View Full Version : 24 reasons why I won't buy the next Total War release...
Unless it gets great reviews six months after its release...
24 Characteristics of RTW that will cause me to not buy their next game:
1) Lack of multiplayer campaign mode. Whether or not this new game has multiplayer campaign mode, I can't help but think it will have major problems, if it even exists.
2) Lack of a remedially competent AI.
3) To compensate for (2), rampant "cheating" by the AI is used. That's not a compensation. That's an excuse.
4) Egypt. Do I need to explain this?
5) Growth rate and rebellion rate of Alexandria, Memphis. When I take over a city that has 6000 people, and has a 4% growth rate, ten years later will have 9000 or so people. Those little ten year olds are quite rebellious, aren't they? (Yes, I know, some are immigrants)
6) The fact that it takes over a year to cross Italy. Hannibal marched from (what was it?) Sagunto to Rome in 14 months? Without roads? Let's try a bit of realism. While I understand that 4 turns per year would cause some problems, such as 4 turn recruiting times etc....Something's intrinsically wrong with 2 turns per year, no matter how you cut the cake.
6a) The fact that even on the fastest ship, it takes over two years to sail from Syria to Spain. It's roughly 1200 miles, and I find it hard to believe that these ships travel less than ONE MILE PER HOUR.
7) Utterly INCOMPETENT movement resolution on the campaign map. I see the path that my armies will take. I see that it will take multiple turns to get there. No, there's no need to dead end on a neutral city, and stop your moves, especially since your path didn't show that route.
7a) Yes, Ambassador Moron, I know your path is blocked by ONE tiny unit, go around him...and continue on your assigned path, I know it's difficult, but you can do it. You're a winner. Do you have ZERO capacity to calculate conflict resolution? Given what else I see in this list, I have to conclude that you do not have ANY capacity to resolve conflicts.
8) Utterly incompetent unit movement calculations on combat map. Grouped identical units sometimes move exactly the opposite of the commands issued to them. Yes, I know I can use PAUSE and assign commands individually... Isn't the whole concept of COMPUTER games vs TABLE TOP games to get RID of these stupid levels of micromanagement and laborious resolutions of mechanics?
9) Hard coding some variables, while not hard coding others: Not being mod friendly.
10) Fighting uphill on the combat map means I have to LOWER my camera to look up the hill. This and the ridiculous "OK click on another unit so you can move the camera farther the other direction" Sure I can cheat and unlock the camera...should I HAVE to do this? Should it be this hard to look UPHILL?
11) Eye candy doesn't replace intriguing game play. Haven't we all learned this by now? ***IMPORTANT*** You guys have made a good start, though.
12) Bowmen that can outrun horses on combat map.
13) The fact that in combat, the enemy general can sense when you're charging HIM, instead of the archers next to him, and subsequently flees.
13a) The fact that 13a is so easily circumvented. See also (2) and (3).
14) Forcing me to replay the tutorial every time I reinstall, and NOT allowing me to shut that Romulan Bird-of-Prey commander up.
15) Neutral units cockblocking movement (Example: Blocking movement out of ports such as Tarentum and Appolonia) by simply parking themselves near my port. The fact that there's no way to tell them to MOVE out of the way, nor to warn them of infringing on our territory (while the computer does have that luxury).
16) Poor Trader, Bad Farmer...Right after you build your new Governors Residence, if you build a trade building, you have a chance of becoming a bad farmer. If you build a farm, you have a chance of becoming a bad trader. Give me a break, even if we RACE to keep up with these criteria, we still run the risk of failing them. Come up with a better solution, even if it means "10 turns after Governor's Palace built and still no farm," It's not like it's that hefty of a calculation.
17) The fact that even a city with 1000+ troops and 2 spies guarding it will still rebel/revolt. Yes, I know that there are other factors. See also (4).
18) Losing 7 spies in a row trying to spy on an enemy assassin with level 2 skill. What the HELL type of calculations are you doing?
19) The fact that as I start defending against a siege, sometimes my troops will not even be facing the same direction as my opponents. Perhaps a trivial or anal point, but a point nonetheless. Does the computer make such stupid decisions in its defense?
20) Pathing. I see no need to walk straight out 25 paces before entering a fort or city's walls. I see that it is further counterproductive when there are enemy spear troops in that area, and you blindly impale yourselves on it. Go around. Oh, I wish I could.
21) When I highlight ALL the troops, and tell them to charge, that doesn't mean keep half of my horsemen back without charging. Is this difficult?
22) If my units survive (barely) a combat, I expect to see them on the campaign map. Why do they disappear?
23) I don't care how courageous my enemy is, when I have 7 units of bowmen, and a unit of mercenaries, against one general unit (two stars) of 20 men, Autoresolve should NOT make me lose my defense, especially when I am inside a city's walls.
24) My soldiers can't walk up to an enemy diplomat sitting at my capital and slaughter him. A spy, I can understand, a diplomat? Said diplomat can further sit and try to bribe outside my capital city, and we tolerate this.
The Mad Scandinavian
06-16-2005, 17:14
Sounds like a rant and rave. I'll drink to that. I'm not going to buy BI unless it's good.
7a) Yes, Ambassador Moron, I know your path is blocked by ONE tiny unit, go around him...and continue on your assigned path, I know it's difficult, but you can do it.
:happy2:
Thanks for a good laugh.
Mongoose
06-16-2005, 17:19
Well...mostly very reasonable...but you can skip the tutorial by going to prefernces.txt and changing FIRST TIME PLAY:TRUE to FIRST TIME PLAY:FALSE
Alot of people say that MTW had the same problems though...
Mikeus Caesar
06-16-2005, 19:19
Ack, as much as i hate to, i agree that some of those things are incredibly annoying...and i quote:
7a) Yes, Ambassador Moron, I know your path is blocked by ONE tiny unit, go around him...and continue on your assigned path, I know it's difficult, but you can do it. You're a winner. Do you have ZERO capacity to calculate conflict resolution? Given what else I see in this list, I have to conclude that you do not have ANY capacity to resolve conflicts.
Dear god, that is one of the stupidest things i have encountered yet. Fortunately, that problem seems to dissapear if you remove Fog of War.
4) Egypt. Do I need to explain this?
So technologically advanced, they've invented Aluminium and Cloaking Technology!! Amazing!
6a) The fact that even on the fastest ship, it takes over two years to sail from Syria to Spain. It's roughly 1200 miles, and I find it hard to believe that these ships travel less than ONE MILE PER HOUR.
Please, do not remind us of the amazingly show ship speeds. It is in no way realistic. Wouldn't it have taken about 6 weeks at the most to travel by sea that far? Unless of course back then there was barely any wind in the Med...nor any storms either...
15) Neutral units cockblocking movement (Example: Blocking movement out of ports such as Tarentum and Appolonia) by simply parking themselves near my port. The fact that there's no way to tell them to MOVE out of the way, nor to warn them of infringing on our territory (while the computer does have that luxury).
Aaaah! That is so f*cking annoying, pardon my language. I once had a grand greek navy, with a grand army on board, ready to finish off the Roman scum. Only problem was...those bastard Armenian allies of mine had surrounded the port. I had to wait ten frickin years for them to all bugger off and clog up the Black Sea, and by that time the Romans had regained some power, so my Grand Army got a good thrashing after about 5 battles.
19) The fact that as I start defending against a siege, sometimes my troops will not even be facing the same direction as my opponents. Perhaps a trivial or anal point, but a point nonetheless. Does the computer make such stupid decisions in its defense?
That is incredibly dumb. I have gone into many a battle setup, got my men all sorted nicely on the walls and in front of the gates, only to realise the enemy are on the other side of my city, forcing me to spend another ten minutes arranging my men.
Good rant mate!
BrutalDictatorship
06-16-2005, 20:36
this needs to be posted up on totalwar.com's forums...lol
seriously...
~;)
clayton ballentine
06-16-2005, 20:48
Unless it gets great reviews six months after its release...
24 Characteristics of RTW that will cause me to not buy their next game:
1) Lack of multiplayer campaign mode. Whether or not this new game has multiplayer campaign mode, I can't help but think it will have major problems, if it even exists.
2) Lack of a remedially competent AI.
3) To compensate for (2), rampant "cheating" by the AI is used. That's not a compensation. That's an excuse.
4) Egypt. Do I need to explain this?
5) Growth rate and rebellion rate of Alexandria, Memphis. When I take over a city that has 6000 people, and has a 4% growth rate, ten years later will have 9000 or so people. Those little ten year olds are quite rebellious, aren't they? (Yes, I know, some are immigrants)
6) The fact that it takes over a year to cross Italy. Hannibal marched from (what was it?) Sagunto to Rome in 14 months? Without roads? Let's try a bit of realism. While I understand that 4 turns per year would cause some problems, such as 4 turn recruiting times etc....Something's intrinsically wrong with 2 turns per year, no matter how you cut the cake.
6a) The fact that even on the fastest ship, it takes over two years to sail from Syria to Spain. It's roughly 1200 miles, and I find it hard to believe that these ships travel less than ONE MILE PER HOUR.
7) Utterly INCOMPETENT movement resolution on the campaign map. I see the path that my armies will take. I see that it will take multiple turns to get there. No, there's no need to dead end on a neutral city, and stop your moves, especially since your path didn't show that route.
7a) Yes, Ambassador Moron, I know your path is blocked by ONE tiny unit, go around him...and continue on your assigned path, I know it's difficult, but you can do it. You're a winner. Do you have ZERO capacity to calculate conflict resolution? Given what else I see in this list, I have to conclude that you do not have ANY capacity to resolve conflicts.
8) Utterly incompetent unit movement calculations on combat map. Grouped identical units sometimes move exactly the opposite of the commands issued to them. Yes, I know I can use PAUSE and assign commands individually... Isn't the whole concept of COMPUTER games vs TABLE TOP games to get RID of these stupid levels of micromanagement and laborious resolutions of mechanics?
9) Hard coding some variables, while not hard coding others: Not being mod friendly.
10) Fighting uphill on the combat map means I have to LOWER my camera to look up the hill. This and the ridiculous "OK click on another unit so you can move the camera farther the other direction" Sure I can cheat and unlock the camera...should I HAVE to do this? Should it be this hard to look UPHILL?
11) Eye candy doesn't replace intriguing game play. Haven't we all learned this by now? ***IMPORTANT*** You guys have made a good start, though.
12) Bowmen that can outrun horses on combat map.
13) The fact that in combat, the enemy general can sense when you're charging HIM, instead of the archers next to him, and subsequently flees.
13a) The fact that 13a is so easily circumvented. See also (2) and (3).
14) Forcing me to replay the tutorial every time I reinstall, and NOT allowing me to shut that Romulan Bird-of-Prey commander up.
15) Neutral units cockblocking movement (Example: Blocking movement out of ports such as Tarentum and Appolonia) by simply parking themselves near my port. The fact that there's no way to tell them to MOVE out of the way, nor to warn them of infringing on our territory (while the computer does have that luxury).
16) Poor Trader, Bad Farmer...Right after you build your new Governors Residence, if you build a trade building, you have a chance of becoming a bad farmer. If you build a farm, you have a chance of becoming a bad trader. Give me a break, even if we RACE to keep up with these criteria, we still run the risk of failing them. Come up with a better solution, even if it means "10 turns after Governor's Palace built and still no farm," It's not like it's that hefty of a calculation.
17) The fact that even a city with 1000+ troops and 2 spies guarding it will still rebel/revolt. Yes, I know that there are other factors. See also (4).
18) Losing 7 spies in a row trying to spy on an enemy assassin with level 2 skill. What the HELL type of calculations are you doing?
19) The fact that as I start defending against a siege, sometimes my troops will not even be facing the same direction as my opponents. Perhaps a trivial or anal point, but a point nonetheless. Does the computer make such stupid decisions in its defense?
20) Pathing. I see no need to walk straight out 25 paces before entering a fort or city's walls. I see that it is further counterproductive when there are enemy spear troops in that area, and you blindly impale yourselves on it. Go around. Oh, I wish I could.
21) When I highlight ALL the troops, and tell them to charge, that doesn't mean keep half of my horsemen back without charging. Is this difficult?
22) If my units survive (barely) a combat, I expect to see them on the campaign map. Why do they disappear?
23) I don't care how courageous my enemy is, when I have 7 units of bowmen, and a unit of mercenaries, against one general unit (two stars) of 20 men, Autoresolve should NOT make me lose my defense, especially when I am inside a city's walls.
24) My soldiers can't walk up to an enemy diplomat sitting at my capital and slaughter him. A spy, I can understand, a diplomat? Said diplomat can further sit and try to bribe outside my capital city, and we tolerate this.
~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: but i will buy it ~:)
Midnight
06-16-2005, 21:33
Haha! A brilliant write-up, sir.
Barbarian Invasion's going to have to do a *huge* amount more than just provide a new campaign and a few new features...
Mongoose
06-16-2005, 22:06
The sad thing is that not even a fanboy will try to argue with the list... :stwshame:
25) http://www.rtw.blitzfront.com/units/roman_peasant_info.jpg WITHhttp://www.housemarik.net/forums/Themes/marik/images/ranks/Sergeant.png
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-16-2005, 23:41
Some comments:
1) Lack of multiplayer campaign mode. Whether or not this new game has multiplayer campaign mode, I can't help but think it will have major problems, if it even exists.
You can't blame CA for not having a feature that would essentially be a completely new game. This would be incredibly difficult to implement in even a mediocre way. And if they tried, they would be mocked for it failing to be great.
5) Growth rate and rebellion rate of Alexandria, Memphis. When I take over a city that has 6000 people, and has a 4% growth rate, ten years later will have 9000 or so people. Those little ten year olds are quite rebellious, aren't they? (Yes, I know, some are immigrants)
There is a lot of abstraction on the strategic map. As you noted, the growth rate includes immigration. This is a bit of a nitpick on your part, especially if you mean that an increase in population should not mean an increase in unrest. As the population increases, the city becomes more crowded, and there are more poor people. This makes people unhappy. But the revolt risk may be exaggerated, at least in some cities.
9) Hard coding some variables, while not hard coding others: Not being mod friendly.
To be fair, CA doesn't have to help modders, but I do agree with you.
10) Fighting uphill on the combat map means I have to LOWER my camera to look up the hill. This and the ridiculous "OK click on another unit so you can move the camera farther the other direction" Sure I can cheat and unlock the camera...should I HAVE to do this? Should it be this hard to look UPHILL?
Not sure what you are talking about here...
13) The fact that in combat, the enemy general can sense when you're charging HIM, instead of the archers next to him, and subsequently flees.
I dunno. I don't think I've seen that, but it sounds like a case of good AI.
13a) The fact that 13a is so easily circumvented. See also (2) and (3).
I assume you meant that point 13 could be easily circumvented, and not 13a, which would be a recursive statement.
16) Poor Trader, Bad Farmer...Right after you build your new Governors Residence, if you build a trade building, you have a chance of becoming a bad farmer. If you build a farm, you have a chance of becoming a bad trader. Give me a break, even if we RACE to keep up with these criteria, we still run the risk of failing them. Come up with a better solution, even if it means "10 turns after Governor's Palace built and still no farm," It's not like it's that hefty of a calculation.
Talk to a modder about this one. It's a V&V, and we can mod those (I believe).
18) Losing 7 spies in a row trying to spy on an enemy assassin with level 2 skill. What the HELL type of calculations are you doing?
What is the spies' valor? If they're n00b spies, then a two-star assasin may get them. And probability makes the scenario unlikely but not impossible.
19) The fact that as I start defending against a siege, sometimes my troops will not even be facing the same direction as my opponents. Perhaps a trivial or anal point, but a point nonetheless. Does the computer make such stupid decisions in its defense?
The answer is yes.
22) If my units survive (barely) a combat, I expect to see them on the campaign map. Why do they disappear?
~:confused:
24) My soldiers can't walk up to an enemy diplomat sitting at my capital and slaughter him. A spy, I can understand, a diplomat? Said diplomat can further sit and try to bribe outside my capital city, and we tolerate this.
I agree that armies, at least those commanded by generals, should have more functionality.
25)
Just find a mod (like EB) that does not or will not have peasants. They are an all-around stupid unit.
---------------------
If I didn't comment, I agreed with you. ~:cheers:
bodidley
06-16-2005, 23:47
You can't blame CA for not having a feature that would essentially be a completely new game. This would be incredibly difficult to implement in even a mediocre way. And if they tried, they would be mocked for it failing to be great.
I keep on hearing that MP campaign is nearly impossible, but that's simply not true. Conquest of the New World, for example, had a great MP campaign engine ~:cool:
Alexander, I'll touch on a few of your comments:
You can't blame CA for not having a feature that would essentially be a completely new game. This would be incredibly difficult to implement in even a mediocre way. And if they tried, they would be mocked for it failing to be great.
How would this be "incredibly difficult?" Civilization et al did it TEN YEARS AGO
To be fair, CA doesn't have to help modders, but I do agree with you.No, they don't, but then, we don't have to buy their game. They should cater to their audience, which you agree with.
I dunno. I don't think I've seen that, but it sounds like a case of good AI.
That's a case of an OMNISCIENT AI.
Just find a mod (like EB) that does not or will not have peasants. They are an all-around stupid unitAh, but my gripe is not with the existence of peasants, but with the existence of peasants that have more combat experience than nearly every Urban Cohort that I've slain.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-16-2005, 23:53
I don't know about that game, but the complexity of RTW is such that the lag alone would doom a MP campaign game. Plus, you would have to wait about an hour for every battle, keeping in mind that there are more than one battle per turn per player.
At the very least, it would be a nightmare to make. Probably worse to play it. :help:
I keep on hearing that MP campaign is nearly impossible, but that's simply not true. Conquest of the New World, for example, had a great MP campaign engine ~:cool:
I absolutely LOVED that game. If you ever get a MP running by Internet, PLEASE let me know, I'd LOVE to play.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-16-2005, 23:58
That's a case of an OMNISCIENT AI.
To piddle and twiddle a bit, I would argue that if there are a bunch of large, angry men running at my general direction, and me being the commander of my army, I might run away. I haven't seen this actually happen (the enemy generals are too busy charging my spearmen) but it might be omniscient AI.
Ah, but my gripe is not with the existence of peasants, but with the existence of peasants that have more combat experience than nearly every Urban Cohort that I've slain.
Is the problem that there are experianced peasants or that soldiers that experianced are still peasants? Because that sentance it too vague, let me explain. I think you are having problems with the existance of soldiers that are highly experianced but still peasants. I agree. It would be nice if there was a way to upgrade experianced units to better ones. But would inexperianced urban cohorts win against those peasants? I don't know, but I suspect so.
To piddle and twiddle a bit, I would argue that if there are a bunch of large, angry men running at my general direction, and me being the commander of my army, I might run away. I haven't seen this actually happen (the enemy generals are too busy charging my spearmen) but it might be omniscient AI.
I can target the bowmen BEHIND the General, issue charge orders, and he won't flee.
If I target the General, and issue charge orders, my troops won't change direction, but that General will high-tail it and flee. In both instances they are running in his direction.
Is the problem that there are experianced peasants or that soldiers that experianced are still peasants? Because that sentance it too vague, let me explain. I think you are having problems with the existance of soldiers that are highly experianced but still peasants. I agree. It would be nice if there was a way to upgrade experianced units to better ones. But would inexperianced urban cohorts win against those peasants? I don't know, but I suspect so.
Yes, that's what I meant, those 9 xp peasants that spring into existence from the ether.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-17-2005, 00:03
I can target the bowmen BEHIND the General, issue charge orders, and he won't flee.
If I target the General, and issue charge orders, my troops won't change direction, but that General will high-tail it and flee. In both instances they are running in his direction.
Now I understand. And agree with you.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-17-2005, 01:38
The sad thing is that not even a fanboy will try to argue with the list... :stwshame:
Funny, and accurate.
Productivity
06-17-2005, 01:51
I don't know about that game, but the complexity of RTW is such that the lag alone would doom a MP campaign game. Plus, you would have to wait about an hour for every battle, keeping in mind that there are more than one battle per turn per player.
At the very least, it would be a nightmare to make. Probably worse to play it. :help:
I remember people saying this about the Heroese of Might and Magic series. I stilled played it multiplayer reguarly (teh battle time that is).
And lag, well say you need a LAN connection.
Azi Tohak
06-17-2005, 01:52
Mind, I change the @#$*@#& movement allowance by a huge amount for my RTR games, but why the heck do I have to? (To 250 from 80 if you want to know, and no bugs.) You are right about the slow speed. It never has made any sense. But what I like is that the computer seems to be able to use my changed movement speed too! I attack Damascus with Armenia, and the Ptolemtaics move an army from Susa to help. I like that! (To be sure, I still butcher them...but the point is the computer uses the speed.)
Azi
The Stranger
06-17-2005, 15:16
13) The fact that in combat, the enemy general can sense when you're charging HIM, instead of the archers next to him, and subsequently flees.
ah that's good, the general need to stay alive and gets the hell out of the frontline when the battles start (oke only when his name is alexander he stays, charges and get killed) the archers stay to hold the lines.
as for point 22
that's so annoying, then you've to train a whole new unit, that's not so bad, but it is when the dissapered unit had 9 chevrons
Good post Zakor, I have one comment and one question:
6a) ship movement speeds: can't these be modded just like for the land units?
7a) 'Yes Ambassador Moron, ...'. That was freakin' hilarious!! Must have read it over ten times but it keeps making me laugh.
Orda Khan
06-17-2005, 16:38
All these " I won't buy " threads are tiresome and boring. If you don't like the game, don't buy it
.......Orda
All these " I won't buy " threads are tiresome and boring. If you don't like the game, don't buy it
.......Orda
Ah, but what if you have already bought it eh?
Orda Khan
06-17-2005, 17:07
Barbarian Invasion has not been released yet, so I doubt anyone has bought it.
I have read so many threads of this sort ( since STW ) Plenty of people were not buying MTW either, or VI, or RTW. The strange thing is, these very people were the ones discussing the game on its release date
.......Orda
Mongoose
06-17-2005, 17:26
"I have read so many threads of this sort ( since STW )..."
I guess thats why you them so much...maybe i would too if it was the 1009 "i won't buy it" thread that i was reading:dizzy2:
Rodion Romanovich
06-17-2005, 17:37
Unless it gets great reviews six months after its release...
24 Characteristics of RTW that will cause me to not buy their next game:
1) Lack of multiplayer campaign mode. Whether or not this new game has multiplayer campaign mode, I can't help but think it will have major problems, if it even exists.
2) Lack of a remedially competent AI.
3) To compensate for (2), rampant "cheating" by the AI is used. That's not a compensation. That's an excuse.
4) Egypt. Do I need to explain this?
5) Growth rate and rebellion rate of Alexandria, Memphis. When I take over a city that has 6000 people, and has a 4% growth rate, ten years later will have 9000 or so people. Those little ten year olds are quite rebellious, aren't they? (Yes, I know, some are immigrants)
6) The fact that it takes over a year to cross Italy. Hannibal marched from (what was it?) Sagunto to Rome in 14 months? Without roads? Let's try a bit of realism. While I understand that 4 turns per year would cause some problems, such as 4 turn recruiting times etc....Something's intrinsically wrong with 2 turns per year, no matter how you cut the cake.
6a) The fact that even on the fastest ship, it takes over two years to sail from Syria to Spain. It's roughly 1200 miles, and I find it hard to believe that these ships travel less than ONE MILE PER HOUR.
7) Utterly INCOMPETENT movement resolution on the campaign map. I see the path that my armies will take. I see that it will take multiple turns to get there. No, there's no need to dead end on a neutral city, and stop your moves, especially since your path didn't show that route.
7a) Yes, Ambassador Moron, I know your path is blocked by ONE tiny unit, go around him...and continue on your assigned path, I know it's difficult, but you can do it. You're a winner. Do you have ZERO capacity to calculate conflict resolution? Given what else I see in this list, I have to conclude that you do not have ANY capacity to resolve conflicts.
8) Utterly incompetent unit movement calculations on combat map. Grouped identical units sometimes move exactly the opposite of the commands issued to them. Yes, I know I can use PAUSE and assign commands individually... Isn't the whole concept of COMPUTER games vs TABLE TOP games to get RID of these stupid levels of micromanagement and laborious resolutions of mechanics?
9) Hard coding some variables, while not hard coding others: Not being mod friendly.
10) Fighting uphill on the combat map means I have to LOWER my camera to look up the hill. This and the ridiculous "OK click on another unit so you can move the camera farther the other direction" Sure I can cheat and unlock the camera...should I HAVE to do this? Should it be this hard to look UPHILL?
11) Eye candy doesn't replace intriguing game play. Haven't we all learned this by now? ***IMPORTANT*** You guys have made a good start, though.
12) Bowmen that can outrun horses on combat map.
13) The fact that in combat, the enemy general can sense when you're charging HIM, instead of the archers next to him, and subsequently flees.
13a) The fact that 13a is so easily circumvented. See also (2) and (3).
14) Forcing me to replay the tutorial every time I reinstall, and NOT allowing me to shut that Romulan Bird-of-Prey commander up.
15) Neutral units cockblocking movement (Example: Blocking movement out of ports such as Tarentum and Appolonia) by simply parking themselves near my port. The fact that there's no way to tell them to MOVE out of the way, nor to warn them of infringing on our territory (while the computer does have that luxury).
16) Poor Trader, Bad Farmer...Right after you build your new Governors Residence, if you build a trade building, you have a chance of becoming a bad farmer. If you build a farm, you have a chance of becoming a bad trader. Give me a break, even if we RACE to keep up with these criteria, we still run the risk of failing them. Come up with a better solution, even if it means "10 turns after Governor's Palace built and still no farm," It's not like it's that hefty of a calculation.
17) The fact that even a city with 1000+ troops and 2 spies guarding it will still rebel/revolt. Yes, I know that there are other factors. See also (4).
18) Losing 7 spies in a row trying to spy on an enemy assassin with level 2 skill. What the HELL type of calculations are you doing?
19) The fact that as I start defending against a siege, sometimes my troops will not even be facing the same direction as my opponents. Perhaps a trivial or anal point, but a point nonetheless. Does the computer make such stupid decisions in its defense?
20) Pathing. I see no need to walk straight out 25 paces before entering a fort or city's walls. I see that it is further counterproductive when there are enemy spear troops in that area, and you blindly impale yourselves on it. Go around. Oh, I wish I could.
21) When I highlight ALL the troops, and tell them to charge, that doesn't mean keep half of my horsemen back without charging. Is this difficult?
22) If my units survive (barely) a combat, I expect to see them on the campaign map. Why do they disappear?
23) I don't care how courageous my enemy is, when I have 7 units of bowmen, and a unit of mercenaries, against one general unit (two stars) of 20 men, Autoresolve should NOT make me lose my defense, especially when I am inside a city's walls.
24) My soldiers can't walk up to an enemy diplomat sitting at my capital and slaughter him. A spy, I can understand, a diplomat? Said diplomat can further sit and try to bribe outside my capital city, and we tolerate this.
I agree with most of your criticism but there are some things I don't think is completelty justifiable to require, like 1) for example. It's a real load of work to do. 21) is extremely annoying. I've found a way to circumvent the group orders bug, by ungrouping the grouped units, then give an order, then group them again. Then they will all attack the same unit if I order them to attack the same unit, instead of attacking different units and/or moving instead of attacking and/or leaving most men behind not doing anything at all. By 22) I assume you mean the disappearing small armies? Well, they are partly justified because small 30 man large armies retreating and getting retrained to 500 men is unrealistical and boring. Given how the rest of the campaign map system works, it's a good abstraction. About 18) I don't agree, but I totally agree about no. 24).
I understand why you're irrated at this. I maybe a cheater, but even I can tell bad AI and bad gameplay when I see it. I, too, won't be buying BI unless it has some seriously redeeming features in it that would warrent me shelling out cash.
To top it all, I should add a few things that annoyed me about the game.
1: The 'arab' voice. While I am a Middle Easterner myself, I can testify that having all Eastern/Carthagian factions have the same annoying voice is plain ridicules. I've seen many Egyptians who would have a voice remotely like that... but never Iraqis, Iranians (check out the Seleucid and Parthian factions for that) and definately not the Armenian or Pontus factions at all. But they all have the same irritating voice that is the PRIMARY reason why I rarely play them!
2: Towers and gatehouses having their own, perminant archers is very annoying. There should be people who are at least deduced from your total troops to man all those towers during combat, and vice versa for your enemies.
3: Your spies can open the gate for you, but for some reason can't keep the enemy from pouring boiling oil over your troops when you try to pass through... anything more needed?
4: You can have your own spies, diplomats, faction members, and other assassins murdered by your assassins... any explaination needed for this madness?
That's pretty much all from me, and I do agree with many of your points.. especially those about the lack of movement points and the fact that you can't attack a diplomat just like that.
4: You can have your own spies, diplomats, faction members, and other assassins murdered by your assassins... any explaination needed for this madness?
Maybe you cant afford your agents and need to get rid of them. Perhaps one of your generals is mad or has a really bad vice and you dont want to send him on a suicide mission.
The primary reason though is for training your own assassins and make them über-assassins ~;)
Old Celt
06-17-2005, 19:57
It's pretty funny now there is much more dissent here than you'll find at the other sites. The very real possibility of irate customers banding together and boycotting the expansion pack seemed to draw all the fire to TWC. I'm not one to give up easily, but it is pretty obvious that our complaints and analysis are for nothing. CA doesn't care about us few real strategy gamers when they can make literally millions off of pre teen players with a FPS mentality. I won't buy the expansion. I think anyone who does is a closet masochist. CA has proven that you can treat your customers like dirt, and the herd mentality will just keep them running back for more. I wish I lived in England or Australia, I'd stop by in person and have a chat.
I wish I lived in England or Australia, I'd stop by in person and have a chat.
Man, I love Australia. ~D
They should make RTW:Aussie invasion and 100 australian surfers would appear somewhere on the map and teach everybody the culture of not to worry and be laid back and go surfing and all the wars would end and they would all live in an utopian society.
Mikeus Caesar
06-17-2005, 20:39
when they can make literally millions off of pre teen players with a FPS mentality
w00t, now that someone has mentioned this particular piece of the gaming market, i have an excuse to start bitching!! Thos particular section of gaming, which makes up the large majority, is what is sending games more and more downhill. Games are less oriented to being a fun, entertaining and slightly puzzling experience, to being horrible, kill-fest pieces of crap, full of eye-candy, and made as quick as possible to make more money. Heck, most of these idiots who want games like this, they play them for 15 hours a day for two weeks claiming that the game is 'da f*ckin' bomb!!1111!!!', before getting bored of their new toy, throwing it out the cot and moving onto the next piece of dull crap, because it has slightly better graphics and comes with one of those novelty bird things that keep bending over and sipping water out of a cup.
Those are the people who are ruining the games industry, and those are the people who will one day make Strategy Games and all games that require thinking extinct.
w00t, now that someone has mentioned this particular piece of the gaming market, i have an excuse to start bitching!! Thos particular section of gaming, which makes up the large majority, is what is sending games more and more downhill. Games are less oriented to being a fun, entertaining and slightly puzzling experience, to being horrible, kill-fest pieces of crap, full of eye-candy, and made as quick as possible to make more money. Heck, most of these idiots who want games like this, they play them for 15 hours a day for two weeks claiming that the game is 'da f*ckin' bomb!!1111!!!', before getting bored of their new toy, throwing it out the cot and moving onto the next piece of dull crap, because it has slightly better graphics and comes with one of those novelty bird things that keep bending over and sipping water out of a cup.
Those are the people who are ruining the games industry, and those are the people who will one day make Strategy Games and all games that require thinking extinct.
Hilarious post Mikeus. The world belongs to the young, don't you know... time for our 6'0 clock soup and pills... ~;)
Old Celt, I have been reading the thread at TWC as well and I agree that most old timers are starting to or have already given up. I am glad you are still carrying on the torch. Unfortunately, I am in UK, and I don't think going over to CA headquarters for a chat would change anything, unless I have a big cheque book. In that case, i would go to Sega, buy CA shares (50%+), take over CA management... and fire everyone... asset strip the company, selling the TW brand to nintendo, just to make sure the next one will me a Mario: TW...
Just kidding ofcourse... If I had that much money (and owned CA), I wouldn't care about all you loosers (like all the current publishers ~;) ).
~D
CA doesn't care about us few real strategy gamers when they can make literally millions off of pre teen players with a FPS mentality.
Cheers to capitalism!!!!! ~:cheers:
IceTorque
06-18-2005, 05:50
They say the gaming industry is bigger than hollywood.
How big would hollywood be if they only made Disney films.
Yet this is exactly what the majority of game developers are doing.
Back in 1998 i was spending at least $200 per month on software.
Now i don't spend that much in a year.
But i am only "1 in 5000 gamers", I think not.
screwtype
06-18-2005, 05:55
1) Lack of multiplayer campaign mode. Whether or not this new game has multiplayer campaign mode, I can't help but think it will have major problems, if it even exists.
Yes, I fail to understand why they won't do an MP campaign. Not that I'm personally interested in such, but it's clear a lot of people are.
It really isn't CA's decision to make to decide that such a campaign would be no fun. Gamers can make that decision for themselves. But they can't do it if CA won't give them the means.
Lack of a remedially competent AI
Absolutely.
Growth rate and rebellion rate of Alexandria, Memphis. When I take over a city that has 6000 people, and has a 4% growth rate, ten years later will have 9000 or so people. Those little ten year olds are quite rebellious, aren't they?
IMO, this is a nitpick. If you think of the population number as being representative of the total number of men available for recruitment rather than the total population, you won't have this problem.
The fact that it takes over a year to cross Italy. Hannibal marched from (what was it?) Sagunto to Rome in 14 months? Without roads? Let's try a bit of realism. While I understand that 4 turns per year would cause some problems, such as 4 turn recruiting times etc....Something's intrinsically wrong with 2 turns per year, no matter how you cut the cake.
Totally agree, and I've argued numerous times that the game needs some sort of strategic movement option, say whereby you can move a unit up to six provinces per turn provided they are all friendly provinces and the unit does not leave or enter an enemy contested province at any time. That would solve the movement problem - and make for a much more dynamic game experience IMO.
As for seasonal turns, with strategic movement as described above they would not be necessary, but I agree that seasonal turns would seem to be more natural and aesthetic.
The fact that even on the fastest ship, it takes over two years to sail from Syria to Spain. It's roughly 1200 miles, and I find it hard to believe that these ships travel less than ONE MILE PER HOUR.
Again, totally agree. I've argued that ships should be able to move an unlimited distance every turn, but are subject to the possibility of immediate interception if they move into any enemy occupied sea zone.
The only restriction on sea movement that I think would be necessary then would be to make it that a ground unit which wants to move by sea has to start the turn in a ship.
Utterly INCOMPETENT movement resolution on the campaign map. I see the path that my armies will take. I see that it will take multiple turns to get there. No, there's no need to dead end on a neutral city, and stop your moves, especially since your path didn't show that route.
I'm not sure what mechanism exactly you're referring to here, but I agree that the mechanism for moving units on the campaign map is incredibly clumsy and annoying. I get very tired of not being able to tell whether a stack of mine can actually reach an enemy stack to give battle this turn or not, only to take the risk and move the stack to find it runs out of mp's one square short of the desired attack location, thus ruining my entire strategy. And the tendency of the pathfinding to "jump" just as you release the mouse and send your troops in a totally different direction is almost as infuriating.
Yes, Ambassador Moron, I know your path is blocked by ONE tiny unit, go around him...and continue on your assigned path, I know it's difficult, but you can do it. You're a winner. Do you have ZERO capacity to calculate conflict resolution? Given what else I see in this list, I have to conclude that you do not have ANY capacity to resolve conflicts
I don't object to the idea of a unit stopping when it hits an unseen object, because after all you might want to interact with said object. It's just that in some cases, such as with diplomats, you should be able to continue moving after such a collision if you choose.
Utterly incompetent unit movement calculations on combat map. Grouped identical units sometimes move exactly the opposite of the commands issued to them. Yes, I know I can use PAUSE and assign commands individually... Isn't the whole concept of COMPUTER games vs TABLE TOP games to get RID of these stupid levels of micromanagement and laborious resolutions of mechanics?
Yeah, it's a bad bug, and needs to be fixed.
Fighting uphill on the combat map means I have to LOWER my camera to look up the hill. This and the ridiculous "OK click on another unit so you can move the camera farther the other direction" Sure I can cheat and unlock the camera...should I HAVE to do this? Should it be this hard to look UPHILL?
I haven't looked much into the camera controls but I've found the inability to look up a hill to be an annoying feature of all the TW games, not just RTW.
Neutral units cockblocking movement (Example: Blocking movement out of ports such as Tarentum and Appolonia) by simply parking themselves near my port. The fact that there's no way to tell them to MOVE out of the way, nor to warn them of infringing on our territory (while the computer does have that luxury)
Yes, really stupid game mechanic. Neutral units should not have a ZOC which stops your units at all. In my last campaign there were a couple of neutral ships that sat there and blocked the Byzantine straits for practically the entire game, as a result of which I could not move ships into or out of the Black Sea.
Pathing. I see no need to walk straight out 25 paces before entering a fort or city's walls. I see that it is further counterproductive when there are enemy spear troops in that area, and you blindly impale yourselves on it. Go around. Oh, I wish I could.
Again, couldn't agree more. It's a really clumsy mechanic.
If my units survive (barely) a combat, I expect to see them on the campaign map. Why do they disappear?
This used to really annoy me too, but in the context of the game design it probably makes sense, otherwise you'd have tiny little armies blocking movement all over the place. This wasn't a problem in earlier games because the movement was province-to-province.
My soldiers can't walk up to an enemy diplomat sitting at my capital and slaughter him. A spy, I can understand, a diplomat? Said diplomat can further sit and try to bribe outside my capital city, and we tolerate this.
Okay, but if you do that, it should be tantamount to a declaration of war on that faction. There should also probably be diplomatic penalties with other factions if you start publicly knocking off diplomats.
IMO, your list missed the one overriding problem the game has, which is lack of challenge. The AI is so bad, particularly the battle AI, that the game is a total pushover, even at the supposed hardest levels.
The other problems I would have mentioned are the absurdly fast kill rates and rout times in battles. While I agree that it didn't hurt to shorten battle times from the earlier games, which were rather too long, CA went much too far. And unfortunately it sounds like they're not about to remedy this problem.
I personally don't play RTW any more, there's no challenge at all and I'm afraid the series is moving strongly toward the kiddie gamer market. I'm asking myself whether I want to spend any more money on this franchise, BI would have to be a substantially better product than RTW and I have my doubts that it will be.
screwtype
06-18-2005, 06:21
CA doesn't care about us few real strategy gamers when they can make literally millions off of pre teen players with a FPS mentality
Yup, I'm afraid that we strategy gamers have been by and large left behind. CA want to maximize their returns and that seems to mean appealing to the lowest common denominator, ie the kiddie market. Well, they are running a business after all.
What I think is sad is that they could have designed a game that appealed to both kiddie gamers and strategy fans alike, just by adding options for the more sophisticated features. But they wouldn't even do that, apparently out of fear that too many options might confuse the kiddies. So we're left largely out in the cold.
Looking back at RTW, having not played it for some time, I have to wonder what all the fuss was about. It's not really a good game at all. There isn't much to be impressed with, as I suggested in my previous post there are so many poorly designed mechanics in RTW, one wonders whether the current team is capable of designing to an acceptable standard at all.
RTW's only genuinely innovative feature was to move from 2D sprites to 3D objects, and even that hasn't been done too smartly, given the specs required to run the game at a decent clip. The rest of the game, really, is thoroughly mediocre. I don't have great hopes for the future of the Total War series. Perhaps they'll suprise me, I hope they do but the signs are not promising.
Muska Burnt
06-18-2005, 07:53
im getting the game the second it comes out since i wanna see the fall of rome
bodidley
06-18-2005, 08:54
Couldn't you make that happen in the original game? ~;)
I was reading on how #1 on your list
Multiplayer Campaigns
would be hard to do. NO IT WON"T. Even if you have to auto calc the battles instead of fighting them out in the combat screen and you only can play on one computer(NO INTERNET CAMPAIGN SUPPORTED), that alone would be sweet. I would love to play with a friend on the campaign map taking turns on MY ONE COMPUTER to smite the CPU out of existance and then taking him on - even with simulated battles. I could always play combat in the current online mode.
Please send this to Totalwar so they can get a clue, it can't be that hard to program in.
Maybe you cant afford your agents and need to get rid of them. Perhaps one of your generals is mad or has a really bad vice and you dont want to send him on a suicide mission.
The primary reason though is for training your own assassins and make them über-assassins
In my own humble opinion, I think that if faction members are so incompitant and stupid, you should be able to disown them and have them kicked out... or instead of having an assassin out to get them, why not simply do the killing yourself?
Think about it. You decide to invite that said individual for a hunting trip, and insist that you two go alone, and then venture into an area where some mercinaries or (hired) barbarians ambush you and kill the bugger that you want bumped off, then simply make up some bullshit about having 'barely escaped' or something to that effect.
Or just invite them to dinner and put poison in their wine...
That being said, the whole idea of being able to assassinate your own faction members in a fashion like this has some major redeeming features... you can create a whole big deal of political intrigue and in-fighting for who gets to be the next heir, or the current heir so impatient to take command that he tries to get rid of the guy at the top quickly.
So much potential wasted. But that's life, I guess.
Rodion Romanovich
06-18-2005, 10:28
1: The 'arab' voice. While I am a Middle Easterner myself, I can testify that having all Eastern/Carthagian factions have the same annoying voice is plain ridicules. I've seen many Egyptians who would have a voice remotely like that... but never Iraqis, Iranians (check out the Seleucid and Parthian factions for that) and definately not the Armenian or Pontus factions at all. But they all have the same irritating voice that is the PRIMARY reason why I rarely play them!
I agree. I tend to turn off the sound when I know the voices will come when playing those factions in mp or sp.
2: Towers and gatehouses having their own, perminant archers is very annoying. There should be people who are at least deduced from your total troops to man all those towers during combat, and vice versa for your enemies.
Yes, the towers suck. Yesterday in my Numidia campaign I was attacking Carthage, and had just cleared the wall breach and wanted to send one unit of javelinmen and one of slingers up in the towers on each side to get rid of that ridiculous firing. For some reason the towers started firing faster than usual in combination with my units forming up outside the towers for at least a minute before going up in them, resulting in me losing 90 percent of the men in both units :furious3: . I think firing towers should be removed, and if they want civilians helping defense against the attacker they should put VISIBLE civilians on rooftops and in windows throwing stones at the attackers.
3: Your spies can open the gate for you, but for some reason can't keep the enemy from pouring boiling oil over your troops when you try to pass through... anything more needed?
~:confused: Really strange actually. Also, that they can open ALL the gates from start of the battle, and no enemy closes it again. You should have an ability to signal to the spy to open a gate, and he would only get one chance at it.
4: You can have your own spies, diplomats, faction members, and other assassins murdered by your assassins... any explaination needed for this madness?
Not to mention there's no "disband" function at all for agents... So you have to murder them if you want to get rid of them ~:confused: :furious3:
Colovion
06-18-2005, 10:42
the game industry sold out like a cheap whore
it was once young, vibrant and full of life - intelligent and creative; bursting at the seams with new ideas and controversial procurations
now?
same old same old:
kill w00t kill sex kill glamour stupid sex kill glamour stupid stipid arg glitz sex stare time meh /nextgame
probably the reason I play WoW - one of the only genres which take more than a FPS attitude to play
_Aetius_
06-18-2005, 11:36
I have like with all games accepted there will be stupid bugs or glitches or general annoyances that taint a games enjoyment, but by far THE King the Emperor the greatest of all the RTW annoyances is without doubt the utter gayness that is the autoresolve.
I have lost count of the amount of hours ive wasted fighting battles I shouldnt have to fight, because I know the AI is so dumb that ill lose 10 times more men doing auto resolve than I will personally taking command.
My 12 unit army against an enemy 3 unit army should be a formality, but oh no if I auto Resolve my 12 units could easily be reduced by a 1/3 or even a 1/2 of that number and to add insult to injury if I do win the enemy army survives anyway!
The amount of times ive auto resolved and lost battles that even if I personally had faced my men backwards told them to fight with only their left hand the other being tied behind there back, id still of won the damn battle, but instead im forced to either Auto resolve thus saving time but losing 10 times more men than is necessary or I can spend most of the gaming session fighting pointless little battles to compensate for the AI's stupidity.
RTW is by far the biggest letdown in recent gaming history, how on earth they created a timeless classic like MTW then made this total waste of space is beyond me. I sure as hell hope the so called game tester who happened to miss the glaring stupidity of this game got fired, I know nothing about making games but even I can spot the uselessness of auto resolve, the more than questionable AI, the fact despite having an economy of 0 denarii the AI still seems to be able to train armies no matter how many you destroy.
One last thing about RTW is no battle however big is EVER decisive, whereas on MTW one battle could mean victory or defeat for your campaign or respective empires, on RTW 3 4 5 6 7 massive battles have to be fought in quick succession to gain anything at all. Its not like you can really follow up your success either, it takes so long to travel that by the time you get to the heart of your enemies empire they have replaced many of the losses youve inflicted upon them, therefore wasting your time and making carrying on not seem worth while. If an enemy has a standing all round army of 100,000 men what the heck is killing 2500 men going to achieve? since reinforcements hardly ever arrive in time its impossible to kill massive numbers of the enemy in a couple of battles therefore dragging things on for decades.
Yes I am moaning and ranting like a big girl, but the horrifying truth is all the above things are true.
chef4fun2
06-18-2005, 12:42
Unless it gets great reviews six months after its release...
22) If my units survive (barely) a combat, I expect to see them on the campaign map. Why do they disappear?
.
If there are less than 6 men left you lose the unit. This is one of the hard coded bulls**t things that they did. I agree with must of the thread
screwtype
06-18-2005, 13:24
multiplayer...Even if you have to auto calc the battles instead of fighting them out in the combat screen and you only can play on one computer(NO INTERNET CAMPAIGN SUPPORTED), that alone would be sweet. I would love to play with a friend on the campaign map taking turns on MY ONE COMPUTER to smite the CPU out of existance and then taking him on - even with simulated battles.
I totally agree. However for reasons best known to themselves CA have ruled out even this type of "hotseat" multiplayer. They are just adamant that there won't be any kind of multiplayer campaign, in spite of the very obvious demand for such in the RTW community.
Go figure.
PseRamesses
06-18-2005, 15:53
Zakor,
Superb rant with constructive critisism although some of your problems are actually moddable.
My main problem is the battlefield-AI, or lack of it. I´ve been playing TW since STW first came out and maybee my memory doesn´t serve me right but I didn´t feel this frustrated when I played STW, or even MTW. IMHO the TW-game is getting sweeter to look at but worse in gameplay. So if this downward spiral of "evolution" continues I won´t even buy a TW4 game. I do plan to buy BI and mod the shit out of it.
Mikeus Caesar
06-18-2005, 18:21
One last thing about RTW is no battle however big is EVER decisive, whereas on MTW one battle could mean victory or defeat for your campaign or respective empires, on RTW 3 4 5 6 7 massive battles have to be fought in quick succession to gain anything at all. Its not like you can really follow up your success either, it takes so long to travel that by the time you get to the heart of your enemies empire they have replaced many of the losses youve inflicted upon them, therefore wasting your time and making carrying on not seem worth while. If an enemy has a standing all round army of 100,000 men what the heck is killing 2500 men going to achieve? since reinforcements hardly ever arrive in time its impossible to kill massive numbers of the enemy in a couple of battles therefore dragging things on for decades.
Indeed.
In MTW, many a time i have had huge battles which have decided the fate of my empire, and some of these times i have lost them.
In RTW, many a time i have had huge battles which have no meaning at all for my empire, and none of the time have i lost them.
Ianofsmeg16
06-18-2005, 18:43
i agree about egypt grrrrrrrr, rite now i'm modding my game so egyp can only build nubian spear men....in the final tear and thts it....oh yer and theyre starting off with 10 denarii......i'm gonna buy the expansion, cos beleive it or not somebody likes the look of the units and doesnt care what the hell the camapign map looks like
All these " I won't buy " threads are tiresome and boring. If you don't like the game, don't buy it
Don`t post in the Colosseum either.
All of those who keep on bashing RTW always complain on how much better MTW was. That`s unserious, please go to the Main Hall if that`s true.
I was reading on how #1 on your list
Multiplayer Campaigns would be hard to do. NO IT WON"T.
You're soooo right...
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/conquestofthenewworld/
Conquest of the New World
Minimum:
IBM PC 486/66 MHz, 8 MB RAM, DOS 5.0 or Windows 95, 512 kB SVGA video card, and 2x CD-ROM drive
Recommended:
Pentium 50 MHz, 16 MB RAM, and Sound Blaster-compatible sound card
And...
Game Info
Developer Quicksilver
Publisher Interplay
Genre Strategy
Release Date March 15, 1995
ESRB Everyone
GameSpy Score N/A
Multiplayer Up to 6 players over LAN or the Internet
Up to six players in multiplayer campaign mode.
Master of Orion 2
Game Information
* Number of Players: 1-8 Players
* Difficulty: Hard
* Learning Curve: About 2 and a half hours
Minimum System Requirements
* System: 486/100 or equivalent
* RAM:8 MB RAM
* CD-ROM: 2X CD-ROM
* Hard Drive Space: 75 MB
* Mouse: Yes
* Sound Board: Yes
Not possible for multiplayer campaign mode? That's just LAUGHABLE
Here's something of note...
http://www.strategyinformer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-687.html
Centurion
03-02-2004, 12:09 AM
Just saw this on TWC:
RTW Multiplayer Campaign has been announced!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April's 2004 edition of the Gamestar magazine, it has been announced that RTW will indeed have a multiplayer campaign. This is a quote from the magazine:
"At the top of the wish list for all veteran fans of the Total War seris is the ability to play campaigns in multiplay-and that wish has been granted"
This is a very exciting day for TWC.
It'll be good if its 100% confirmed and true!! :) :)
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-18-2005, 19:25
Neither of those games are graphics-intensive like RTW. A MP campaign would require an amazing connection - probably LAN only. And all battles would have to be autocalced, which is a poor way to play a game that is about 55% battles.
Don`t post in the Colosseum either.
All of those who keep on bashing RTW always complain on how much better MTW was. That`s unserious, please go to the Main Hall if that`s true.
So we aren't allowed to discuss a game in its own forum? What?
I didn`t say that. If you prefer MTW over RTW then you surely would have a better time there ~:cheers:
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-18-2005, 19:55
But if you hope that CA will tap the full potential of RTW, then you post here, praying that CA will read a rant thread and fix the problems of Rome.
bodidley
06-18-2005, 20:06
GAH!!! You wouldn't have to autocalc battles at all. Some games have a campaign multiplayer where one player always takes over for the computer in battle. Conquest of the New World also had a one-machine multiplayer where people at home could play against eachother on the same machine. The Romance of the Three Kingdoms series has had an up-to-eight multiplayer campaign for over ten years. All this "multiplayer wouldn't work" business is rubbish, it's been done before and it'll be done again.
IceTorque
06-18-2005, 20:31
if (BI fixes broken features != just add some new ones)
" many happy fan atics.\n " ;
else
" Total bloody riot.\n " ;
Muska Burnt
06-18-2005, 21:15
if you dont like the game keep it to yourself these forums annoy me
bodidley
06-18-2005, 21:29
If you don't like these forums then don't read them. We don't all have to be fanboys, there's planty of room for objective discussion, and people who haven't bought the game can learn about it if we discuss issues related to it.
sunsmountain
06-18-2005, 22:49
The simple fact that player1's bugfixer is something that should have been done by CA, the simple fact that they spent all their time adding ideas/options, instead of making sure it all worked and played together like 1 organic feeling game, the simple fact that heavy modding is needed to create a bit of a challenge... reloading re-assessment every time... no night battles that were promised...
i could go on but won't. As a veteran TW player i understand why RomeTW is the way it is, i dont enjoy Medieval TW that much either... in fact what am i still doing here....
ps.: CA are not alone in releasing buggy games though, it's a market trend: less and less time for development, quick bucks.. console games market draining Pc games market...
ps2.: Goes to show that wonderful, creative, dreaming programmers with CA should not be given deadlines unless by themselves... making a good game simply takes time... and i fear they spent to much on promotion/interviews/previews, etc.
matches88
06-18-2005, 23:06
spot on. CVP and BugFixer shouldn't exist IMO. CA should be doing it.
Getting 1.2 (and thinking "great!") :charge:
Playing for a night and having a couple of "scarred" generals and still seeing suicidal generals. ~:confused:
Thinking WTF, they knew this but released anyway. ~:mecry:
anyway, do like the .org tho. not as paranoid here about upsetting anyone.
Neither of those games are graphics-intensive like RTW. A MP campaign would require an amazing connection - probably LAN only. And all battles would have to be autocalced, which is a poor way to play a game that is about 55% battles.
So we aren't allowed to discuss a game in its own forum? What?
It baffles me why you think that battles would need to be autocalced...Why do you claim this?
It have a feeling that some people in this thread thinks they are some superior being because they have been playing strategy game not FPS and anyone who likes RTW is an stupid kid.
True?
CMcMahon
06-19-2005, 07:05
If there are less than 6 men left you lose the unit. This is one of the hard coded bulls**t things that they did. I agree with must of the thread
You sure about that? I have a unit of one, count 'em, one druid in my Britannia campaign right now. Bastards sitting in Lemonum, waiting for me to remember to disband his sorry ass.
.We don't all have to be fanboys, there's planty of room for objective discussion, and people who haven't bought the game can learn about it if we discuss issues related to it.
There isn`t much discussion in this thread; just statements that tell people how awfully bad it is.
It`s not healthty to only read one single damn point of view about a matter. People who consider buying the game might get frightened of all these bad things there`s said about RTW even though they could have got a good time playing it.
A MP campaign would require an amazing connection - probably LAN only.
Optical cable or high speed DSL should be fast enough.
Wont multiplayer campaign take too much time?
How long would it take to finish to the end?
Yes, it would take pretty much time, but I thought of putting in some kinda feature that allows you to save the campaigns. Otherwise I can`t see how it should be possible.
Productivity
06-19-2005, 10:56
Neither of those games are graphics-intensive like RTW. A MP campaign would require an amazing connection - probably LAN only. And all battles would have to be autocalced, which is a poor way to play a game that is about 55% battles.
Well I disagree that it would need a LAN connection, it would need a broadband connection yes, but I'm not so certain a LAN connection would be needed. Maybe some intelligent rationalising of sent data. If there are two players playing, one as Iberia and one as Numidia, the server has to calculate what's going on in Parthia, but it hardly has to tell the players that.
As for the autocalcing, again, I disagree. Games that have has split tactical/strategic interfaces have worked before, without autocalcing. Read a book FFS while your mate plays his game. You don't have to sit there and stare at a screen while he plays it.
I really disagree, in terms of complexity, it can't be much harder than it is allready.
Batavian
06-19-2005, 13:19
My biggest disappointment was in RTW as a grand strategy game. Specifically, the diplomatic model was terrible. I hated the way alliances could be formed and broken and reformed ad infinitum with no real penalties. I would be attacked by an ally, utterly crush them, only to be attacked by my next “friend”. Conversely, I could make alliances and then attack without warning and without penalty.
Still, I don’t want to sound like I didn’t like the game. It’s great as a tactical simulation for individual battles against other humans. I definitely got my $15 worth of entertainment value out of it.
Optical cable or high speed DSL should be fast enough.
Why not regular DSL?
I don`t know; Alexander kept on talking about that LAN was the only connection fast enough. So if regular DSL(acccording to him) wasn`t enough, I would guess high-speed DSL or VDSL should be enough since I don`t think 100 m/bit is necessary.
I don`t know; Alexander kept on talking about that LAN was the only connection fast enough. So if regular DSL(acccording to him) wasn`t enough, I would guess high-speed DSL or VDSL should be enough since I don`t think 100 m/bit is necessary.
So, the multi player CAMPAIGN battles will be different from the regular multi player battles in RTW non-campaign, in their connection requirements?
Why?
Not the battles that take up the speed, but why high-speed is required I don`t know.
Check out this thread about MP campaigns:
Multiplayer Campaign in the works! (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43883)
Not the battles that take up the speed, but why high-speed is required I don`t know.
Check out this thread about MP campaigns:
Multiplayer Campaign in the works! (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43883)
Well, my point there is that I think it's one in many of a series of off the cuff commentary made by a lack of knowledge..."Multiplayer is impossible, etc..."
Thanks for the link to MP...It's what I wanted from RTW in the first place...
bodidley
06-19-2005, 21:26
There isn`t much discussion in this thread; just statements that tell people how awfully bad it is.
It`s not healthty to only read one single damn point of view about a matter. People who consider buying the game might get frightened of all these bad things there`s said about RTW even though they could have got a good time playing it.
I don't think anyone here thinks that RTW was a complete waste of time, though some may think that they wasted money, just that there are problems with the game that need to be addressed and they ruin replayability.
Objective discussion doesn't mean people can't have opinions by the way ~;), it just means that people have to state their opinions respectfully and without the intention of just getting a negative reaction from someone else.
If there wasn't a valid reason for threads discussing problems with RTW, then they wouldn't generate so much reply.
Mongoose
06-20-2005, 00:59
Not to seem rude, but any one who finds rtw a hard game after playing for afew months is probably not very old.
I play FPS games...and i still think that any one who finds RTW a hard game is indeed a stupid kid.
If only the AI were better...it would be such a good game...
Ohh... it is soooooo difficult... if only they'd let me frag all those stupid urbans with my Spartan rocket-launcher... :charge:
Maybe in the upcoming Doom: Total War... ~:grouphug:
Mongoose
06-20-2005, 01:38
*EDIT*
Nope, "spartan: total warrior" :help:
Doom:Total War... its all the same... I just want that rocket-launcher or my rail-gun to shoot those Urbans in their shiny t-2000 armour... ~:cheers:
Mongoose
06-20-2005, 03:35
Rail guns are more fun when the enemy only have spears. :balloon2:
just give me the bfg.. ill take em,
Mongoose
06-20-2005, 03:51
*EDIT*
.We don't all have to be fanboys, there's planty of room for objective discussion, and people who haven't bought the game can learn about it if we discuss issues related to it.
Amen to that!
Sextus the mad
06-20-2005, 10:46
ok.
i have to agree with alot of the things on the list, alot of them are true. But uve got to look at the good things! I thinks the creators of RTW have done a really good job to create a game thats this....Detailed. i mean, how many other games have the general giving a speech at the start of a battle? How many other games actually ALLOW you8 to create spys and diplomats and assasins? How many other games give you such a selection of unique units?
A few maybe, but not many and hardly any on the scale the RTW has done it. So a game this big and complex has to have a few mistakes, but when you compare that to what the game really is, its plenty to entertain people who enjoy this game and look at its good points. Thats how i look at it, same with all my freinds. So maybe you just spend to much time looking for all the bad points in this game instead of actually having a life outside of pcs. :duel:
Aetius the Last Roman
06-20-2005, 14:12
On another note, If BI doesn't fix battlefield AI so the enemy can fight and fix the autoresolve my support will be lost.
On another note, If BI doesn't fix battlefield AI so the enemy can fight and fix the autoresolve my support will be lost.
Goodbye to ur support then, I'm afraid. :furious3:
Thats how i look at it, same with all my freinds. So maybe you just spend to much time looking for all the bad points in this game instead of actually having a life outside of pcs. :duel:
Maybe so. Maybe you're under 20 years old. Maybe scratch maybe. Maybe my concerns are actually legitimate complaints.
The game has good points, I'm not saying that it doesn't, if you think the game is great, and if you like it with the flaws that it has, then by all means, enjoy the hell out of it.
But if "Maybe you and all your friends see lots of good points" is some logical way to conclude that "I have no life outside of PCs" is....well, a rather unfounded conclusion. Such 'logic' and unfounded conclusions lead me to believe things about the authors of such ideas.
How are you enjoying summer vacation so far?
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-20-2005, 21:46
We criticize CA because we PAID MONEY for this game. $50 (USD) is not a small investment, unless you are rolling in cash. We want the Rome Total War experiance to be as good as possible. To make it worth the $50.
And the "few mistakes" are pretty crippling. Mediocre AI is a problem when you fight battles against the AI and you want a challenge.
-----------
Re: Multiplayer Campaign.
Maybe I'm wrong and it wouldn't take a LAN connection, but I question whether the game would be enjoyable without a very good connection. Player against other people means dealing with:
1) Time issues. Your opponents may take a really long time to make moves and resolve battles. During which the game is still sucking down your connection. And serious campaign with multiple human players and non-autocalced battles means taking hours to finish a single round - maybe. So people would have to work that into their schedules. And it could be difficult to find people who can play regularly.
2) Lag. If lag is bad, then the game will be pretty much unplayable.
3) Asshats. Losers trolling the MP lobby just so they can screw you over in the game. Someone who joins a game and stops playing when its his turn. Just stops playing. And it would be difficult to know whether he has stopped or is just thinking. Sidenote: would it be possible to send a virus through the game, like maybe as a save game file?
And there are issues for CA as well. Developing a MP expansion requires the game to be compatible with a whole lot of stuff. And if they don't make it perfect, they will be denounced in the streets. And who knows how monetarily successful such a venture would be.
Garvanko
06-20-2005, 22:43
Good rant. Great points.
sassbarman
06-20-2005, 23:35
The bottom line is that you can't tell me the dev's when they sit down and play this game, if they ever do, find it challenging and rewarding to play. That is a sad thought because I felt there was a love and a greater attention to detail in the first two games of the series, especially shogun. C'mon CA we know you can do better.
Sextus the mad
06-21-2005, 10:21
soory about what i said. I was really pissed off with the world and i needed to let of steam. im sorry for sying you dont have a life outside off pcs and what do you mean about holidays??
Rodion Romanovich
06-21-2005, 11:31
Re mp campaign map: I think it wouldn't require any more from your connection than the current TW mp does. You could play your turns individually on your own computers. When your turn is complete, you click end turn and you can then keep trying to send your progress to the host. When the host has recieved your decisions, the host calculates which battles have to be fought and sends info to all players. They now play a second "turn" where they all decide whether to fight or withdraw etc., and then they submit their info again. Those battles that need to be fought can then be played on the normal battlemap.
Of course this would require some changes of the campaign map. For example you'd set waypoints for all troops instead of moving them right away, or you would need to go back to an M:TW style map. Anyway, I think an mp campaign is possible to do, although it would require much work.
The alternative would be to use a simplified campaign map with a time limit per turn and where the players are connected to each other during the entire campaign.
Well, let them just unlock some of the script commands to be used in console (change faction), and we'll at least get rag-tag hotseat...
Productivity
06-21-2005, 12:03
Re: Multiplayer Campaign.
Maybe I'm wrong and it wouldn't take a LAN connection, but I question whether the game would be enjoyable without a very good connection. Player against other people means dealing with:
1) Time issues. Your opponents may take a really long time to make moves and resolve battles. During which the game is still sucking down your connection. And serious campaign with multiple human players and non-autocalced battles means taking hours to finish a single round - maybe. So people would have to work that into their schedules. And it could be difficult to find people who can play regularly.
2) Lag. If lag is bad, then the game will be pretty much unplayable.
3) Asshats. Losers trolling the MP lobby just so they can screw you over in the game. Someone who joins a game and stops playing when its his turn. Just stops playing. And it would be difficult to know whether he has stopped or is just thinking. Sidenote: would it be possible to send a virus through the game, like maybe as a save game file?
1: I disagree. You will only get an update when they've hit end turn, so it won't continuously be taking the connection. Fundamentally every player does not need to know the exact details of every battle, they just need the update sheet at the end. You don't need to know that in x battle y moved z metres before breaking. You just need to know that they broke, how many died and what experience penalty there was. With a few area searching rules, the majority of users could ignore the data from areas that don't affect them, until they do start to affect them.
As for time, well do something else. Read a book, write an essay, defenestrate someone if you really want to (don't actually do that last suggestion, it's probably illegal). I've played MP civ games where turns took hours, and I just did something else.
2: I don't see how lag will be an issue. The strategic part of the game isn't realtime. It can take 30 minutes to get the data from someone's turn if they want, and it won't matter. The only area where this could be an issue is in the tactical battles, and I haven't seen any major complaints about it so I'll assume there are none.
3: The people issue. I agree with you, I don't like to play with randoms off of the internet. About five years ago I gave up on playing internet games with those I don't know. It's sad but that's where gaming has come to. I tend to only play with people I know from forums/real life, and so rarely have bad gaming experiences, and that's what I think you would have to do here.
Gregoshi
06-21-2005, 19:21
Insulting someone you are in disagreement with is not an acceptable practice here at the Org and is in violation of forum rules. If you feel you have been insulted, the proper course of action is not to retaliate, but rather report the post to the moderators. Just click on the white triangle with red outline and "!" inside to the lower left of the offending post and type in your reason for reporting the post.
The disrespect some patrons are showing to each other lately is not only in very poor form as far as keeping decent discussions, it goes against the forum rules and the friendly atmosphere we like to maintain here. Think before you post and resist the temptation to attack your adversaries.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-21-2005, 21:39
1: I disagree. You will only get an update when they've hit end turn, so it won't continuously be taking the connection. Fundamentally every player does not need to know the exact details of every battle, they just need the update sheet at the end. You don't need to know that in x battle y moved z metres before breaking. You just need to know that they broke, how many died and what experience penalty there was. With a few area searching rules, the majority of users could ignore the data from areas that don't affect them, until they do start to affect them.
As for time, well do something else. Read a book, write an essay, defenestrate someone if you really want to (don't actually do that last suggestion, it's probably illegal). I've played MP civ games where turns took hours, and I just did something else.
2: I don't see how lag will be an issue. The strategic part of the game isn't realtime. It can take 30 minutes to get the data from someone's turn if they want, and it won't matter. The only area where this could be an issue is in the tactical battles, and I haven't seen any major complaints about it so I'll assume there are none.
3: The people issue. I agree with you, I don't like to play with randoms off of the internet. About five years ago I gave up on playing internet games with those I don't know. It's sad but that's where gaming has come to. I tend to only play with people I know from forums/real life, and so rarely have bad gaming experiences, and that's what I think you would have to do here.
Gah. Maybe you're right. But campaigns would take forever, and there would be problems with the AI. I mean, who would supply the AI? Which computer? In that respect, I'm actually curious.
Gah. Maybe you're right. But campaigns would take forever, and there would be problems with the AI. I mean, who would supply the AI? Which computer? In that respect, I'm actually curious.
I've said it about 4 times now....Look up "Master of Orion 2," and see what it did.
Productivity
06-23-2005, 02:49
Gah. Maybe you're right. But campaigns would take forever, and there would be problems with the AI. I mean, who would supply the AI? Which computer? In that respect, I'm actually curious.
Well, play a turn a night or something (this is working on the assumption of a fixed siege bug), and get it done over a couple of years. I know I've done that with Civilization games, and I think there would be quite a few TW players who would be interested.
As for the AI, well I assume you would nominate a server, which would coordinate the game.
Up for a game if it gets implemented? ~:cheers: ~;)
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-23-2005, 02:59
I've said it about 4 times now....Look up "Master of Orion 2," and see what it did.
A quick Google search reveals nothing major about the multiplayer. And MOO2 didn't have the graphics and loading times RTW has, correct?
Well, play a turn a night or something (this is working on the assumption of a fixed siege bug), and get it done over a couple of years. I know I've done that with Civilization games, and I think there would be quite a few TW players who would be interested.
As for the AI, well I assume you would nominate a server, which would coordinate the game.
Up for a game if it gets implemented?
I'll play if some of the other bugs are fixed. And if we can agree on a good mod. ~:cheers:
A quick Google search reveals nothing major about the multiplayer. And MOO2 didn't have the graphics and loading times RTW has, correct?
Like you said, the loading times will be rather miniscule in comparison to the waiting for other/all players to finish their turn(s) in a turn based strategy game.
I've played it MPlayer. It's possible. It's a turn based strategy game.
MoO2 in multiplayer was pretty quick. Planet maintenace was pretty easy, you set your projected moves, and hit endturn. Combats ocurred 1 at a time during the end phase, but they didn't take too long to complete.
For this to really work with TW, all moves would need to be ordered, not executed sequentially during the player's turn (think MTW), so that all the combat happened in the endturn phase. I think this is more realistic anyway, you can't exploit the strategic map like you can in Rome. A better empire view and control screen would also help speed the build orders. The combat phase would last a little longer (or maybe not, with Rome's killfest speed). Aside from the battle time, Medieval would be a better multiplayer game, since there are fewer battles (no annoying rebel speedbumps) and the strategic map mechanism is more conducive to turn-based multiplayer.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.