View Full Version : Creative Assembly New Shogun readme at the com
screwtype
05-25-2005, 13:40
Actually, it's not that new, because it was posted on the 20th. But since I can't find a thread about it here, I'd thought I'd post it, or at least, the updated part of it:
Q. Will there be any improvements to the battle or campaign AI in the expansion?
A.Improvements are a constant and ongoing process.
Q. Will there be improvements to the diplomatic engine in the expansion?
A. See previous answer.
Q There are many console commands that can only be accessed by scripting, but not with in-game console menu. What was reasoning for this? Any chance to get all of them "unlocked" in expansion (good for MOD testing).
A. Some can, some can't. And yes, there were reasons: console commands that can be accessed by scripting were needed for the prologue; those that weren't, can't. It's unlikely that the console commands will change much for the expansion. We're not doing another prologue because if you get BI you already know how to play the game and have played the prologue anyway.
Q.. It has been commented on the .Com boards that the issues within RTW would be corrected in the expansion. Will a patch with these corrections be released at the same time for the people that have bought RTW but do not want to buy the expansion?
A. There will be an announcement concerning the load / save issue, the expansion pack and a definitive statement on any chance of a patch regarding this issue. This will not be announced until some after E3. I am sorry it's not going to be any earlier. This is not a 'one dimensional issue' and I am not trying to fob you off, but I am not in a position to make a clear statement at the moment and I won't be able to do so for at least a couple of weeks. As soon as I can I will. As for the TWC FAQ the first part of the answers will go up on the official forums on Friday.
Q. What would you characterize as the best improvement(s) of the Barbarian Invasion expansion pack over the original Rome: Total War game?
A. Everyone working on the expansion would give you a different answer on that one. You'll have to make up your own minds about it.
Q. Will CA include Campaign Map Editor in expansion?
A. No. According to the bloke who wrote the campaign map editor, there are tools out there already that are actually jolly good.
Q.. Is there any chance for MP Campaign in expansion?
A. No. Apart from anything else, you wouldn't live long enough to play one, unless you are expecting to have a greatly extended life span.
Q.. If not, at least a Hot seat multiplayer, with player vs. player battles auto calculated (should not be too difficult to make, since game is turn-base oriented)?
A. No. That's not the thrust of the expansion.
Q. Which things that are currently hardcoded do you plan on changing (e.g. number of men per unit, faction limit, number of factions that are controlled by the Senate?)
A.None. The way factions are managed is more flexible now, but that's something that most people won't notice. Actually, the Senate is gone in BI; by the late 300s they were no longer a significant force in Roman politics, so they won't be 'controlling' anyone.
Q. Will there be improvements to the AI prioritization on the campaign map (avoid attacking when defeat is certain, especially desperate attempt to relieve sieges)
A. AI programming is an art as much as a science, and this aspect the game is constantly tweaked during development and after.
Q.. Do you plan on making heterogeneous units a possibility? E.G make the unit consists of a selection of unit models and randomly give all of these men a selection of various weapons. Such a feature would be particularly good for Barbarian or Peasant units.
A. No. Every extra model within a unit is the equivalent of a new unit type on the battlefield in terms of graphics, and this kind of thing could completely overwhelm some graphics cards.
Q. Do you plan on reintroducing the provincial campaigns, of which we have seen remains in the data files, to R: TW? E.g.: Caesars Campaign in Gaul, Scipio¡¦s Campaign, Hannibal in Italy, The Pyrrhic Wars.
A. No. There are no plans at present to reintroduce the provincial campaigns.
Q: What will be the next expansion & next TW game?
A: We’ll be making an announcement about the expansion pack shortly. Indeed, it might already have happened by the time you’re reading this answer. As to what the next full TW game will be… Sorry, not quite yet. We have plans and plans for after the first lot of plans are carried out.
Q: Any hope for a Napoleonic TW?
A: There’s always hope! Let’s face it: this would be an outstanding period for a TW title, as it has everything you might want as source material for such a game. On the other hand, we refuse to be limited in what we can consider as a good subject for a TW game. Even the most enthused and clever suggestions on the forums haven’t quite matched one or two of the ideas that have been tossed back and forth inside the gates!
Q: What is the situation on campaign battle replays? I want to know what we should expect in regards to this missing feature, i.e. some miracle patch or future expansion.
A: We hadn’t realised just how popular this feature had been in earlier titles, and we now know that it’s something that many people want to see in Rome. The code base for Rome: Total War is very different from what has gone before, and it was not written with a replay feature in mind. There is no ‘miracle’ patch that can put this feature into the game. However, now that we know it’s important to a lot of people we are planning to reintroduce the replay feature in future games.
Q: Since the patches were cut short on RTW, when the expansion comes out, will the team be dedicated to fixing all bugs for both games before moving on to the next project? I know you did your best to fix all the problems in RTW, but as is the case with all patches, there are different bugs that pop up. I am curious if you will support the game and expansion until all bugs are fixed, or are you going to set a limit of 2 or so again.
A: This isn’t an issue over which CA has much control. Patches have to go to Activision for approval, and the level of support offered for any expansion pack is entirely a matter for them. If they want patches, we can assign the people needed to do the work.
Q: Will path finding be a major focus in the expansion?
A: We’re looking at many areas of game code, and battlefield behaviour is one part of that. We’re always striving to make the games better, and pathfinding is always on the ‘to do’ list - it’s one of those chunks of code that always gets refined even when it’s ‘finished’.
Q: I know all games have path finding problems, but considering RTW holds the largest battles, path finding is very important. I know the cities were built for normal unit combat, but huge size has many path finding problems in cities. Currently, it is next to impossible to make a unit charge even when it is settled on a street in ready position.
A: See the previous answer.
Q: Any plans to deepen the strategy map side of things in the Total War series - making it more like the Civilization series? An official collaboration with Sid Meier-san. called Civilization: Total War would be nice, but failing that a cheeky rip-off would not be amiss. I appreciate this would not be universally popular with the existing clientele, but it would create the mother of all strategy games, surely?
A: Sounds like a dream game for some people! Civilization is a great game, but it’s not really got a huge overlap with Total War when you analyze all the gameplay elements in each title. Currently there are no plans for an official collaboration with Mr Meier.
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=19529.topic
Q. Will there be any improvements to the battle or campaign AI in the expansion?
A.Improvements are a constant and ongoing process.
Q. Will there be improvements to the diplomatic engine in the expansion?
A. See previous answer.
Sounds very evasive, but otherwise the expansion sounds great!
InsaneApache
05-26-2005, 10:26
Yes interesting stuff...I like the idea of a Civilization TW. :bow:
R'as al Ghul
05-26-2005, 11:05
Q: What is the situation on campaign battle replays? I want to know what we should expect in regards to this missing feature, i.e. some miracle patch or future expansion.
A: We hadn’t realised just how popular this feature had been in earlier titles, and we now know that it’s something that many people want to see in Rome.
~:confused:
How can that be? How could one possibly miss this?
Aetius the Last Roman
05-26-2005, 11:27
Is it just me or does this sounds like an answer of a politican under a corruption charge:
Q: So what improvements will there be?
A: I don't no improvements are a hard thing.
Q: Does the expansion redress the RTW clientele's concerns?
A: No comment.
This is just evasive and uninformative reporting.
Mongoose
05-26-2005, 14:11
This is better then before, but it does sound rather evasive.
Why not just only answer the questions that they have actual answers to?
screwtype
05-26-2005, 14:20
Hmm well I read it slightly differently. I think the fact that they have chosen to answer the question about battle and campaign AI at all, albeit obliquely, and the fact that they have put these questions right at the top, indicates that they are aware of the broad dissatisfaction with these aspects of the game and that they are working to improve them.
It would have been nice if they'd said "we are making this area a priority", but their reply at least gives hope that we are going to see an improved AI in BI and hopefully further improvements in later games.
clayton ballentine
05-26-2005, 15:38
this belongs in the shogun category not the rome category
metatron
05-26-2005, 15:46
They didn't actually answer anything...
Ser Clegane
05-26-2005, 15:48
this belongs in the shogun category not the rome category
No, it belongs here as it is a Q&A by "The Shogun" (.com admin) on the RTW expansion.
Colovion
05-26-2005, 19:21
Reminds me of a politician answering questions which he knows the answers won't satisfy.
This is ridiculous. Either CA needs a new PR rep, or they need to start informing us on what is actually going on so we aren't left with another RTW disaster where 2/3 of the forum population feels they were misled.
Elmar Bijlsma
05-26-2005, 21:25
Updated again and this time the answers are much, much better.
Right up util this one:
Q. Will the issue of infantry behaving sometimes like cavalry be fixed?
A. Sorry, but after much thought we have no idea what this question means.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!
I know what the question meant, most of you do too, I reckon. Why not CA?
tibilicus
05-26-2005, 21:30
very disapointing. No change basicly. I really am giving up hope..........
Colovion
05-26-2005, 22:20
is it just me, or has CA's posting on community forums gone WAY down since RTW was released?
Updated again and this time the answers are much, much better.
Right up util this one:
Q. Will the issue of infantry behaving sometimes like cavalry be fixed?
A. Sorry, but after much thought we have no idea what this question means.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!
I know what the question meant, most of you do too, I reckon. Why not CA?
Pesonaly, I think whoever posted wuch question deserved that answer.
You can't expect from developer to read every post of fourm and know every bug by their code-name.
"Infantry behaving sometimes like cavalry" means nothing to someone who hasn't read proper posts about bug. If there was at least link to some relevant threads or proper description of bug that would be another thing.
Thanks for posting the Q & A Screwtype. Some info is better than no info. I am looking forward to the expansion. With the Medieval expansion, CA really enhanced the experience. I am optimistic about the Rome expansion.
Mongoose
05-27-2005, 03:48
Meh, i just read the FAQ updated 26 of may and i don't think i will be buying the XPAC.....maybe once there are mods out for it.
Well expansion packs aren't for everyone...
screwtype
05-27-2005, 14:37
Gee you people are a bunch of whiners. I bet 90% of .org contributors rush right out and buy the XPack the minute it hits the shelves.
Anyhow, here's a couple of positives from the latest update:
Q. Will there be civil wars?
A. Yes. The rebellion mechanisms have changed to allow for rebellions to spread, and to allow for disloyal generals making a stab for ultimate power themselves.
Q.. Improved cavalry AI and more importance on a Generals command stars in a battle. (suggestion as question)
A. The AI has improved generally (pun not intended).
Mongoose
05-27-2005, 15:35
well, like i said, i will buy it once there are mods like EB out that will add dozens of factions....not really trying to whine
screwtype
05-27-2005, 19:05
Oh, I agree. It will be better to wait until the reviews are out, better still to wait for the mods.
I see BI not so much as something to look forward to in itself but as (hopefully) better raw material for the mods to work with.
Mongoose
05-27-2005, 19:19
The vanilla version really does not do justice to the games engine, i just wish more could be modded...maybe the xpac will have less hard codeing ~:cheers:
screwtype
05-27-2005, 19:24
Hope so :)
Q. Which things that are currently hardcoded do you plan on changing (e.g. number of men per unit, faction limit, number of factions that are controlled by the Senate?)
A.None. The way factions are managed is more flexible now, but that's something that most people won't notice. Actually, the Senate is gone in BI; by the late 300s they were no longer a significant force in Roman politics, so they won't be 'controlling' anyone
Ok I know very little about programming but something tells me hardcoding factions numbers is probably one of the easiest things to change.
General_Sun
05-31-2005, 11:33
You guys might not be aware of this, but this updating of FAQs is caused by a TWC boycott threat and a subsquent Shogun promising us more updates and info.
Thus,
This is better then before, but it does sound rather evasive.
Why not just only answer the questions that they have actual answers to?
is because we told him to under the point of a sword.
matches88
05-31-2005, 19:58
You guys might not be aware of this, but this updating of FAQs is caused by a TWC boycott threat and a subsquent Shogun promising us more updates and info.
Thus,
is because we told him to under the point of a sword.
huh? i don't recall anyone saying, "give us weekly updates, regardless of whether you know the answer or not".
and re" "infantry behaving like cavalry", CA don't have to trawl through every thread to know what this is about, just the "bugs" list thread.
Shambles
05-31-2005, 20:26
"infantry behaving like cavalry",
Is prety self explanitory wouldnt you say?
And i dont think il buy XP any way,
Seeing as ive been using my rome cd's as
cup holders
and something to lean my cigaret on when in battles' of STW
or playing a campaign in MTW VI
Simetrical
05-31-2005, 21:38
You guys might not be aware of this, but this updating of FAQs is caused by a TWC boycott threat . . .This is baseless speculation. It's much more likely the overall dissatisfaction fans have expressed through any number of media than it is the TWC boycott alone.
-Simetrical
bodidley
06-02-2005, 20:46
Q: Any plans to deepen the strategy map side of things in the Total War series - making it more like the Civilization series? An official collaboration with Sid Meier-san. called Civilization: Total War would be nice, but failing that a cheeky rip-off would not be amiss. I appreciate this would not be universally popular with the existing clientele, but it would create the mother of all strategy games, surely?
A: Sounds like a dream game for some people! Civilization is a great game, but it’s not really got a huge overlap with Total War when you analyze all the gameplay elements in each title. Currently there are no plans for an official collaboration with Mr Meier.
A game like that is not such an impossible dream:
http://www.slitherine.com/GameIndex.htm
~D
Mongoose
06-06-2005, 03:45
ARGHHH!!! the thread is gone! :hide:
err, no! to arms! EZboard is falling apart!
:knight: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight:
:charge: :charge: :knight: :knight: :knight: :knight:
:charge:
Tecumseh
06-09-2005, 02:31
A: We hadn’t realised just how popular this feature had been in earlier titles, and we now know that it’s something that many people want to see in Rome.
did he just drop in from another planet or something ??? ~:confused:
(and didn't they do it before because people wanted it in the first place ?)
ChaosLord
06-15-2005, 18:13
And its even funnier considering SP is the largest portion of their players, but CA's been handing out dissapointment in spades since R:TW. Going over the list it looks like the only thing we can actually count on in the expansion is: new(edited) factions, new units, and the removal of the Senate. I'd like to think more is in the works, but it seems doubtful. Looks like CA is gonna toss out an expansion or two, patch any game-crashing bugs these expansions cause then wipe their hands of it.
And its even funnier considering SP is the largest portion of their players, but CA's been handing out dissapointment in spades since R:TW. Going over the list it looks like the only thing we can actually count on in the expansion is: new(edited) factions, new units, and the removal of the Senate. I'd like to think more is in the works, but it seems doubtful. Looks like CA is gonna toss out an expansion or two, patch any game-crashing bugs these expansions cause then wipe their hands of it.
While charging more then the original game (27 quid at Amazon, as opposed to 25 at Play.com since the day RTW was released). ~:eek:
Mount Suribachi
06-17-2005, 08:45
Another new FAQ is up, one thing stands out
Q. Could you consider MP campaign? Maybe not the same as SP campaign but small 2-players ones (e.g. Spartacus, Caesar in Gaul etc.)
A. We know many of you consoder this to be the Holy Grail of TW games. The major problem is do this in way where we don't "dumb it down" in the eyes of the community but present it in such a way where each turn does not take days to play. We do want to do this at some point in the future.
(my italics)
I think this is the first time that I've seen them come out and say they would like to have a MP campaign. Who knows, maybe they're even thinking of jumping on the MMOG bandwagon?
I think this is the first time that I've seen them come out and say they would like to have a MP campaign.
It's not the first time. In fact, CA has been saying this ever since original STW was released in June 2000. After 5 years, you start to wonder about the veracity of the statement. We asked CA for one of the RTW v1.2 shell commands to be reactivated which would have allowed the players to set up their own multiplayer campaign, and CA wouldn't even do that.
Mount Suribachi
06-17-2005, 17:52
Well, when I think of TW and MP campaigns, I of think you arguing with anyone who'll listen that it is possible and needs to be done ~;)
Little Legioner
07-13-2005, 12:17
Hey Mongoose. We've failed mate... :cry:
Continuation of the story
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=19529.topic
Q. Is there any chance that the expansion would add "advanced gameplay options" into the game: i.e. so that you could choose whether you'll have the default battle map movement speeds or more realistic ones, default battlefields or bigger ones with armies starting further away from each other, the mainly flat clear battlefields or more complicated ones such as in the historical battles, etc. This would prevent a big part of complaints, since different people are always looking for different things from the same game.
A. It is true to say that different people are looking for different things from the same game. However we cannot be all things to all people and so we have chosen, what we believe to be, the best balance for the largest number of players. It should be remembered that this is an expansion, not a completely new game. Multiple varieties of movement speeds and multiple varieties of battlefield sizes, would require multiple sets of animations and unit balancing for each set of units. This would be a very large task to achieve and well beyond the bounds of an expansion pack. We have however reworked the existing movement speeds for all the Rome Total War(tm) units to create a better balance in this aspect of the game
Sad story ends here... Farewell to BI... Sorry, I don't pay you. ~:handball:
Duke John
07-13-2005, 12:40
No answers for my AI related questions. And generally not much information besides the useless marketing speeches. I will just wait till I hear the opinion of Org members before buying it.
We have however reworked the existing movement speeds for all the Rome Total War(tm) units to create a better balance in this aspect of the game.
Q. Do you feel this game is an improvement upon RTW? How so?
A. Yes. How? Barbarian Invasion is an expansion to Rome and as a result has had all the extra development time between Rome's release and now for us to further polish, tinker and fiddle with the game. Although Rome was a major achievement there is always room for improvement. More units, improved AI, improved unit balance and night battles are just a few of the ways we have added to the original game. that is from todays update,
does not seem like a failure to me
that is from todays update,
does not seem like a failure to me
Yes but its mostly stuff of patches when you talk about improved Ai and stuff as new features in BI. Most of the valid requests and questions seem to be answered with a no. The same ol' repetition of generalised improvements, instead of taking some of the feedback and wishes of the community and including it in the exapnsion is not a great incentive to dish out the price of a new game for this expansion.
It does seem that the .org questions have not been answered yet, maybe in the next update, and hopefully something more positive.
Intrepid Sidekick
07-13-2005, 16:48
So Sik1977... Besides 100 new units, a new campaign map, 10 new factions, 2 new unit formations and a few new gameplay mechanisms like hordes, what would you say counted as something interesting? Hmm? ~:confused:
It's an expansion pack not a new game and yet BI has more new content in it than any expansion packs we have previously released and more than most *new games* released by our competitors. How does that add up to patch only material? ~:confused:
Perhaps familiarity with our delivery of quality and quantity is breeding contempt? ~;)
I should also point out that many questions asked where about the fixes and changes we have made to existing gameplay - the result? - lots of answers about that subject.
Just curious as to what you feel was missed out?
Intrepid Sidekick
#C.A. Staff#
Ianofsmeg16
07-13-2005, 17:37
Q. Will we be able to save the replays for campaign battles again?
A. No. The underlying game code will not support this feature.
Ah well, you want something with CA you don't get it.....maybe we should all want bad AI, unrealistic skins and crap units...then they'll give us the opposite!!! ~:cheers:
still gonna buy it though...play as the romano britons
If the update today consists of the answers to the Org questions then I'm mightily disappointed! The Shogun apparently has only touched on a few of the aspects raised and many of the questions put forward haven't been answered or even referred to?! Let's hope there's another update which includes answers to some of the more in-depth questions to come... :/
Mongoose
07-13-2005, 18:47
Hey Mongoose. We've failed mate... :cry:
Continuation of the story
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=19529.topic
Sad story ends here... Farewell to BI... Sorry, I don't pay you. ~:handball:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~:mecry:
Maybe they will have bigger battle fields in NTW? :inquisitive:
screwtype
07-14-2005, 04:32
Just curious as to what you feel was missed out?
Well my questions weren't answered. I suggested that (a) a siege should not be broken just because the timer runs out, but only if the attacking army is routed off the map, and (b) that once you have taken the city square, enemy units should no longer route toward the square but should rout off the map. So, have these changes been implemented, or not? ~:)
Also, I suggested a strategic movement option, whereby land units could move say six provinces per turn provided they do not leave or enter a contested (ie enemy occupied) province at any time. Have you given us a strategic movement option yet, or have you condemned us to trudging our armies laboriously across the map turn after turn, as in the previous games?
Duke John
07-14-2005, 05:23
screwtype,
I think CA already did a good job with being able to set a path for multiple turns (although waypoints are sometimes much wanted). It might be unrealistic, but how many armies did really move from one end to another of Europe, and that multiple times?
bodidley
07-14-2005, 05:58
The Celts did it when they were launching their first raids into the Balkans. Hannibal covered huge land distances in his campaigns into Italy. The Visigoths over huge distances in Europe. Octavian and Gaius Jullius went all the way across the Mediterraenean in their campaigns in Egypt. It didn't happen alot but it happened. Personally I liked Autumn-Winter-Spring-Summer turn breakdown from Shogun. The campaign map has to be reorganized in many ways anyhow. Marching armies takes way too long for one, but also the auto-gen. maps are way too bland.
Perhaps familiarity with our delivery of quality and quantity is breeding contempt? ~;)
Come on, man, we're your customers not your competitors. Don't think that we can't get new and interesting features from companies other than CA, because if you have a "the customer is always wrong" paradigm you're in for big trouble unless you have a monopoly, which you most certainly do not. That said, customers can be like a nagging mother, they only mean the best for you ~;)
Simetrical
07-14-2005, 06:18
So Sik1977... Besides 100 new units, a new campaign map, 10 new factions, 2 new unit formations and a few new gameplay mechanisms like hordes, what would you say counted as something interesting? Hmm? ~:confused: Well, you see, many if not most of us hardcore forumites play with large total conversions like RTR, SPQR, etc. These already change the balancing and the content. So what we (unfortunately a rather tiny if vocal minority) want is really more ability to mod, so that our favorite mods can improve their gameplay and content, and/or improved hardcoded content, such as better AI or more formations.
Those such as we don't really care about CA's units and other content, because while I'm sure they're very nice, many of us prefer units created for different purposes (such as a different time period as in Chivalry: Total War, or a different world as in Middle Earth: Total War, or just made realistically, as in Rome: Total Realism or Europa Barbarorum). Furthermore, if our favored mods based on the period of the original game don't want to move to BI's new period, then the new units and such are also not useful.
Of course, you can't please everybody, and it's unreasonable to expect you to cater to the small percentage that plays only mods. But this is the reason that your new content is not considered interesting: a dozen different mods are constantly showcasing new content. The aspects of BI that we can already accomplish just mix in with the crowd. But the hardcoded stuff, now, that's different.
A suggestion: maybe in your forum PR you should start focusing more on the addition of new hardcoded mechanics or the un-hardcoding of mechanics. Many of the ones who view your online FAQs are hardcore mod-players, and they just aren't going to be interested in new skins and models and stats. Save the eye-candy for ads in magazines, and other places where they'll appeal to your broader player base.
-Simetrical
HarunTaiwan
07-14-2005, 10:56
New units are bells and whistles. It almost what modders do for FREE.
AI is what is hard and where the added value is at.
screwtype
07-14-2005, 11:19
Totally agree, Simmetrical and HarunTaiwan. The mods give us heaps of new units, campaigns etc for free, and they do a terrific job. So while a new campaign from CA is nice, it's not really what hardcore TW fans want. What we want from CA primarily are better game mechanics, especially, better AI.
Meneldil
07-14-2005, 12:23
I have a question that might have been asked in another readme, but I can't find any info about it :
Are the 10 or so new factions just edited ones from RTW, or real new factions that could be used with the previous ones in a provincial campaign ?
sunsmountain
07-14-2005, 13:43
So Sik1977... Besides 100 new units, a new campaign map, 10 new factions, 2 new unit formations and a few new gameplay mechanisms like hordes, what would you say counted as something interesting? Hmm?
Oh dear intrepid sidekick, this all sounds very good, but what would really steal my heart is:
1. An opponent AI who use their skirmish/archer troops at full range, and do not retreat if they have them >covered/protected< with infantry. (too hard to program?)
2. An opponent AI committing their general last (always), or at least an option to mod the AI to do so. The only extra modding i think i need is in the battle map AI during campaign. (and whats up with these bonuses to both side +4/+7?)
3. An AI attacking with all of its units at once (except tactical reserve), and who doesnt re-arrange his troops when already within archer range of the enemy (this should be a no-no)...
[by far the hardest to program/pull off. What problems are you running into with these AI problems, conceptually? It would perhaps help to get answers from those who dont necessarily understand programming, but who can give their intuitive answer...?]
4. Almost all the bug fixes player1 suggests, especially balancing issues to give a more of a 'personality feel' to the governors & traits part of the game. You know, things like Coward gets Berserk and Warlord as anti-traits, since both berserkers and warlords are described as brave.
[this will be easier as it has already been done. I expect BI to at least have this, but if it doesnt have any of the ones i mentioned 1-3, i will probably not buy it.
I know how much work, literally hours and hours and hours, 100 units, 10 factions and 1 new map is, but frankly, so do the modders. You then mention 2 new unit formations, of which 1 i'm assuming is already the horde formation you mention].
Radically new in BI:
- 2 new unit formations (1 of which is hordes)
- night battles
- church/convert religion
- no senate
- ... ?
Duke John
07-14-2005, 14:37
At the Org:
12 viewing R:TW SP
4 viewing R:TW MP
42 viewing R:TW modding forums
At TWC:
14 viewing R:TW SP
62 viewing R:TW modding forums
Does it mean anything? The above does show that at the moment most players who go to forums are interested in mods, and they are the same who read the FAQ. So, CA could at least satisfy the modders and mod players a bit by answering modding related questions, since they are not that much interested in original R:TW.
And most of us don't give a dime for 100 new units if the current AI problems aren't fixed.
It means that most people won't wait around for a year to see if CA will address gameplay issues. The modders are still around because they are trying to do that themselves, but will there be anyone left to play their mods? The vast majority of players don't come to the forums, and are apparently satisfied with the game the was it is. I wouldn't expect them to use mods or even know that a mod exists.
There is really nothing left to discuss concerning RTW multiplayer other than getting players to sign up for the Code of Honor which is just another way of trying to address the gameplay issues. All the players who were interested in discussing tactics in depth are gone because there is little depth to the tactics. The Code of Honor doesn't help me get the level of control and coordination I had of my units in STW or MTW. Mods have little impact on multiplyer, and there are issues in the battle engine that no mod can correct anyway. The basic gameplay of the unmodded game has to be improved for the MP forum to see the level of activity and discussions it once had.
So Sik1977... Besides 100 new units, a new campaign map, 10 new factions, 2 new unit formations and a few new gameplay mechanisms like hordes, what would you say counted as something interesting? Hmm? ~:confused:
It's an expansion pack not a new game and yet BI has more new content in it than any expansion packs we have previously released and more than most *new games* released by our competitors. How does that add up to patch only material? ~:confused:
Perhaps familiarity with our delivery of quality and quantity is breeding contempt? ~;)
I should also point out that many questions asked where about the fixes and changes we have made to existing gameplay - the result? - lots of answers about that subject.
Just curious as to what you feel was missed out?
Intrepid Sidekick
#C.A. Staff#
Hi Intrepid,
You may be right that we (the hardcore minority which visits these forums) expects too much, both from the original game and the upcoming expansion. Perhaps we want RTW to be everything to everybody (i.e., enough advanced options to cater for all players, no matter hardcore or casual), and that is perhaps unfair on our part.
Despite the above, being an old and dedicated fan of the series (as many other hardcore fans here), we can't help but turn to you and let you know as to what we percieve as shortcomings in RTW and what we 'expect' (sometimes reasonably, sometimes perhaps unreasoably) from any expansion to the original, as that expansion is naturally viewed by the Hardcore community as aimed at them and aimed at polishing the game in a way which will please the hardcore community (perhaps not the FPS or casual RTS crowd). Maybe we are being selfish.
As for 100 new units, skins, 2 new formations, night battles, swimming horses, hordes and a new campaign, it is great, but is something we are used to getting in Mods by now. Don't get me wrong, it goes to CA's credit and no one else which has made it possible for such mods to exist and spoil us like this that such things as 100 new units and a new campaign doesn't get you all that excited.
So what is it that we really want?? you can see many of such requests in the questions in the FAQ and as listed above and at many places by many of the loyal and hardcore fans. 100 new units are great, but what about things like 'Advanced options' for hardcore players, greater modability, lack of restrictions through hardcoding which the whole hardcore community is calling out for since BI was announced (or even earlier since RTW came out).
What about features which may benefit the whole game (original and BI) to make us get the value out of RTW as well (which I honeslty feel I haven't gotten enough playability out of; 2 campaigns and lots of bug testing). Is it too much to ask for
1. 'Stats Sheet' or something similar which can keep a track of total losses inflicted and incurred during the length of a given campaign, as well as other interesting statistics, such as the most successful General, Most kills by a Unit, Kill-to-loss ratios, etc. (afterall RTW is a serious strategy game, not a C&C clone).
2. Better Diplomacy, and one that works fully, and means something in the game, not just for show.
3. Campaign replays. You already had that in the previous games, so why being anti-progressive and insensitive to thousands of fans wanting this feature.
4. Better and open source AI.
5. Advanced options for all. More and more options can remedy lots and lots of issues.
6. Activating many of the half finished or deactivated features in RTW, such as the greek and egyptian walls, etc. (these are minor, but all this adds to the feeling that RTW is unfinished whenever you play).
The above may also be enjoyed by the casual players, or atleast if managed properly, not hinder the casual player's enjoyment of RTW and BI, and satisfy the hardcore community.
It is an expansion pack, you are absolutely right, and some of us are being very demanding, but we nevertheless can't shake the feeling that this expansion pack should give a feeling of completeness to an otherwise great idea and concept, lacking slightly in its implementation.
Best regards, and thanks for taking part in these forums. Means a lot to the hardcore community, as we are all fans of the series at the end of the day.
Duke John
07-14-2005, 17:11
The modders are still around because they are trying to do that themselves, but will there be anyone left to play their mods?
That is kinda refreshing, Yuuki :grin: What are you doing these days? Do you still have hope for R:TW?
Yes I still have hope for RTW. Recent statements from CA such as: the movement speeds have been adjusted for better balance, phalanx performance vs cav has been improved, unit balance has been improved, diplomacy improvement, suicide generals have been looked at again and the load/savegame issue is being looked into are very promising. I hope they checkout the charge bonus to see if it's being incorporated correctly into the combat calculation and fix the Parthian shot, but their lack of understanding about the AI treating some infantry like it was cavalry, making it pull back and recharge, is disappointing, and there has been no mention about the AI maintaining the intergrety of its battleline. I see no valid excuse for all of player1's fixes to the traits and such not being incorporated. I know there are other issues as well about which CA hasn't commented.
Recently, I was able to play an RTW campaign as Carthage and go 240 turns without reloading before the game crashed. I used Mordred's mod which just makes some relatively minior changes to the unit stats such as: 0.9 movement speed, 0.75 lethality to non-spear units, slightly better javelins, slightly higher defend value, a few price adjustments and +4 morale to all units, and some changes to the starting conditions of each clan. I found multiplayer gamplay significantly better with these changes as did everyone else who tried it, and I also found the SP campaign to be better. First, because the AI is a slightly better opponent with these stat changes because it's cav flanking moves arrive in a timely fashion since units fight longer and that also allows the AI to make the most of its ability to choose advantageous matchups. You, in turn, also have more time to make countermoves to what the AI does, and the use of a tactical reserve comes into play which I find makes the battles more interesting. Second, without reloading, the whole development of the AI factions is more logical. During the entire campaign I never saw a single AI army wander off as though it had no purpose. I played with fog-of-war turned off andI could see the AI factions responding to threats or building up for an offensive, but it's a slow process and I can't help thinking that the re-evaluation on reload is quite debilitating to the AI factions. Even the naval strategies by the AI seemed fairly reasonable. Sieges have a long way to go to work well, and I personally never play them by always maintianing a siege until the AI sallies and immediately sallying if the AI sieges me.
I just point this out because I think the game would provide an outstanding, non-frustrating gaming experience for both casual and serious players if the gameplay issues which have been identified over the past year by the players are addressed. These are just issues of balancing, improvement to the battle engine and AI and fixing the features that don't work correctly. They are not drastic changes and no re-imaging of the game is necessary. I think the players have done a good job of providing important feedback to CA which should allow CA to realize the potential of this fine gaming system they have designed.
bodidley
07-14-2005, 21:10
You know, CA can't neccesarily cater to all gamers all of the time, but if the gamers they are catering to are more casual and graphics oriented rather than hardcore strategy gamers, then there is nothing to say that those gamers won't by Age of Empires III or some other game because it is also appealing to the casual gamer. The reason why developers should listen to the hardcore following is that the hardcore following represents a guarunteed sale; once you "water down" the game too much you lose your guarunteed sale, and competition in the casual market is far more cut-throat.
Duke John
07-14-2005, 21:25
An AI that does not work properly has nothing to do with a hardcore market. If you can't code AI then don't act like if you can develop strategy games in which a good AI is essential.
Mongoose
07-14-2005, 22:30
Yeah, they should at least bring the AI up to the standard in Darthmod. It's not much better, but still...
Little Legioner
07-14-2005, 23:09
Hi Intrepid
I made an experiment yesterday. Two armies full force on huge setting but when i started the battle i could'nt find any space for maneuvering. Everywhere of god was troops...
How can you fix that mate? Battlefield was full of armies! I pushed the enemy and won a boring victory... Is it normal? :bow:
I don't think so.
Well, there is a reason why if you set predefeined graphics details to high that it will select large unit scale and not huge one.
IMHO, I think that huge unit scale for after thought, and that game was never balanced for that unit count.
Little Legioner
07-14-2005, 23:37
Well, there is a reason why if you set predefeined graphics details to high that it will select large unit scale and not huge one.
IMHO, I think that huge unit scale for after thought, and that game was never balanced for that unit count.
Sorry mate but why should i select large instead of huge? If i select huge i should play properly that game. I mean we can play on huge fileds if we select huge unit scale. Same field size with different unit scale creates bad result. I'll upload a screen to explain my point or you can see it on your experience.
Which is your preferred option? :book:
The one that works well: large
screwtype
07-14-2005, 23:52
I played with fog-of-war turned off andI could see the AI factions responding to threats or building up for an offensive, but it's a slow process
Yes, and I can't help but feel that if there was a strategic movement option this process would become much quicker, because the AI would be able to concentrate its forces so much faster. That should make for a more dynamic game experience and it should also help restore the likelihood of bigger, harder and more decisive battles which were a feature of the earlier games and which many people believe has been lost in RTW.
screwtype
07-14-2005, 23:56
You make a good point Little Legioner. I think that if they don't want to give us the option of bigger battlefields, then perhaps they should at least include some sort of algorithm for automatically increasing the battlefield size depending on the unit size selected.
Duke John
07-15-2005, 05:28
I fiddled a bit with a script in which generals would get movement points as long as they stayed on friendly ground. It would help to ease the boring task of transporting reinforcements in the end game when your empire is huge and it wouldn't be too unrealistic since armies have better supplies in their homelands. But the trigger does not seem to work well as it goes off in both friendly and enemy lands.
Sadly enough CA doesn't seem to realise how much modders can achieve with scripting and doesn't want to invest any time it.
If only commands for changing factions could get unlocked to be used in console (and not only in script files), we could get some sort of hotseat MP.
If only commands for changing factions could get unlocked to be used in console (and not only in script files), we could get some sort of hotseat MP.
Actually, if that command were enabled, you could have a PBEM multiplayer campaign with the battles fought online. It makes no sense for CA to disable the console commands which only affect the strategic campaign. Only those commands which affect tactical battles need be disabled.
screwtype
07-16-2005, 12:49
Actually, if that command were enabled, you could have a PBEM multiplayer campaign with the battles fought online. It makes no sense for CA to disable the console commands which only affect the strategic campaign. Only those commands which affect tactical battles need be disabled.
Yeah, exactly. And I can't understand why we can't have this. It seems like these days there's such an obsession with real-time online MP that every other option has been forgotten. Or is it that gaming companies don't want to give us such options because there is no money in it for them?
PBEM would be great. Hotseat MP would also be great. I and I'm sure many others would love to have these options, and it couldn't be that difficult to make them available, so why haven't they been implemented?
Yeah, exactly. And I can't understand why we can't have this. It seems like these days there's such an obsession with real-time online MP that every other option has been forgotten. Or is it that gaming companies don't want to give us such options because there is no money in it for them?
PBEM would be great. Hotseat MP would also be great. I and I'm sure many others would love to have these options, and it couldn't be that difficult to make them available, so why haven't they been implemented?
Perhaps it's more difficult then you think, or perhaps they think it's not worth the effort.
Mongoose
07-16-2005, 17:22
Yes, we are smelly ignorant peasants who just don't understand ~:rolleyes:
Yes, we are smelly ignorant peasants who just don't understand ~:rolleyes:
I am merely presenting my opinion, and I don't mean to offend anybody by any mean.
Mongoose
07-17-2005, 16:19
All i meant to say was that a Hotseat campaign would be easy to implement. :bow:
Heck, the modders are working on it as we speak! ~:eek:
Intrepid Sidekick
07-20-2005, 10:16
I hope they checkout the charge bonus to see if it's being incorporated correctly into the combat calculation and fix the Parthian shot, but their lack of understanding about the AI treating some infantry like it was cavalry, making it pull back and recharge, is disappointing, and there has been no mention about the AI maintaining the intergrety of its battleline.
Yup we have checked out the charge bonus and resolved some issues there.
Yup we have looked at the Parthian shot issue and done work on that too.
A side effect of resolving some of the charge issues is that the AI is much less likely to try and use infantry like cavalry.
King of Atlantis
07-20-2005, 10:22
Not sure if this has been asked, but willl diplomacy be improved in BI?
What about problem with higher battle difficulty levels?
From 1.2 VH battles becamse no more tough then medium ones, just faster.
I suspect that AI bonus was added yo human player too, by mistake.
Probably my second biggest grief with RTW after save/load issue (since both together make game too easy).
Mongoose
07-20-2005, 15:37
Yup we have checked out the charge bonus and resolved some issues there.
Yup we have looked at the Parthian shot issue and done work on that too.
A side effect of resolving some of the charge issues is that the AI is much less likely to try and use infantry like cavalry.
Really?! That's great!
Glad to see CA is looking at some of the issues that were dismissed at first :bow:
Makes me wonder, would the patch to be relased for original after expansion ships, deal with same problems, or is it for save/load issue alone?
Not that I would care, since I would buy expansion anyway.
Yup we have checked out the charge bonus and resolved some issues there.
Yup we have looked at the Parthian shot issue and done work on that too.
A side effect of resolving some of the charge issues is that the AI is much less likely to try and use infantry like cavalry.
Excellent news! Thanks. That's interesting about the side effect the charge issue had on the AI recharging with some infantry units. Might a re-evaluation of the oversizing of the desert cavalry unit be in order since charge now works differently?
I think Player1 is right about the hard and very hard battle difficulty settings probably being a mistake. It seems the human player is being given the same combat bonuses that the AI receives, and that can't be right. That must be an easy thing to correct.
One other thing about the impact of the load/save design; I noticed in a recent RTW campaign were I played continuously for 260 turns and never reloaded from a save that the AI not only initially captured all rebel provinces fairly quickly, but also fairly quickly retook any of it's provinces that rebelled. If you only play a few turns at a time and reload from savegames, the AI becomes overburdened with rebel provinces late in the campaign because it fails to retake many of them which hurts the economy of the AI factions and makes the campaign easier for the human player. This effect wouldn't show up in CA's tests where they let the game run continuously in an automated mode. Possibly CA has underestimated the adverse effect the load/save design has on the campaign.
Orda Khan
07-23-2005, 22:00
Sorry mate but why should i select large instead of huge? If i select huge i should play properly that game. I mean we can play on huge fileds if we select huge unit scale. Same field size with different unit scale creates bad result. I'll upload a screen to explain my point or you can see it on your experience.
Huge unit setting has always caused a jumbled mess. I can remember being unable to deploy as I wanted in MTW when I joined a 'huge' battle.
As for the enemy being deployed too close at start of battle, this too has been evident since STW. I would prefer a much larger map where maybe the enemy was not even visible but just think what we would have then. Everyone would be moaning about fatigue wouldn't they?
..........Orda
I am prepared to say that it is certainly our intention to address the load/save issue in the expansion pack. "And what about a patch?" I hear you ask. Again I can't say this is set in stone but we hope to bring out a patch at roughly the same time as the expansion pack (in reality it will probably be few weeks later).
That's the state of play at the moment. When I know more, I'll make sure that you know more.
Thank you CA, for bringing out another patch for the original game. I may not buy BI, but I appreciate any work you will put into making the original better.
Red Harvest
07-28-2005, 06:00
Yup we have checked out the charge bonus and resolved some issues there.
A side effect of resolving some of the charge issues is that the AI is much less likely to try and use infantry like cavalry.
Ah, that would be good, the charge bonus has been a bit...odd. I'm trying to remember the name of the person that first raised the major flag on that one...while his original thesis that the charge bonus didn't work was not correct, his impression of the impact was (that it did very little by itself and was essentially a non-factor.) As a result of his posts I then tested to discover that defense was much more important than anything else to the charge, and Kraxis followed up by zeroing in on the armour value of defense being the component that really mattered.
Anyway, I hope all these charge "irregularities" are well addressed.
screwtype
07-28-2005, 12:29
I'm trying to remember the name of the person that first raised the major flag on that one.
Might have been Puzz3D.
Might have been Puzz3D.
It wasn't me. I think it was a modder at TWC who posted his concern about charge when he made charge values very large in his mod and didn't see much of an effect. Creative Assembly tends to discount issues found by modders because a mod can affect the game in unpredictable ways. There was a discussion thread here at .org that I was involved in about how to test this charge issue in such a way that Creative Assembly would take note of it. I didn't do any tests myself, but players such as Red Harvest came through and made some very good tests which demonstrated that there was a problem with charge in the vanilla game.
Following the release of the v1.2 patch, I kept tabs for months on everything being posted about problems that players were finding as an extension of the beta testing. If a reported issue developed into a verified problem, I'd do what I could to make CA aware of it. Sometime after the load/save discussions, Jerome requested a bug reporting forum be set up, and that has helped a great deal because CA can quickly read up on outstanding issues that players have discovered and their investigative results.
From our point of view, we don't know which issues made CA's fix-it list, so there is a tendency to keep bringing things up over and over until we get a response from CA. If we knew, for instance, that charge bonus was on the list, the players could focus on bringing some other issue that isn't on the list to CA's attention. Jerome posted that many things reported in the bug forum have already been addressed, but he didn't say which ones. Intrepid Sidekick has mentioned specific items that have been addressed. That alleviates a lot of concern, and allows the discussion to shift to items which are still up in the air. Eventhough we don't know how an item has been addressed, my experience is that CA does a good job on any issue that makes the list.
Red Harvest
07-29-2005, 02:34
Agreed, a big problem has been the need to cover a problem incessantly because there was no acknowledgement that it was a known issue.
sunsmountain
07-30-2005, 18:30
AI modding has been possible so far using descr_formations.txt and descr_formations_ai.txt.
Is it possible to make a text file that governs when archers stop marching to start firing, or something that influences flanking? It sounds complicated, but i wonder if its at all possible for non-programmers...
Modifying the game speed has a large impact on game experience.
In siege battles, though they are refreshing & new, after a while they become frustrating because of path finding. And why can some buildings not be destroyed? Can this be changed with a simpler model?
Perhaps in the future...
well darth mod seems to have helped the AI use archers and skirmishers correctly.
Ah, that would be good, the charge bonus has been a bit...odd. I'm trying to remember the name of the person that first raised the major flag on that one...while his original thesis that the charge bonus didn't work was not correct, his impression of the impact was (that it did very little by itself and was essentially a non-factor.) As a result of his posts I then tested to discover that defense was much more important than anything else to the charge, and Kraxis followed up by zeroing in on the armour value of defense being the component that really mattered.
Anyway, I hope all these charge "irregularities" are well addressed.
Ahhh those were the days... I still can't get it into my mind that the Cats were so much better than the Cappas. I actually did more tests than I needed to because I simply didn't like the results. I wanted to have the 'correct' results.
But I must admit that the simple fact that this seems to be addressed has me poised to buy the expansion. It is interesting to think that I, one of the most ardent defenders of CA was on the verge of not buying it. :dizzy2:
It is also interesting that we get this info in a sort of "btw we have fixed this and that..." like it was nothing important. If only we got the news about the fixes then perhaps we would be more positive (thinking about the Intrepid/sik debate).
SpencerH
08-19-2005, 02:17
Q: Any plans to deepen the strategy map side of things in the Total War series - making it more like the Civilization series? An official collaboration with Sid Meier-san. called Civilization: Total War would be nice, but failing that a cheeky rip-off would not be amiss. I appreciate this would not be universally popular with the existing clientele, but it would create the mother of all strategy games, surely?
A: Sounds like a dream game for some people! Civilization is a great game, but it’s not really got a huge overlap with Total War when you analyze all the gameplay elements in each title. Currently there are no plans for an official collaboration with Mr Meier.
I saw this and just had to comment. CA may not go toward civ, but its not an impossibility that SM may take civ toward TW (something some of us have been begging for on the CIV fansites for many years). Lets not forget that SM's Gettysburg and Antietam were great tactical combat games long before TW existed. It wouldnt take that much for Firaxis to make it a reality.
screwtype
08-19-2005, 10:56
I saw this and just had to comment. CA may not go toward civ, but its not an impossibility that SM may take civ toward TW (something some of us have been begging for on the CIV fansites for many years). Lets not forget that SM's Gettysburg and Antietam were great tactical combat games long before TW existed. It wouldnt take that much for Firaxis to make it a reality.
Thanks SpencerH, but I don't think I can take credit for this suggestion. I think it was made by somebody else ~:)
Intrepid,
I hope your still reading this thread. Thats great news on the cavalry bug, as for some other things most can be fixed in ours mods.
I would like to know if in BI will our legions have names or can we name them? In the Strat files provinces have legion names mentioned. I am just curious on this one as I have been hoping that we would be allowed to name our legions or have them named.
Also a ingame kill sheet would be nice, Right now I use a spreadsheet for SPQR, but a game like this it would be nice.
Also I am sad that Sea battles havent been adressed, I understand its a lot of work and the statement that the new time period doesnt have major sea battles is true, but I feel that the game was not finished in this area, and personally I would have fixed this if I built the game, its a shame to see it left in the state it is now, because it is truly a work of art. But right now RTW is more a gem in the rough.
PLEASE ALLOW us more to mod and change dont limit us, as all the new units and animation mean nothing since we can do this already ourselves, but without more files that can be edited and features, we have our hands tied. Maybe someone from your team could help on helping US ADD SEAS BATTLES back into the game, atleast unlock or reactivate the ability to do so. Punic wars without Sea battles is something to say the least. lol
Lt1956
Creator of SPQR mod.
P.S. I am glad the Infantry acting like cavalry was fixed, I was the one that noticed that bug, it mainly happened with Captain and General units, since captains can be in infantry units, they would attack retreat, attack exactly in the same pattern and tactic as the cavalry when you watch it.
Also the flanking feature needs to be tweaked, because the AI splits its army for you and you can pierce the center with ease. One of the first rules of tactical warfare, break the center. ;-)
A new FAQ and this will please some people
Q. So what's happening about the patch for the load/save AI issue.
A. As I said before this will be addressed in BI and we hope to release a patch shortly after the release of the expansion. I am delighted to say that this is definitely the case and the elves that work in our test department are currently busy making shoes... no that's not it, I mean they are currently testing the patch. The patch will also provide cross version compatibility for online play. So if you don't want to buy BI you don't have to, however you should because it rocks!
SigniferOne
08-24-2005, 22:35
Intrepid Sidekick, let me expand a little abit on this whole "infantry as cavalry" issue. It is not as if the AI uses the infantry for cavalry roles sometimes, and that's not at all what people like me and lt1956 have been mentioning this whole time. This "infantry as cavalry" effect is NOT AI dependent, as it happens for the player as much as for the AI, and in fact that is the easiest way to spot that bug happening -- when your soldiers start running around non-stop, trying to run through the enemy, after they run through to turn around and run again. This is very frustrating because you cannot stop the soldiers from doing this, and because they should not be doing it in the first place! You can try to use 'stop' to get the soldiers to compose themselves again, and to assemble themselves into some proper order again, but even stop does not work immediately, and you have to press Stop multiple times, sometimes for up to 10-15 seconds, until finally all of the soldiers in the unit stop moving around -- some in front of the enemy unit, some behind it, and some in the middle of it ready to be outflanked and instantly slaughtered.
So it's not an AI issue AT ALL, but a bug with SKELETONS, because this erratic 'cavalry' behavior appears arbitrarily in the middle of some fight, even if the unit has been behaving properly for all of the time before that. Nor does that behavior remain permanently, but after you tell the soldiers 20 times to Stop the insanity of running around like cavalry, they do get into proper infantry order and start fighting properly, and do that behavior does not reappear for them for the remainder of the fight.
This is a serious bug, and as far as we can tell it only happens to fs_swordsman (which is why lt1956 had this project to try to convert fs_spearman into a pseudo-fs_swordsman skeleton, so that you could have sword units without the bug of that skeleton). Please let us know how it goes in addressing this bug, and I really really hope it does not creep into BI, but is fixed right away.... it may have been inadvertingly fixed by BI anyway, so please test with vanilla 1.2 RTW to confirm the bug. By the way, I don't know how to cause this bug, or how to replicate it. I am pretty sure though that it exhibits itself with fs_swordsman, so if you have enough fights solely with units of that skeleton, the bug should inevitably appear.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.