact that low-valor units rout as soon as the other side seems to get the upper hand.
Big battles do last longer unless you don't have reserves or reinforcements thereby letting all your units rout at the same time. If you rally your routing troops and keep a second line with fresh troops the large battles last way longer than smaller ones.
They don't last as long as battles did in real life no, but then our armies are like one tenth of the size of armies back then...
The only kill rate that would benefit from a change is the one for routers but that's a different issue.
Arggggghhh! Sorry, I just hate it when those who don't know what they're talking about talk as if they do.
Longer Battles are NOT about having *longer* battles, but about having HIGH TACTICAL battles. Unmodded the RTW does not allow for Tactical battles---PERIOD!
Simply slamming reserves/reinforcements is not a substitute....
Also, in STW and MTW, there were several other variables, in addition, to *valour* that effected a unit's ability to Stand and Hold (not rout). A player with a FULL comprehension of the variables and with experience could compensate for unit *type* and valour weaknesses, as well as using those same variables to maximize his advantages. TERRAIN played a *much* greater part in the outcome of a battle.
More to the point of what irks me about your post: do you *think* you have more experience, more knowledge, more contemplation, of the Total War series than the poster you replied to?
I mean really some people know what they are talking about and some people don't; and then there are those who *think* they do.
~ToranagaSama
---
Opps, GFX707, said it all so much more succintly.
Oh, I see, Colvion, bless him, honored you by responding in precisely the manner you demanded, an explanation. The man took his time and effort, and this is all you have to say:
I do enjoy them. I'd enjoy them more if it was possible to fight 50,000 vs 50,000 battles that would last half an hour but until we have computers capable of that I'll settle for what I have. IMO it's better to have realistic kill speeds than to nerf them to simulate that each unit is 10 times larger than it is...
Why don't you honor him (and the rest of us) and respond to the points he brought up? HINT: Tactics!!!
BTW, what is realistic about Vanilla combat speeds?
Ban me if you will, but RTW Newbies are a clueless butch.
~ToranagaSama
ToranagaSama
02-09-2005, 19:23
Can't really understand why people don't like the routing... That's what happened in real life. They didn't hack each other to the death, they charged at each other, hacked a little, and then the one getting the worst beating fled... It didn't take a long time, and certainly not enough time to order units about, as one complained about not being able to do...
Humans aren't really as brave as some like to think when it comes down to dying...
So then, given the above, you must explain what it was about the Romans that made them so superior? If they were just "hack[ing]" away like everyone else then WHAT was at the root of their success?
How and why would one "get... the worst" of it? Was it just luck? Was there no skill, no thought, no plan?
Wasn't the battle goal to attempt to, in some fashion, surround your opponent? Wasn't it that once an enemy *perceived* himself *about to be surrounded, in some fashion, that THEN the enemy would rout?
Here's a dose of realism for ya:
Hannibal's victory at Cannae
At the onset of the battle, the Roman and Carthaginian skirmishers began to pick at each other, testing for weaknesses and trying to force their opponent into committing to a plan of action (Lazenby, 1978). It wasn't until Hannibal's heavy cavalry charged the Roman right flank that the battle began in earnest. Hasdrubal's 7,000 Spanish and Gallic heavy cavalry collided with Paullus' 2,400 Italian heavy cavalry (Peddie, 1997). Immediately, the sheer force of numbers began driving the Romans back. To make matters worse, the river to their right and the infantry to their left effectively hemmed in the Romans. Many left their horses to fight on foot, allowing riderless horses to plunge unchecked through the Roman lines, causing further confusion (Lamb, 1960). The Romans were soon routed and began fleeing back towards their main camp and up the hill to Cannae. Hasdrubal successfully maintained command of his troops and rode behind the advancing Roman infantry and assisted the Numidians attack the Roman allied cavalry (de Beer, 1969).
On Rome's left flank, Varro held his ground against the Numidian light cavalry. His troops did not ride after the fleet, shaggy mounts of the Africans, but instead braved their pulsing style of attack. Indeed, Varro was effectively and efficiently upholding his initial plan of having his cavalry withstand attack until his infantry could break the Carthaginian center. However, when Hasdrubal's heavy cavalry threatened his right flank, Varro and his men rode with haste from the field. The Numidians gave chase while yet again Hasdrubal reformed his troops for attack (Lazenby, 1978).At the onset of the initial cavalry rush, the skirmishers for both sides melted back into their respective lines. The formation presented to the Romans was unique. Hannibal's Gauls and Spanish troops were arrayed in a convex line, with the outermost point closest to the Roman legions. Intent on destroying their enemy, the Romans began their steady, tightly maintained march towards the Carthaginian forces. The Gauls and Spaniards fought valiantly, but had to give ground due to the sheer number of Roman troops. As they made their slow retreat, their line flexed backward from convex to straight, and then finally concave. Meanwhile, the impetus of the Roman's forward advance carried them between the two African heavy infantry forces (Caven, 1980). Paullus, after the routing of his cavalry, assisted in leading the Romans towards their foe. As the front line of the Romans began to tire and meet continual resistance from the Gallic and Spanish troops, they realized they had nowhere to go for retreat. By that time, the Gauls and Spaniards had been pushed to the rear of their battle lines. They had yielded ground, but never broke before the Roman legions. The Roman advance slowly ground to a halt as those in front were stymied while those behind continually pressed forward.
At this time, Hannibal signaled the final stage of his battle plan. With the sound of war horns, the heavy African infantry wheeled towards each other and began attacking the Roman flanks (Caven, 1980). Meanwhile, the Gauls and Spaniards redoubled their efforts and applied pressure to the Italian front ranks. It was also at this time that Hasdrubal's heavy cavalry crashed into the back of the Roman infantry, effectively sealing off any avenues of escape. As the Romans vainly sought to free themselves from this perfectly executed double envelopment, the battle turned into a massacre.
Tactics Used in the battle of Cannae (http://www.calontir.org/~bop/4/Cannae.htm)
Convex-Straight-Concave-Hold-Flank-->Victory
If you can, at all, envision this battle, it should be quite clear that the above battle tactics can NOT be implemented in RTW for the simple reason that Units will NOT *Hold* long enough for the battle (manueverings) to develop.
The lesson is if you, as a player, are in any way as capable a Total War general as Hannibal, you are going to get your butt kicked by the lousy battle settings that CA has implemented----and it SUCKS!
The game has been dumbed down and is unplayable (at least in 1.1 version, holding personal reservation for 1.2, but from the looks of the comments, there is no hope).
BTW, does anyone have a graphic/video of the battle that they could upload?
ToranagaSama
02-09-2005, 19:24
I agree that routing occurs too quickly in the early battles, but to some extent you've answered your own point. Cannae was fought by two armies of seasoned troops. My battles with 1.2 so far have not matched two such armies so I'd expect troops to rout when flanked by cav and facing a much superior general. Hopefully though, the battles will require longer engagements as the unit morale rises.
I believe the Romans troops in that battle were NOT "seasoned". Please see the link I provided in my previous post.
...Varro and Paullus departed Rome with their newly raised army and headed towards the army of Germinus and Regulus, already following Hannibal and heading towards Cannae....
...Experience was another crucial element in this battle. Hannibal's men were veterans of at least two campaigns against the Romans. His African troops had been with him since he touched Italian soil. His Gallic, Spanish, and Numidian troops were fierce fighters that had been with him for at least one season of fighting....
...Rome's levies were fresh troops. A majority was untested, thus increasing the need for quality leadership. That, coupled with such a large number of troops, played a factor in the events at Cannae....
Maybe the author is incorrect[?], but he has referenced his writings.
Sooo, ahhhh, what execuse now for the lame battle speed CA has implemented?
RTW = LCD [Lowest Common Denominator]
LCD = Dumbed Down
What do you mean "cut the swing rate to 50%", and how did you do that?
I've been thinking about adding an extra hit point to all units to make the battles last longer, but I want to play one or two campaigns right to the end before I start making changes.
The swing rate is in the export_unit_desc file in the Data directory.
SpencerH
02-09-2005, 20:49
I believe the Romans troops in that battle were NOT "seasoned". Please see the link I provided in my previous post.
Maybe the author is incorrect[?], but he has referenced his writings.
Sooo, ahhhh, what execuse now for the lame battle speed CA has implemented?
RTW = LCD [Lowest Common Denominator]
LCD = Dumbed Down
You're talking to the wrong person:
1) I know nothing about the battle of Cannae. I merely commented on Lord of the isles post. He asserted that both were seasoned armies. If that were true then one would expect a longer battle than with two unseasoned armies.
2) As an ex soldier I'm quite aware of the value of professionalism/morale etc.
3) I've commented in many other threads about the inappropriate battle (overall), killing, and movement speeds.
ToranagaSama
02-09-2005, 21:23
Originally Posted by SpencerH
I agree that routing occurs too quickly in the early battles, but to some extent you've answered your own point. Cannae was fought by two armies of seasoned troops. My battles with 1.2 so far have not matched two such armies so I'd expect troops to rout when flanked by cav and facing a much superior general. Hopefully though, the battles will require longer engagements as the unit morale rises.
Just didn't want anyone to use that strain of logic in order to justify vanilla's battle speed.
See the bold type. A bit confusing. My apologies.
Lord of the isles is indeed the one applying strained logic using assumptions of fact:
I refuse to believe it happened that quickly in real life. Take a battle like Cannae, where both armies were composed of troops either seasoned, trained or well equiped (as opposed to raw "javelin fodder"). There was enough time for maneuvering, clashes on both wings to be resolved and for the Carthaginian wings to return to attack the roman centre from behind.
Regarding the outfitting of Hannibal's army:
...Due to the successes Hannibal had attained in earlier battles, his African soldiers were outfitted in Roman armor, used Roman scuta, and fought with Roman swords. As was their custom, the Gauls were "naked" ....
Further:
Hannibal divided his 40,000 infantry into four sections....In all, there were approximately 20,000 Gauls and around 4,000 Spanish infantry deployed by Hannibal into the center of his formation.....
Hmmm..... seems like 20,000 naked Gauls (along with a few Spaniards) held off the Roman frontal attack long enough for 5000 Africans using Armour and Swords taken off dead Romans to Flank and envelope, while the Carthiginian Heavy Cav hit the Romans from the rear, *AFTER fighting successively on each Flank.
Nothing about the Battle Speed Settings (catchall phrase) is realistic or based on realism.
I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.
Lowest Common Denominator.
[* EDIT]
I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.
Lowest Common Denominator.
You can make your point without being NEARLY so condescending. Many others have already done so. You might think about learning from them.
hellenes
02-09-2005, 22:35
I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.
Lowest Common Denominator.
[* EDIT]
AMEN
Hellenes
Alexandr III. Biges
02-10-2005, 01:35
This might be a little cynical... but does anyone else get the impression that the wrong game version got sent to the CD factories in the first place? After this patch it rather feels like we've been playing a beta these past few months.
It's happened before...
I agree with you completely. You are not cynical, cynical is: It seems CA is burned out, they just do it for money, no longer enthusiasm which is in STW and MTW. These days, I believe they would cut MTW down, releasing half of high and entire late era as an expansion.
As to the patch, AI is unable to handle sea warfare, enemy is willing to load quite large army to single trireme, despite he must know of my fleets patroling the sea.
Btw, if you look at the details of RomeTW.exe, in comments is: "Undoutedly The Finest Strategy Game Ever". Cha, cha.
:(
Long time Grog here just don't like to post much. I'm not even touching this patch until EB, SPQR, or RTR are done. Really can't wait for EB. I've got MTW with, BKB Super in my box now.
Nice description about Cannae Toranqaga, you pretty much nailed it. I caught the H. channel the other night with the Hannibal episode detailing his battels. Cannae king of remids me of Zulu battle field tactics. Anyway in my humble opinion the killing speeds are set up to hide the weak battlefield AI. They put too much effort trying to make this girl look good. Ya just gotta make sure she keeps her mouth shut when you take her out.
For those who think creating a battle field AI with the current tech. available think again. Mad Minute games has produced a low tech $ 20 game with MTW style graphics that has A very competent and challenging AI. It's not perfect, but it's damn good.
Rome Total war will have fewer battles with more stategic signifigance. Who remebers that bull!
Simetrical
02-10-2005, 04:29
Crud, I didnt think about this.It's okay, you didn't have to. I was wrong. descr_strat.txt was not affected by the patch (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=20834). But it's good practice to always back up your entire data folder right after a fresh install/patch.
-Simetrical
screwtype
02-10-2005, 13:45
The swing rate is in the export_unit_desc file in the Data directory.
I can't find a file called export_unit_desc. I assume you mean the file called export_descr_unit?
Also, I couldn't find anything about a "swing rate" in there. I did find a variable called "stat_fire_delay" which might be what you are referring to, but from the description it sounds like something that only affects missile weapons, because it refers to volleys, ie "Extra delay over that imposed by animation, between volleys".
If this is the stat you are playing with, are you sure it also affects the kill rate for melee weapons?
screwtype
02-10-2005, 13:59
I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.
A lot of people say that about RTW, and maybe they're right. But I must say I find battles if anything a lot *harder* to win because of the lack of time to respond. I really can't imagine that beginners to the TW format would find this game easier to play than the earlier titles. Quite the contrary.
So if greater accessibility was what CA was trying to achieve, then I can't help but think that they have probably failed in that endeavour.
Lord of the Isles
02-10-2005, 14:05
Just didn't want anyone to use that strain of logic in order to justify vanilla's battle speed.
See the bold type. A bit confusing. My apologies.
Lord of the isles is indeed the one applying strained logic using assumptions of fact:
Well, I agree with most of what you've said in this thread ToranagaSama, but I'd better defend myself on this charge. What I wrote was:
I refuse to believe it happened that quickly in real life. Take a battle like Cannae, where both armies were composed of troops either seasoned, trained or well equiped (as opposed to raw "javelin fodder"). There was enough time for maneuvering, clashes on both wings to be resolved and for the Carthaginian wings to return to attack the roman centre from behind.
I stand by that: both side at Cannae were composed of seasoned OR trained OR well-equiped troops. Hannibal's were seasoned, and sometimes also trained and/or well equipped. The Romans were well equiped (what Roman army wasn't), even if they may not have been seasoned or trained.
Since the phrase "seasoned, trained or well equiped" might have been read as "all were seasoned, and one or more of trained or well equiped", I added "either" before the phrase, to make it clear that I meant "one or more of ...". But I failed I guess. ~:)
I contend and assert that CA has chosen the Battle Speed Settings in order that clueless and skilless newbies can have a "good game experience" [sarcasm] by not getting their butts kicked all day by the AI!!! Tactics not needed.
Does this imply that you think that if the "Battle Speed Settings" were reduced to what we think is a more sensible level, the good points of the tactical AI would show through? This is the optimistic view.
To be honest, it seems to me that from what we've all seen and heard, (the AI not being what we would wish of it) isn't it more the case that the "BSS" actually mask the inadequacies of the tactical AI ? This is the pessimistic view.
The result is the same regardless of the reasoning.
Cheers,
Rob.
ToranagaSama
02-10-2005, 17:42
A lot of people say that about RTW, and maybe they're right. But I must say I find battles if anything a lot *harder* to win because of the lack of time to respond. I really can't imagine that beginners to the TW format would find this game easier to play than the earlier titles. Quite the contrary.
So if greater accessibility was what CA was trying to achieve, then I can't help but think that they have probably failed in that endeavour.
A lot of people say that about RTW, and maybe they're right. But I must say I find battles if anything a lot *harder* to win because of the lack of time to respond.
You know, in a certain way, you're right. In that, if a player attempts to use any *real* and/or sophisticated flanking manuevers, especially any sort of disgusied movement(s) (hiding in the woods doesn't count), the player will lose. (The worst part is you won't even know WHY you lost, just that your line crumbled--Pathetic.)
But, here's how things get rather simplistic, if not down right easy. After losing in the above fashion a few times, it becomes rather clear that the key to winning, in RTW, is a rather straightforward strategy of bring *more* and *stronger* to the battle. Doing so, a player is rather assured of victory. This is the mentality behind EVERYTHING RTW.
Think about it and examine it, what does it sound like?
Sounds to me, directly, like Real-Time-Strategy, build faster, build more, build better---->then *Steam-roll* the AI. THIS is the Germ of ALL RTS games.
Total War games, STW and MTW, were about a GREAT deal more. Simplistically put, in previous incarnations, a player could NEVER be assured of victory, simply by bringing *more* and *better*. There were just TOO many variables involved in battle, AND on the Strat Map as well.
---
THIS, simplistically, is how CA/Activision has (dumb-down) made the game easier for the non-grognard:
Just about everyone is familiar with the basic method to RTS success, as I've described above. With this *new* TW model, anyone familiar with the RTS success model can load up RTW and apply that model and have relative success.
If one applies the RTS success model to STW, or, even more so, to MTW, they will LOSE--->allllll dayyyy. To The Creative Assembly's *great* credit (someone do me a favor and name the CA member directly responsible, cause I forget which one of them is), the A.I. is just tooo good for such simplistic (RTS) approaches. Particularly, the A.I. in combination with those GREAT Shogun Maps---where TERRAIN was king.
(For those unfamiliar with Shogun, its maps were MUCH harder to deal with in that the terrain is less flat, and the AI would make good use of it. If a player didn't master the use of Terrain, his success would be limited.)
---
From the outset of TW, CA/EA/Activision had a problem, the Grognards (and those with grognard tendacies (me)) had no problems adjusting to the *intracies* of TW, cause all those tabletop games, and computer emulations of the tabletop games, involved even GREATER intracacies. So adapting was a no-brainer. In fact, TW was like an orgasm for such folks because TW brought to life the things they desired (for the most part).
BUT, for the non-grognard RTS player, ignorant of the above intracacies, they'd try the Demo and/or buy the game and just not be able to grasp the game and/or adapt from the *known* RTS success model. In effect, the game was *too* hard!
Known RTS success models didn't work and TBS (Turn-Based-Strategy) success models were unknown to the average RTS Computer Gamer. BTW, Total War games are TBS games, not RTS games.
The simple solution, and the one CA choose, was to make the game more RTS -like, which would, consequently, make the game *easier* for the non-grognard.
It appears to have worked!
(If you can't bring the gamers to the gamer, then bring the game to the gamers.)
I really can't imagine that beginners to the TW format would find this game easier to play than the earlier titles. Quite the contrary.
Have you played the earlier titles?
The game is MUCH more accessible---MUCH.
Shogun, believe it or not, is more accessible than Medieval. I remember the day I loaded up MTW. *Me* a seasoned veteran of Shogun, and all I could do was simply *stare* at the Campaign Map. The scope of the Map was OVERWHELMING! I had NO idea how to begin. I had to gradully *feel* my way into a Campaign. ALL of the Veterans felt the same way, we talked about it----Overwhelmed. Of course, given a bit of time, we all became comfortable as heck.
Now these are SEASONED players. A Newbie would stare at that map all day and get nowhere. Do a search go back look at the Archives, NUMEROUS newbies would come to forum and the first question would be:
"How do I Start".
Personally, someone chime in if I'm incorrect, but I don't recall ANY such Newbie threads in the Colliseum----NONE!
Veterans would take Newbies in, and teach them about Tactics. What flanking is, what troops were good for flanking, what troops were good for Holding, etc. I don't see much of this going on AT ALL. Certainly, not approaching anything that has gone on before. The reason I believe is apparrant----there's no need to teach what's not needed.
Newbies and Vets, alike, are on fairly equal footing, in terms of the Battles and Campaign Map; and, Newbies are grasping the methods of success pretty much on their own.
Easier.
So if greater accessibility was what CA was trying to achieve, then I can't help but think that they have probably failed in that endeavour.
I think I've made my argument.
The proof is in the Sales. RTW is a runaway success.
Shogun while critically acclaimed, and I believe a money-maker, did not receive the popular, nor financial success it deserved. Medieval, while more popular and financially sucessful than Shogun, still didn't achieve the sort of success that the good RTS and FPS games did.
I mean really, The Creative Assembly are the equal or better to Valve, Id, or Blizzard. Yet, they haven't been getting their due, neither financially, nor in acclaim---hence we have RTW.
The hope for the true Grognards and those with Grognard-tendancies (me), is that RTW is a *Ploy* by CA to wrest control of TW and their little company from the grubby hands of producer/distributors----and provide them with, Valve, Id, Blizzard, Sid Meier like industry CLOUT and FINANCES. Which they can then use to truly create the greatest game of all---Shogun on Steroids!!!
~D as well as the holy grail of Totalwardom---->a persistent world of Campaign Multiplay.
Hope springs eternal, for surely the creators of the SHOGUN masterpiece can't be happy with the compromise that RTW represents....
~:eek:
~ToranagaSama
ToranagaSama
02-10-2005, 17:50
Well, I agree with most of what you've said in this thread ToranagaSama, but I'd better defend myself on this charge. What I wrote was:
I stand by that: both side at Cannae were composed of seasoned OR trained OR well-equiped troops. Hannibal's were seasoned, and sometimes also trained and/or well equipped. The Romans were well equiped (what Roman army wasn't), even if they may not have been seasoned or trained.
Since the phrase "seasoned, trained or well equiped" might have been read as "all were seasoned, and one or more of trained or well equiped", I added "either" before the phrase, to make it clear that I meant "one or more of ...". But I failed I guess. ~:)
Yesterday, I think I must have been a bit too miffed at the Newb comments, cause the blood in my eyes made me blind!!!
TS bows humbly with apologies. I think I read that all wrong!!!!
Dude, SORRY.
:bow:
Dont'cha just love the Org. Factual intelligent presentation will beat the name calling everytime.
screwtype
02-10-2005, 19:27
Some interesting comments Toranaga. Not sure if I agree with all of them though.
I suppose on Easy and Medium, the battles are probably a bit of a pushover, I don't know, because I've only ever played on VH, and I know how diabolically hard it is to manage, with ridiculous kill rates, infantry that run like gazelle, and armies that crumble from broken morale two seconds after contact. I suppose if on the easier levels this is happening to the *enemy* army rather than yours, then you could argue the game has been "dumbed down" for a mass audience. It's just that I can't imagine how anyone could regard a two-second battle in which you don't get time to do anything but point your troops at the enemy and charge, as any kind of *fun*.
(For those unfamiliar with Shogun, its maps were MUCH harder to deal with in that the terrain is less flat, and the AI would make good use of it. If a player didn't master the use of Terrain, his success would be limited.)
Yeah, this is one area where the game has definitely been dumbed down, where so many imponderables have been reduced in their effects. In STW and MTW, terrain, weather, morale, fatigue, all had very marked and noticeable effects on the outcome of a battle. Most of these effects apart from morale have been reduced to virtual insignificance in RTW, which is a real shame. (Mind you, I always thought that in the earlier games, fatigue had too *much* of an effect, but in RTW it barely even registers).
The thing I really can't understand about that is that they already included an "RTS" mode in which these variables are totally disabled. So why knobble them in real-mode as well? It's got me beat.
Have you played the earlier titles?
The game is MUCH more accessible---MUCH.
I don't know. When I first booted up STW and started playing, I was instantly hooked and couldn't put it down for weeks. Heck, I didn't even learn there was a pause button I could use for the first month or so, and somehow, I still managed to win more often than not. There was time to do stuff, to see what was happening and change strategies, time to learn about what worked and what didn't. In RTW it's just wham bam thankyou ma'am - all over in the blink of an eye. If I hadn't played the earlier titles, I can't help but think I would have thrown my mouse through the monitor in utter frustration within a few hours. In fact, even as a veteran of the previous games, I almost did!
The simple solution, and the one CA choose, was to make the game more RTS -like, which would, consequently, make the game *easier* for the non-grognard.
It appears to have worked!
The proof is in the Sales. RTW is a runaway success.
Is that proof that the game itself is a runaway success, or just the marketing campaign? RTW got enormous publicity in the period leading up to its release, and then excellent reviews in most of the gaming mags, which clearly ignored all the obvious problems. Activision did its work very well.
But do high sales really equal satisfied customers? Will those who bought RTW be prepared to buy the next release in the series? Time will tell. But within days of its release, dozens of copies of RTW were up for sale on eBay. And at my local EB games store, RTW went into the bargain basement bin BEFORE Christmas - as a half priced game. I don't think I've ever seen a major release slashed in price so quickly.
The hope for the true Grognards and those with Grognard-tendancies (me), is that RTW is a *Ploy* by CA to wrest control of TW and their little company from the grubby hands of producer/distributors----and provide them with, Valve, Id, Blizzard, Sid Meier like industry CLOUT and FINANCES. Which they can then use to truly create the greatest game of all---Shogun on Steroids!!!
Hope springs eternal, for surely the creators of the SHOGUN masterpiece can't be happy with the compromise that RTW represents...
Heh. Nice idea. But I think I should point out, the creators of the wonderful title that was Shogun are not with the company anymore. If you look at the credits of both games, you will see that not a single programmer who worked on Shogun worked on RTW. In fact virtually the whole original Shogun staff has apparently moved on, with the exception of a couple of head honchos.
Maybe that's one reason so many things about the game have changed...?
Colovion
02-10-2005, 20:11
That's too bad.
I guess CA isn't really what I thought it was, just a face on a company of people that once made great games that now are somewhere else.
Kinda like getting Bangled a la ne BMWs
This thread is becoming negative. Here's a small positive contribution. I've got further on my med/med Julii campaign - 220bc reached enough popularity to make a bid for power.
All the factions I have defeated - Gauls, Spanish, Britons and Dacians - have fielded bigger and better quality armies than pre-patch. As a result, there have been some epic decisive battles. And I have not even started on my formiddable Roman rivals - Scipii has N.Africa and Brutii have all Greece/Macedon and are finishing Thrace.
I really like delaying Marius - triarii are actually very good against barbarian noble cav - and also the date is not so long that you can't use legions. (By contrast, in MTWs patch the wait for longbows etc was a little long.)
I am still not bothered by the battle move or killing speed - from STW onwards, I've used pause so I guess it is not an issue for me. I actually appreciate it - I've fought 140+ battles, many minor. If things moved at STW or MTW speed, I suspect I might have burnt out.
The key test for me will be after this campaign. I also had a blast pre-patch as Julii and then my interest in RTW just fell off a cliff (too easy?); I hope this is not repeated. I may have missed this, but does anyone know what if anything the patch has done for the difficulty levels?
HarunTaiwan
02-11-2005, 09:07
I agree - the AI armies are much better and I get attacked by double stacks now.
Also, the drip feed or AI control of reinforcement is cool...I've used both!
If you sandwich an army with two full stacks you can use AI reinforcements and the enemy get's clobbered.
JeromeGrasdyke
02-11-2005, 09:34
I guess CA isn't really what I thought it was, just a face on a company of people that once made great games that now are somewhere else.
Actually, a lot of the people involved in Shogun and MTW are still with CA - just working on different projects. It's natural that after doing 5-6 years of the same kind of work people might need a little variety, and some have moved on for various reasons - although if you look closely at the Rome roster you'll note that most of the key design influences are still there (with a few additions). The world doesn't stand still while we make these games, you know ~;)
And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity. And it does seem to have worked - Rome is still inside the Top 10 best-selling PC games (at full price) in a lot of places. All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.
Beware those rose-tinted glasses...
All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.
And a big hurray for that! ~:cheers: It started to get very depressing in the 1990s as we saw closure after closure of companies - notably SSI and Talonsoft - that made some very good computer wargames. TW is arguably better than what those good folk made and certainly light years ahead of other mass market strategy games.
Byzantine Prince
02-11-2005, 10:03
And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity.
Yeah but it doesn't matter how mainstream you make the game. The fans of the strategy part are gonna turn away if CA keeps simplfying the AI and dumbing down the game. Don't you see? TW has developed a fanbase that will buy the games no matter what, so anything more is just icing on the cake really. The game might have sold even more if it stuck to the formula more.
Please don't dumb down the game, please... I like it when a game is as mentally challenging and realistic as this.
And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity. And it does seem to have worked - Rome is still inside the Top 10 best-selling PC games (at full price) in a lot of places. All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.
Beware those rose-tinted glasses...
Don't you see the catch-22 of the situation? The more "mainstream" you make the game, the more you alienate the people that liked the previous incarnations (generalizing, of course). The people who loved STW and MTW aren't going to care if you make enough to put out another TW game if it continues to move in what they perceive as a bad direction.
The initial success of the TW series was that it wasn't mainstream.
Bh
the Count of Flanders
02-11-2005, 12:49
Don't you see the catch-22 of the situation? The more "mainstream" you make the game, the more you alienate the people that liked the previous incarnations (generalizing, of course). The people who loved STW and MTW aren't going to care if you make enough to put out another TW game if it continues to move in what they perceive as a bad direction.
The initial success of the TW series was that it wasn't mainstream.
It doesn't have to be that way, why couldn't they make everything customisable. eg the minimum speed is too fast (I really liked the slow manouvering build up to a battle with tension increasing as one of the two sides finally swinging into action, that's gone now), why couldn't they have given us the OPTION to make it slower? What was wrong with the timer "slider bar" in MTW/STW???
I think they could have made the game with default settings "mainstream" but put in some options so that the hard-core total war player can still be pleased.
a_ver_est
02-11-2005, 13:17
I think they could have made the game with default settings "mainstream" but put in some options so that the hard-core total war player can still be pleased.
I agree, can we have a ARCADE, NORMAL and FULL REALISM modes in the expansion ??
uhm, does we need to start a threat "if there isn't a FULL REALISM option in the expansion I won't buy it" ???
Bob the Insane
02-11-2005, 13:24
FULL REALISM modes in the expansion
What you mean like big hairy barbarians coming round to your house to give you a good kicking just because you stiffed them with a dodgy out of date map in exchange for a bag of coins??? ~D
It doesn't have to be that way, why couldn't they make everything customisable. eg the minimum speed is too fast (I really liked the slow manouvering build up to a battle with tension increasing as one of the two sides finally swinging into action, that's gone now), why couldn't they have given us the OPTION to make it slower? What was wrong with the timer "slider bar" in MTW/STW???
I think they could have made the game with default settings "mainstream" but put in some options so that the hard-core total war player can still be pleased.
No, I agree, it doesn't have to be that way. I'm simply commenting on their actions todate. Their next version could introduce options that make both crowds happy.
Sadly, I doubt that'll be the case. I wouldn't be surprised to find the next TW coming out as a console game (with a PC "port", of course). What lure does a solid strategy game have vs the almighty buck?
Bh
Lord of the Isles
02-11-2005, 15:35
It doesn't have to be that way, why couldn't they make everything customisable. eg the minimum speed is too fast (I really liked the slow manouvering build up to a battle with tension increasing as one of the two sides finally swinging into action, that's gone now), why couldn't they have given us the OPTION to make it slower? What was wrong with the timer "slider bar" in MTW/STW???
I'd be happy to see that.
There is another way for CA to keep us happy. The easier it is for modders to get into the workings of the game and change things, the more likely it is that they can produce something approaching the game we want. So a more mod-friendly game would be good too.
Speaking of which, I used to play the TWR mod but moved to the SPQR mod when it came out. The current release is incompatible with the 1.2 patch but testing of a compatible version is underway (see: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?showforum=61 for 20+ pages of battle testing results). Looks very promising; I urge all grognards to try it when it gets released.
ToranagaSama
02-11-2005, 16:50
And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity. And it does seem to have worked - Rome is still inside the Top 10 best-selling PC games (at full price) in a lot of places. All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.
Beware those rose-tinted glasses...
Couldn't it have been both ways? What do you think of the following approach:
I've been thinking about this since WesW did the MedMod. The key I believe is in the Difficulty settings. Rather than taking the standard approach toward Difficulty levels by giving the A.I. gradually increasing *Advantages* over the Player, which a lot of people don't care for and feel is unfair. What not do something a little revolutionary by creating *True* Difficulty. For example:
All comments will be in relative comparision of STW/MTW, the MedMod and RTW (Meaning the relative differences between each).
Easy: RTW as it exists presently, with the fast Battle Speed Settings (catchall phrase "BSS"), RTS/Arcarde-like *candy* (green arrows, etc.).
This setting would serve its intended purpose to pull in and provide a satisfying game experience for the "mainstream" audience and causual gamers.
Medium: This setting would be the equal of STW/MTW in its *Vanilla* version.
At this setting somewhat (for want of a better term) Slower (and more challenging) BSS settings would be introduced, along with *Tactical* Theory. BSS would be just slow enough so Flanking could be achieved with a Unit of than Calvalry.
In addition, the full *Elemental Effects* ("EE") such as, Fatigue, Morale, Terrain, etc. (all that existed in STW) would be introduced; along with a good Tactical Tutorial.
Both BSS and EE might at a somewhat relative adjusted setting in comparison to STW/MTW, and would serve as a gradual stepping stone for the Mainstream/Casual gamer.
Hard: Full BSS and EE allowing for HIGH Tactical Manuevering, with equivalent Elements of STW:MI and MTW:VI, an example of that would be the :green generals" setting of VI. In general, additives would consist of *things* that would provide greater CHALLENGE, as opposed to tradditional Difficulty (if you get my drift).
Very Hard: Along with Full BSS and EE, Unit Stat adjustments, Map Adjustments, in effect, this Difficulty Level would be the equivalent of Wes' MedMod done by CA with input from the community.
In general, additives would consist of *things* that would provide ever greater CHALLENGE, as opposed to Difficulty (if you get my drift).
For example, the Zones of Influence that WesW *successfully* introduced in the MedMod, that the Total Realism guys are having difficulty introducing in their Mod, etcetera.
This level would NOT be for the average mainstream casual gamer, but for the HARDCORE fanatics. This level would be a THANK YOU from The Creative Assembly to the Fans who have been at the core of TW's success. Thank you very much!!!
Also, it would be nice to have a **Series** of Unofficial Patches addressing whatever needs to be addressed as things arise. We, the Community, could do the Alpha/Beta/Whatever Testing. That is Activision (or whomever) is out of the loop. This would be Direct---CA to its Hardcore Fanbase. Other Developers do this!!! I don't know about the rest of the TW Community, but don'tcha think the Org members can handle this....
Such Unofficial Patches shouldn't be touched by the Mainstream/Casual gamer, unless it has the "Tested by The Community" stamp of approval. The Patches could be supported by the Forum (with just a little input from CA to those out front in the Community doing the supporting).
In fact the Patches probably should not even be posted over at the .com, the Official site, but come thru the Org. maintaining the unofficialness of them.
I digress.
Anyway, I believe the Difficulty concepts outlined above can be the *bridge* between the Mainstream and the Hardcore whereby everyone will find satisfaction.
The point of it all is that Everyone could find a satisfactory Level of Play for their Preference and/or Skill level and the overall game would have the accessibility *necessary* to meet CA/Activision's financial aims.
Mods could be aimed at specific Difficulty/Levels of Play. Broadly growing the scope of the game. In fact, I would suggest that the term and concept of Difficulty Levels be scraped altogether, in favor of *conceptual* "Levels of Play". Obviously, this is just a semantic, but nevertheless effective in terms of how one might view the game. No one wants to admit they prefer the *Easy* Level. So new *conceptualizations* would be necessary to equivocate the Standard Levels outlined above.
Mr. Grasdyke or any other CA member, I know its difficult for you guys to comment on such things, but would it be possible for you to comment simply on the conceptual reality of the Outline. Does such an implementation make any sense at all? Is it at all in the realm of reality (not necessary for TW but for any game)?
So, what do you Org members think? I mean there's got to be some Medium for us all. Feel free to expand adjust my thoughts, as you can see they're listening....
~ToranagaSama
P.S., I didn't even get into how Game Economics and Empire Management could be introduced and adjusted to the varying "Levels of Play" I outlined. Please somebody fill in the blanks. Thanks.
---
BTW, hey Simon, is this 'postive' enough for ya.
[TS, strains and refrains from making any negative **Pauser** comments. :jester: ]
And that also is at the root of some of the changes we've made aimed at becoming a little more mainstream. The games have become more expensive to make, and so selling more is a necessity. And it does seem to have worked - Rome is still inside the Top 10 best-selling PC games (at full price) in a lot of places. Je'Rome, awesome. Thanks for sharing an honest point-of-view. However, at least give us the choice such as kill-rate and unit speed sliders etc!
Right now, I'm wishing for better competition to force CA to make these changes. Imperial Glory for example aced RTW in sea battles and use structures in battles but they lag in number of troops, province numbers and the campaign map. ~:) :charge:
All of which means that you will be seeing another TW game after Rome, which can be counted as a definite success in games development terms.
Beware those rose-tinted glasses... You probably are already making the next game aside from the expansion pack (or two) that wasn't announced in previous threads. ~;)
It doesn't have to be that way, why couldn't they make everything customisable. eg the minimum speed is too fast (I really liked the slow manouvering build up to a battle with tension increasing as one of the two sides finally swinging into action, that's gone now), why couldn't they have given us the OPTION to make it slower? What was wrong with the timer "slider bar" in MTW/STW???
I think they could have made the game with default settings "mainstream" but put in some options so that the hard-core total war player can still be pleased.
Hear, hear.
Malrubius
02-11-2005, 19:10
Anybody notice you can now replace conquered temples by building your next level of temple? For example, a level one temple of Freyja can be replaced by a level two of Ceres? Prevents the hit to happiness when you demolish one type to start building your own.
JeromeGrasdyke
02-11-2005, 20:05
Awesome. Thanks for sharing an honest point-of-view. However, at least give us the choice such as kill-rate and unit speed sliders etc!
We had guessed that you guys would probably be better at making the game you wanted to play than we could be, with the commercial restraints we have, and so we've tried to extern as much stuff as possible via the text files to give you the chance. The movement speeds are tricky to mod at the moment for various engine-architecture reasons, even for us, but we're looking at it. So, no promises, but we do read a lot of your posts - here, on the .com and even at TWC - and although we're not always around to post, we do take on board as much of it as we can and these things do get discussed inside CA.
BTW, Toranaga's comments correspond quite closely to what we were trying to do with the arcade battles, although that system never got the love it deserved and consequently may have been pitched a little incorrectly. Maybe we'll extend it in future products ~;)
sharrukin
02-11-2005, 20:17
Is there any chance of the Horse archers not firing on the move problem being addressed or could you give us an idea on how to alter that behaviour in the game?
Colovion
02-11-2005, 20:33
I agree, can we have a ARCADE, NORMAL and FULL REALISM modes in the expansion ??
uhm, does we need to start a threat "if there isn't a FULL REALISM option in the expansion I won't buy it" ???
Yes.
And thanks for the feedback Jerome. I guess next time when I hear something on the forum I"ll check it for myself before relying on it as fact. :bow:
Byzantine Prince
02-11-2005, 20:46
I wouldn't be surprised to find the next TW coming out as a console game (with a PC "port", of course).
*in a nightmare*
'No CA nooo! Don'd turn the game into a PS2 game. NOO!!!!'
*Wakes up and screams*
Omg that was the most awful nightmare i have ever had.
Yeah I know it's lame but if they were to turn my beloved TW games into brain drained PS2 games Im gonna be in a nightmare.
*in a nightmare*
'No CA nooo! Don'd turn the game into a PS2 game. NOO!!!!'
*Wakes up and screams*
Omg that was the most awful nightmare i have ever had.
Yeah I know it's lame but if they were to turn my beloved TW games into brain drained PS2 games Im gonna be in a nightmare.
What's worse is it will be a third-person shooter/beat-em-up set during the War of Independence of America, with the English as super evil Satan worshippers and Americans as God-fearing angels. And it will have dragons in it.
By this point CA will have been bought by EA Games.
What's worse is it will be a third-person shooter/beat-em-up set during the War of Independence of America, with the English as super evil Satan worshippers and Americans as God-fearing angels. And it will have dragons in it.
By this point CA will have been bought by EA Games.
Did you forget the Orcs?
Simetrical
02-13-2005, 01:03
Anybody notice you can now replace conquered temples by building your next level of temple? For example, a level one temple of Freyja can be replaced by a level two of Ceres?That's always been true for similar gods. Freyja and Ceres are both fertility god(desse)s, so you can upgrade one into the other.
-Simetrical
Oleander Ardens
02-14-2005, 09:53
First impressions about the AI and a battle report by OA
I play a vh/vh Scipii campaign right now to determine what has changed, and I definatly think that it is a nice patch with only a few troubles. The batttlefield AI has been improved IMHO opinion, for example his use of ranged units is far better. Here is a nice battle report:
Sardis, 227 BC
The greek are isolated in Pergamon, but a whole stack of them without General attacks the nearby city of Sardis. I only noticed Hoplites and was pretty confident that my all Merc army with my new two star general and many Cretans and Rhodian Slingers would behave very well. I streched my Merc Hoplite thin and spread the skirmishers out, positioning the archers and slinger in front of the Hoplites. My two cav units guarded the rear.
The enemy streched his army in a single line and had to my horror no less than six militia cavs, three on each wing. The phalanx line was long indeed outflanking mine considerable, even if it was deeper than mine. All of them advanced, the cav got wide indeed. The slingers and archers did less damage than in 1.1 as far as I can tell and were forced to run quit early as the Hoplites run in the standard modus.
Things turned very bad in very short time. The Militia Cavalry had not only outflanked both of my wings, but some of them even have positioned themslelves behind my rear, skirmishing the strong and charging the weak. My cav was too weak to counter the Militias, my frontline to slim and my skirmishers were always on the run. A quick glance at the tatical map revealed that there was little hope indeed: white arrows where all around my little blue ones. White flags where popping up with incredibly speed. The frontline was overrun, and in no time some 2000 Scipii where dead with only some 300 kills. Was my Cannae in RTW so far...
Cheers
OA
Lord Ovaat
02-14-2005, 16:54
Jerome, reading your post above almost scares me. The speeds ARE historically accurate. You guys got it correct the first time around. Once a battle is joined, it's pretty much out of the general's hands. Besides, just how long do folks figure a human can participate at that level of extreme exertion? Ever wrestle? Exhausting! Ever watch a fencing match? Slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am. Routing after 25% loss? Heck, yes! Most would. If you guys change the speed to make it "more fun to play", or easier to play MP, fine. But please do it with a slider, so that those of us who prefer the historical accuracy won't be abandoned.
PS. Also for historical accuracy, archers should be penalized, not bonused, for fighting in woods. Almost impossible to fly an arrow through tree limbs, LOL.
Second also, you guys did a great job with the patch. Most of the little things you guys did haven't been mentioned by anyone; they just notice what you DIDN'T fix. I have noticed, though, so thank you. For example, I reeeeaaaaly like the new cities scroll. Everything you ever wanted to know in one simple place. ~;)
screwtype
02-14-2005, 17:25
Yes.
And thanks for the feedback Jerome. I guess next time when I hear something on the forum I"ll check it for myself before relying on it as fact. :bow:
Actually, I did say the original crew had *apparently* moved on. But in any case the substance of my post was correct - the crew that worked on STW did not work on RTW. And Jerome confirmed that a number of the original crew have indeed moved on.
Red Harvest
02-14-2005, 18:50
Jerome, reading your post above almost scares me. The speeds ARE historically accurate. You guys got it correct the first time around. Once a battle is joined, it's pretty much out of the general's hands. Besides, just how long do folks figure a human can participate at that level of extreme exertion? Ever wrestle? Exhausting! Ever watch a fencing match? Slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am. Routing after 25% loss? Heck, yes! Most would. If you guys change the speed to make it "more fun to play", or easier to play MP, fine. But please do it with a slider, so that those of us who prefer the historical accuracy won't be abandoned.
No way. Many battles lasted hours and it was not unusual for them to end when the sun set. Some were short when one side broke quickly, but there were relatively few casualties until they routed. Real battles weren't all a mad dash to melee. And that is where the disconnect comes in with RTW. The AI doesn't like to skirmish (it charges its velites and archers into your men with regularity.) In real battles there were phases, not just a mass clash and 5 minute fight.
As for how long can one participate at high level of exertion? A lot longer than the 20 second melees we have now. You see, when you have men with shields and armour and pointy things, they tend to fight defensively to stay alive. They don't kill that fast. And there is depth to the formations, so each man would not be giving 100% all the time. In real battles they could slug it out for a long time. My boxing experience showed me that I could do quite a few rounds although I found it more exhausting than running 5 or 10K's but less so than longer distances. Most 1vs1 contact matches have bursts of exertion with lulls to catch your breath. You can't afford to get into severe oxygen debt (like you would running at RTW speeds with armour--oops.)
The routing with fairly low casualties is accurate, but incurring those casualties in a few seconds is not.
And since you seem to be a on a "reality" kick. You realize that for larger armies it took hours just to deploy? Why? Because the battle front was often miles long. You can't cross that in 60 seconds. So we get into the scaling issue...if you have high movement speed and high kill rate with units 1/10th normal size...the battle ends rapidly and there is little manoeuver.
The size of the engagements meant that generals usually had to give instructions in advance and rely on subordinates to excecute. But the generals still gave wide ranging orders like telling skirmishers to disengage/re-engage, or charge by one flank/section/or cavalry/or general advance. Much of the rest of the battle plan would be carried out by lower level commanders, although the general often would move to specific locations to direct portions personally. None of this is reflected in RTW, nor would it be simple to do so. As a result the player is both the General, and unit commander for each unit. If the AI was better it could be allowed to handle some units. As it is that is not an option. To have it your way the general could essentially take a nap once battle began...hogwash.
Let's recap:
1. Battles often took hours and involved numerous movements.
2. Physical combat could last hours and was not so frenzied as in RTW--not everyone was necessarily engaged at once.
3. Battles were usually fought in stages, beginning with skirmishing that could last hours. It wasn't a mad dash to melee unless there was an ambush or one side had no respect for their opposition and felt they could over run them.
By the way, archers shoot worse in the woods (and at targets in the woods.) I have tested this. Archery is definitely overpowered, so it is difficult to see this, and I have other issues with archery as well, but they take penalties in the woods.
Lord Ovaat
02-14-2005, 21:22
Redleg, this is my last post on this subject--it doesn't deserve more. While I respect your right to an opinion, I certainly don't have to agree with it. I usually don't. A slider would satisfy all, I would guess, but I take it you don't want the rest of us to have that option? Interesting. Then, perhaps you could find it in your heart to allow others an opinion? BTW, the archers are still listed as "bonus in woods". (or whatever) If it's not being applied, then it should have been corrected and the "bonus" eliminated. And as for my opinion on the speed issue? I still stand by what I said, but will give you that the game itself isn't an exact science, so to speak. But I've been snipped quite a few times by the AI's skirmishers. It often seems to know when it can "outgun" me. Ain't figured that one out, yet. Whenever I have "long range" archers, the AI attacks immediately. Then again, that's it's best course in that circumstance. Again, it's smart enough to know it.
Lastly, generals did not have control once the mayhem started, and yes, they did use subordinate commanders. What else would one expect? This is a game that feigns reality. That's why I have always, and always will use the pause key. My troops don't have subordinate commanders. But, then we have a school of thought that thinks it's a "cheat" to hit pause. In SP? Give me a break. My troops don't do much of anything unless they're ordered to do it. The bottom line is, a slider would satisfy most folks. Any other way will ruffle a lot of people in either camp. Lord, there's a lot of people who are very happy with the increased presence of rebels. I'm still working on modding them down. Personally don't want to fight them 4 or 5 times a turn. There's no real point to it. But, that's my choice.
Colovion
02-14-2005, 21:25
thanks Red Harvest for writing all that so I didn't have to
Red Harvest
02-14-2005, 22:15
Lord Ovaat,
Assuming that you were referring to me...a slider for some of the speeds would be fine. WE DON'T HAVE THAT and you are telling me that I have a problem with wanting it limited to my preferences. Yeahhh...riiiiiigggggggttttt. Who wants to pause every 3 seconds? It is not a cheat, if just sucks. Breaks up the flow of the game. Might as well go back to hex based move system. A lot of us ASKED for a speed slider when we saw the demo...yet here we are without one. Our difference is that you see slowing the game down as being "less historical", probably 90% of would disagree with that assessment. I'm all for having a slider. It worked well in MTW.
Yes, the AI attacks long range units immediately in many cases, often with a suicide charge. It will charge its general and other cav right into your line to do so. It is daft, but at least someone is happy with that level of AI. I would rather see the line advance in order under fire and engage. Let skirmishers take the beating taking on the archers so that the line could advance. But the AI likes to "lead with its head" as we call it in boxing. Of course, if archery wasn't on steroids...then skirmishing would make more sense and the need to charge immediately under archer fire would go away. But hey, we are back to the kill rate problem at the core again, aren't we? Darn that realism again. And how about those archers charging up to my melee units?
If you want a game without control by the general, fine. Seems a bit boring and pointless to me. You could just use autocalc.
BobTheTerrible
02-14-2005, 22:18
By the way, archers shoot worse in the woods (and at targets in the woods.) I have tested this. Archery is definitely overpowered, so it is difficult to see this, and I have other issues with archery as well, but they take penalties in the woods.
What makes you say archery is overpowered? It seems ok to me, but I know little of archery from a historical point of view.
We had guessed that you guys would probably be better at making the game you wanted to play than we could be, with the commercial restraints we have, and so we've tried to extern as much stuff as possible via the text files to give you the chance.
Well, making the game so moddable should please the most hardcore and is a great feature. But personally, I would prefer to play CAs' version of a realistic game than a modders' version. In my experience, modders end up changing so much, players have to virtually learn a new game. And modders' judgements about history are often at least as contentious to a true grognard as CA! (True grognards grumble about everything and are unlikely to agree on key issues. For example, I never could bring myself to fire up Napoleonic Total War after the modders announced Napoleonic British cav was inferior.)
BTW, Toranaga's comments correspond quite closely to what we were trying to do with the arcade battles, although that system never got the love it deserved and consequently may have been pitched a little incorrectly. Maybe we'll extend it in future products ~;)
Yes, I think this is the way to go. Allow the modders to design wonderful skins, new units, whatever. (There have been some wonderful exchanges on the EB sub-forum about the right metallic/rusted colour for chainmail etc). But sneaking in some "greater historical realism" options in CAs own game design would be appreciated, if the commercial restraints allow it.
BeeSting
02-14-2005, 23:12
I was pretty impressed with the patch during the initial stage of my campaign game. I've actually had a prolonged skirmish engagement with the AI, before it decided to commit its main body. And it seemed to attack in cohesive manner. The campaign game now makes a lot of sense, as the auto resolve is now more balanced and considers the winning factors more accurately. But my first disappointment came with its inability manage a larger army. The individual units would break formation and holes would appear all over the line. Don't understand why it is such a difficult thing for CA to make the AI stay in formation and attack in masse, instead of individually selecting its opponents for each of its units. I don't have a much issue with the rate at which the units route as long as the AI has the smarts to not expose gaps and flanks all over its line. So what’s the purpose of having a tactical battle single player, when the fight becomes scattered all over the map? Just may be better off playing an arcade style game.
The effect of shock, or attack bonus, in this game seems too abstracted in its basic design, which requires the mouse clicking of each unit to their charge targets… instead they could have applied virtual physics (weight x speed), perhaps to factor in the number of men/their equipments (heavy or light) as the weight of a unit times that by the speed in which they hit their object. The only thing maybe this counts for something in the current game is the cavalry charge. I don't know, maybe I missed something.
The battle engine overall has so much potential to be something bigger and more involving for a longer game play. Maybe the crudity of it is due to being the first of its kind... enough with the complaints... in spite its many down sides, I still enjoy playing this game--not as much anymore, even with the new patch--leaving much to my imagination or role playing and giving the AI a lot of handicap, for it will not take a genius or a witty tactician to figure out the AI and conquered the world in matter of days after purchasing this game.
Well, making the game so moddable should please the most hardcore and is a great feature. But personally, I would prefer to play CAs' version of a realistic game than a modders' version. In my experience, modders end up changing so much, players have to virtually learn a new game. And modders' judgements about history are often at least as contentious to a true grognard as CA! (True grognards grumble about everything and are unlikely to agree on key issues.
Ah, therein lies the rub... the more popular the TW series become and the more expensive each TW game costs to produce the less likely CA is going to pull out the stops to make subsequent TW titles more realistic and historically accurate. So you have Rome Total War with its horribly anachronistic units (i.e. most of Egypt's units), watered down names ('Armored' Hoplites instead of 'Agema' Hoplites, 'Naked Fanatics' instead of 'Gaestae' warriors/whatever, etc.) and other equally offensive measures (Marian Reforms in 220 BC, overpowered elephants, chariots & archer units, jumping horses, etc.), which drive the historically and realistically minded of us bonkers.
Personally I'll take a conscientous, educated modder's view of history over the market driven vision CA is forced to produce to fulfill their contract with the Great Sata.. err, Activision anyday. Modders are unfettered by the same creative limitations facing developers and are answerable to no one but themselves. Sure modders can make questionable decisions but they're no less offensive than the market driven decisions developers make everyday.
Besides, learning a new game per the all encompassing changes made by modders is half the fun!
For example, I never could bring myself to fire up Napoleonic Total War after the modders announced Napoleonic British cav was inferior.)
That's a strange reason to avoid a mod, especially when it is so easy to change what you don't like! But seriously now, British cavalry was inferior... inferior to that of the French, Austrians and a few other Germanic nations anyway... ~:eek: ~;) Welly himself thought British cavalry was only good for the initial charge and after that would not stop for hell or highwater, essentially rendering them useless for later action. British cavalry, especially the heavy variety, was horribly undisciplined when compared to many of their continental counterparts. Not that Brit cavalry was qualitatively terrible and not that they weren't tough hombres but they simply didn't know when to stop!
"Our cavalry officers have acquired the trick of galloping at everything and then galloping back as fast as they gallop at the enemy. One would think they cannot manoeuvre except on Wimbledon Common." :charge:
Red Harvest
02-15-2005, 00:32
Redleg, this is my last post on this subject--it doesn't deserve more. While I respect your right to an opinion, I certainly don't have to agree with it. I usually don't.
Looking back at this post, I am wondering if you are actually talking to me or somebody else that you think is me. Regardless, it certainly adds nothing of value to your point. But since most of my "opinions" are related to how the game does or not do something, and I use testing and numbers as well as doing some historical digging to draw my conclusions, it reveals your "opinion" in a shakier, subjective light.
If you want to discuss why some aspect is right or wrong, great, I'm up for it. However, there is a 100% fatal flaw in your logic about how the slider alone would fix it and those of us who would prefer it slower are wrong: we have 3 speeds in RTW already--fast, super fast, and Warp 5. Notice the problem? There is no slower speed (something like MTW.) So there is no way to have it play more slowly. Give it a slider with the current base speed and you effectively accomplish nothing. That is the rub. I have no issues with folks wanting faster gameplay. Once I give my march commands I sometimes speed up (I did it a lot in MTW, very little in RTW.)
And a corollary: The other problem is that movement and kill rates need not be using the same slider. I would not have a great issue with the movement speed if the kills speed were more historical.
screwtype
02-15-2005, 17:51
I don't think that just having a speed slider is an adequate fix.
CA have already got the basics of the fix we need - and that is that they designated something as an RTS mode.
What I want to see is an RTS mode alongside a historical mode. And in the RTS mode it can be as fast and as easy as those gamers like, with no complications at all like morale or weather or height or anything else.
And then I want a historical mode that doesn't compromise in the slightest toward the "twitch" gamers. Why should it? They've got their RTS mode already.
screwtype
02-15-2005, 17:56
The movement speeds are tricky to mod at the moment for various engine-architecture reasons, even for us, but we're looking at it.
Oh I'm glad you're looking at that. It's good to see that you hear and take notice of what your customers have to say.
It would be cool if you could slow down the infantry a bit to more realistic speeds. But cooler still if we could mod all the unit speeds to suit ourselves!
Old Celt
02-15-2005, 20:29
I've read the thread and been playing with the patch since the first day of availability. I think the patch has made many improvements, As I predicted in other threads, the battlefield AI is essentially the same as it was. Generals are less likely to charge the first thing that moves, but they usually will die before a battle is one third over. The system still relies upon bonuses and penalties applied in different measure, dependent upon the difficulty level chosen. None of this surprised me. I liked the game before, and like it even more now.
I was ROFL when someone complained that they couldn't execute all the moves to reenact Cannae in this response to the patch thread! Did anyone really think that would happen?? It was gratifying too, to see a CA staff member come out and state that game design is driven by marketing more than a desire to create a West Point quality reenactment program. It validated my point that those few people complaining most bitterly here represent a tiny fraction of unpleaseable people that would only waste your time and resources to try to cater to.
The remark that Red Harvest made about ignoring the "core" and "putting a gun to their heads" and committing corporate suicide was so assinine, I just couldn't ignore it, but it really pales now that RTW has proven itself in the marketplace and received GOTY honors. I really don't see how anyone can cogently argue that CA's GOTY sucks! So those of you who still think it's awful should have a pretty good idea of what an insignificant percentage of gamer marketplace you represent.
The key thing about all of this is FUN! Games are designed to be fun for the greatest number of players. Those of you who want full historical simulation won't find this game fun, so if that's your bag: Don't bother!! If you want a different game: Build one yourself! Most people, (believe it or not) actually LIKE the game. I want to congratulate CA for a job well done and thank them for producing the most enjoyable PC game I've ever owned.
BeeSting
02-15-2005, 22:18
No doubt, old Celt.
CA absolutely deserves to be commended for developing this groundbreaking game, which I was thoroughly impressed and immediately fell in love.
After playing countless hours and becoming really familiar with its patterns of play, am I asking too much if I want the AI too be more challenging and less stupid?
The basic principles it seems, in the way the battle play is designed, are supposedly under subject to realistic battle conditions; that is to avoid being attacked on flanks and rear, which means for one, staying in formation. But the AI just fails to do so and its units break out of formation to chase whatever target they feel is lesser than them. So I’m thinking, what’s the purpose of having a game that’s intended to apply the real mechanics of a battle, when the AI just refuses to apply its units to them? Hence they route easily not so much due to low morale or kill rate but because it has the worse possible general that could ever lead an army, which was designed for cohesion and not just an all out wild goose chase. I actually feel bad now for wiping out thousands of AI men without much muse with only a hand of my not so well led soldiers.
The latest patch has brought much anticipated changes to the game and renewed my fanaticism and I started playing again. Yet it has served to be another tease in that the AI is still really, really thick.
My apologies if you found my criticism marginal and offensive. I didn’t mean to ruin the fun for you.
Red Harvest
02-15-2005, 23:08
The remark that Red Harvest made about ignoring the "core" and "putting a gun to their heads" and committing corporate suicide was so assinine, I just couldn't ignore it, but it really pales now that RTW has proven itself in the marketplace and received GOTY honors. I really don't see how anyone can cogently argue that CA's GOTY sucks! So those of you who still think it's awful should have a pretty good idea of what an insignificant percentage of gamer marketplace you represent.
Old Celt,
You like shiney marketing baubles, don't you? You must have an extremely limited time horizon, as you completely missed the point. I've watched a lot of companies slowly disappear after abandoning their core customers. CA appears to be headed in the same direction. If their attitude matches yours, then the sizzle will slowly fade to fizzle. GOTY in a stale sector? Forgive me for not getting all giddy. If there were any real competition, then you might have something. Do you think I doubted they would get some nice awards? LOL, you really are naive!
I haven't said the game is crap, etc. Nope, I've said that its gameplay is surprisingly weak compared to its siblings, and it lacks the staying power (longterm F-U-N rather than short term pizazz) of its predecessors. They fixed some of the problems, but the core battlefield AI is still badly flawed. The patch had some good improvements, but it didn't fix nearly enough. I can't see that they changed the core of the AI at all, just a few facets of unit balance and abilites. I doubt they will change it for the expansion pack. As it is, unless they can straighten it out, I'll wait for the expansion pack to hit the bargain bin if I buy it at all.
So have fun with the easy to beat battlefield AI, and easy to beat strategic AI, the scarred generals, broken horse archers, and town militia/warband/wardog opposition. As for me, I'm making a last stab at modding it to actually face decent opposition and fix as many of the bugs and errors as I can. We clearly differ on our approach to software development, I believe it is possible to develop a better product by listening to your core customers, and you don't.
The answer to all this, if there is one, is the ability to customize the game. I would be much more pleased if I could modify more things to make it a more enjoyable experience for myself, either through (simple) file editing or sliders. That way, I'm not detracting from anyone's enjoyment, such as those who like the 10 second fights, and adding to my own at the same time. I don't see that anything could be wrong with wanting that - the (marketing) company and all who are so inclined get their gamey version, and I get my hardcore one. I'm even willing to concede that the massproduct should be a default setup, and I have to work for mine - np, I know what I want and am willing to work for it.
I do, however, not only see something wrong with but also don't appreciate when people start saying that I should just shuddup and take it unless I'm just an average consumer-minded... well, consumer. Tolerance is a virtue.
BeeSting
02-16-2005, 00:59
I doubt they will change it for the expansion pack. As it is, unless they can straighten it out, I'll wait for the expansion pack to hit the bargain bin if I buy it at all.
Red:
It is surprising that my friends feel the same way about the expansion pack.... They seriously doubt that it will have the fixes needed to make the game play lasting, especially for the AI.
I'm really curious though.... do we represent only a small portion of RTW patrons?
Red Harvest
02-16-2005, 01:55
Red:
It is surprising that my friends feel the same way about the expansion pack.... They seriously doubt that it will have the fixes needed to make the game play lasting, especially for the AI.
I'm really curious though.... do we represent only a small portion of RTW patrons?
Considering that CA had not even located the pri/sec bug, and they broke HA's with the FF fix and again failed to notice, I find it highly unlikely that they will commit resources to getting the AI above Forrest Gump level. Playtesting does not appear to be a core competency at CA, and getting good AI takes good playtesting. The AI doesn't seem to be a priority and the time schedule looks too compressed. (I hope very much to find out that these assumptions are wrong.) It is unfortunate because there is much to the game that is beautifully done. I have praised and will continue to praise aspects of the game--a lot of the historical unit choices and rendering are well done (until you get into battle.) The potential is there, but there is still the little problem of the elephant in the living room, I can't just ignore it.
From what I've seen we do not represent a small portion of RTW patrons. If you look at any of the major sites, including this one, the concensus is largely the same: great graphics, lots of potential, but it is falling short. These sites are where the core TW players visit. There is a lot of effort going on to improve the game by players. The masses are another matter, a large number of folks who buy a game based on buzz and hype, and drop it after a week or two. (Before anyone takes offense let me point out that being very happy with the game does NOT put one into that category.) For the short attention span crowd you have to pull a rabbit out of your hat every time. With a core group you can make incremental progress and be sure your buyers will be back for more.
I don't expect any TW game to have AI that I can't beat handily with even odds, nor have I ever felt this way despite Old Celt's misguided protestations to the contrary. However, I do expect it to be able to win when the odds are heavily in its favor. And I do expect it to be competent enough to make logical deployments and reactions in most situations. Others have done so--it doesn't take a military budget to do so, no matter what BS Old Celt spouts to the contrary.
Colovion
02-16-2005, 02:18
I think it's funny when someone puts down RTW and someone else says "omg can't you see what a groundbreaking game this is? give them credit"
Yea, that already happened....
...back when it was groundbreaking.
http://www.cincinnati.com/freetime/games/reviews/img/shogun_175x189.jpg
Will this thread be the first one Nelson gets to lock down? ~;)
Rome has good eye candy, and sold a lot of copies. This does not necessarily make it a good game. Lots of people go to SFX-filled blockbuster movies, that does not make them good. Entertaining maybe, but easily forgotten.
The patch fixed some issues (and broke others), but did not go as far as the "community" really wanted. I didn't really expect it to, the serious AI fixes would require a lot of development and testing. The Org community wants a game that can entertain them for years, they have come to expect this from Shogun and Medieval. Maybe CA did too good a job on those titles.
My $0.02 is that CA tried to do too much on Rome. It's fun, looks great, and has tremendous potential. But it clearly exhibits the "second-system" effect ("The Mythical Man-Month", Frederick Brooks, if you write software, this is a must-read). Not as much work was put into the guts and details of the game, and comparing it to the previous titles clearly shows this.
By moving to 3D combat and the expanded strategic map, the possibility for bugs and issues exploded. The one thing I don't understand is why Act/CA didn't distribute a beta test version on a large scale. They had a large core of players familiar with the franchise, and a real need for testing a completely new engine. Read back through the Shogun and Medieval forums, individuals obviously spent a huge amount of time playing and analyzing these games. How many of them would have jumped at the chance to beta-test Rome?
But hey, what do I know? I'm only at ~100 posts. Now, where do I get a refill on the kool-aid?
It validated my point that those few people complaining most bitterly here represent a tiny fraction of unpleaseable people that would only waste your time and resources to try to cater to.
You are, unfortunately, completely missing the point. Let me give you an analogy.
Let's say that a company made some great RPGs in the past. They had a solid core of supporters who were big fans of RPGs. Unfortunately, this solid core wasn't terribly large. So the company decides they want to attract more customers. They design a new game, telling their core of supporters that they will really like it.
So the game comes out, but instead of being a RPG, it's a FPS. Now maybe it's a really good FPS. Maybe it's one of the best FPS on the market. But the core of supporters aren't interested in playing a FPS. They want to play a RPG.
It's the same thing here, on a less wide scale. CA made a game that's aimed at a different part of the market than their previous efforts. There's some overlap, but in general, a large faction of their previous fans aren't interested in an arcade style combat system like RTW sports.
Now you can act all egotistical and superior with your idiotic comments like the one I quoted, or you can take off the blinders and see what happened. No one is denying that a portion of the gaming market likes RTW. As you say, it's obviously successful based on the sales and the awards its one. What we are saying is that it's moved away from the people who enjoyed the previous games. If that's the way they are going to go, so be it. But don't expect us to be happy about it.
Bh
Paul Peru
02-16-2005, 11:48
Red:
It is surprising that my friends feel the same way about the expansion pack.... They seriously doubt that it will have the fixes needed to make the game play lasting, especially for the AI.
I'm really curious though.... do we represent only a small portion of RTW patrons?
Tactical RI suggestion:
If we feel that there is the slightest chance that the xp will make the game a lot more enjoyable, maybe we should say "Yeah I'll buy that for sure, waiting impatiently and so on", or we may risk that they don't make one ~:eek:
Consider: If they make a crappy xp, it'll get slaughtered here and elsewhere, see low sales, lead to cancellation of franchise(?) Then we can go play some other war game and bash it for not being Total War ~;)
If they make a good xp, it will get mixed reviews in the community, sell a lot, give CA a better idea of what's the way to make a Total War game, cause the next one to be good.
If they don't make an xp, they may get down to making another half-donkeyed effort of a TW game - even more lameified than the current offering.
(wording deliberatly provocative - I'm playin RTW every free minute. love/hate relationship thingy) ~:)
I'd be interested to see some genuine sales figures for RTW. We all know it's sold 'loads' of copies, but it would be good to see some hard numbers. Comparing those numbers to the numbers of people we have on the main forums (Org, Com, TWCenter) might give us a bit of a clue regarding where we (the 'hardcore' for want of a better expression) actually sit with regard to the money men.
Do CA listen to the community? Yes - as evidenced by the bug-fixes in the patch. If there wasn't such a community then these failings would have simply stayed unpatched (and unfound most likely). The 'community' is what gives the franchise it's publicity during the time when there is no new release happening, or in the build-up and anticipation phase, and as such, there 'has' to be at least a nod in their general direction. The problem is, when the financial situation changes and there are so many 'non-community' buyers out there (as there have been for RTW), there becomes less of a need to keep the community happy. Little Johnny who reads PC Mag Monthly sees RTW get the 90-odd percent review (which comes from lots of bells, whistles, and the 'potential' for a truly great game), nips off down the shops, buys it, doesn't notice that his archers are using their missile stat in melee, doesn't see (or doesn't care) that his archers are using the back of his spearmen's heads for target practice, doesn't give a monkey's that Selucids can build elephants anywhere, and certainly doesn't know that naked fanatics should be called something more obscure (can't remember, sorry).
And therein lies the problem. The 'community' as a whole matters less in the Total War world now than it used to. The stuff that appeals (or is 'offensive') to the community (sorry for using that word so often) is, in general not on the agenda for the average buyer. End of story. There is no time/money made available to satisfy both ends of the spectrum.
And if the community drifts away, well, never mind eh? It was good while it lasted. As Jerome has said, there will be another TW game after this one. It will sell absolute bucketloads probably. The community will still exist, though probably smaller and with different members.
This has gone on a bit, so I'll stop there.
All that said, I still REALLY enjoy the game. I've been here since Shogun, and will probably continue with whatever comes next. And as much as I love the games, I'm not the greatest player (all those little men get very confusing) so many of the 'dumb-AI' problems don't affect my gameplay.
Cheers,
Rob.
Paul Peru
02-16-2005, 12:32
naked fanatics should be called something more obscure (can't remember, sorry).
You're obviously referring to the scantily clad fanatics! ~;)
I believe there's a community fix for those, and there are even some wardrobe-dysfunctional wailing wenches somewhere.
(Poke sideways across puddle: Personally I find nudity less offensive than violence - I even tolerate it in my own home - but I'm an old European atheist so sick views are to be expected.)
Colovion
02-16-2005, 12:42
Gaesatae ...
Gaesatae ...
That's it.
And that's the problem in a nutshell. You know this stuff, and it's (to some extent) important to you. I'm aware of it, but I can take it or leave it. The bulk-buyer of RTW neither knows of this stuff, nor cares about it.
The TW franchise is being increasingly pitched at the latter sector of the market. Maybe this will change - we can but dream...
(@Colovion - I use 'you' as an example of the slightly disillusioned hardcore gamer in my analogy above. Apologies if I have misrepresented you)
Cheers,
Rob.
I think it is symptomatic of the world we live in or me getting older.
My favourite history/discovery channels are now dumbed down with programmes on 'serial killers' and 'bootleggers' preporting to be history. In literature Robert Graves becomes Simon Scarrow, so why shouldn't my favourite game suffer too?
That's it.
And that's the problem in a nutshell. You know this stuff, and it's (to some extent) important to you. I'm aware of it, but I can take it or leave it. The bulk-buyer of RTW neither knows of this stuff, nor cares about it.
The TW franchise is being increasingly pitched at the latter sector of the market. Maybe this will change - we can but dream...
And that is why it's so hard to get Creative Assembly to fix the Parthian shot or make the running speeds realistic, but we have men flying 50 feet in the air, rocks that explode like 155mm mortar shells and flaming arrows that work in downpours and incinerate men and horses in 5 seconds.
No doubt the game still lacks various tweaks to achieve even greater realism, but so far as I'm concerned (as an Ancient History nut) I've had over 100 hours of entertainment for the price of a reasonable bottle of wine. The next game will probably be another step forward but even at present I still think I got the best of the bargain when buying RTW.
Carinus
And that's the problem in a nutshell. You know this stuff, and it's (to some extent) important to you. I'm aware of it, but I can take it or leave it. The bulk-buyer of RTW neither knows of this stuff, nor cares about it.
Well if the bulk doesnt know or care why not call them gaesatae then? The bulk wont mind and people who do care about this are pleased. The same with horse archers and the other stuff.
I guess there are more people who say: I dont like this unrealistic game than there are people who dont buy this game because there are no men incinerated or flying through the air?
So I think the game could have been a lot more fun/realism (whatever you want).
On the theoretical side (only tangentially TW related, otherwise a rant):
It's an age-old question of who creates the tastes of the public, the producers or the consumers. I mean, if there was no crap on the market, everybody would buy quality stuff, right? If a game that sells well has gaesatae in it, then maybe other games would also have them incorporated? For example, I bet not a lot of people knew what scimitar was before they started playing AD&D or RPGs ( I know that none of my D&D crowd knew that beforehand back in the days).
What I find stupid and downright demeaning is that the vast majority of marketing strategies is based on looking down on the people who might buy their products. It is founded on an attitude that people are incapable and uninterested to learn; and eventually this turns out to be the truth if you repeat it enough times. If you only make shows about serial killers, of course all people are going to know or care about will be serial killers. What I fail to comprehend, however, is the people who are happy to be placed in that (first and foremost intelectually) inferior position.
But was it always like that, would the general public's tastes really be like that if they weren't offered junk and treated as junk? We don't know, since nobody really tried to do otherwise. Or maybe there is something to it that innovative and smart things sometimes do result in a huge success (e.g., I didn't feel like being treated like a 10yr old while playing Shogun)?
On the TW side:
As I said before, they don't have to make any effort to try to make it a realistic historical simulator. They don't have to go through all the tweaking, testing, assessment, research. All they have to do is externalize parameters to the maximum, and provide a solid foundation to work on. Then I'm ok if they make the retail product as "marketable" as possible for their own sakes.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.