View Full Version : Creative Assembly Bad news from CA about Battles
Little Legioner
06-19-2005, 16:08
The Shogun@
"Q. Will the battle model be :Fast battles, flat grounds, high kill rates, close armies, small map(with red line-Current RTW style) or: Long battles, non-flat grounds, slow kill rates, far armies, bigger map (without red line-old TW series style).
A.The basic battle game won't change that much; this is an expansion, not a re-imagining of RTW. "
I'm very grateful for your their attention. As a loyal fan since The Shogun TW, i've waited for an explanation a official one and they did it.
Sorry to say but it was a my nightmare which become a true... I can understand they can't change whole the battle mechanics but they can change something. I mean especially battlefield sizes and kill rates. Kill rates is easy part. Modders can handle it.
Just an idea, they can put a option for battlefield sizes on options for custom and campaign. Big or huge. I'm sure of that they can't redesign the battlefields again.
"Q. Do you plan on having an option of making the battlefields bigger for campaign battles? The option is already available for large custom and historical battles. Quite apart from that, the bits surrounding the current battlefield edge are rendered anyway, so why not let us use them?
A. No. The borders are there to allow for reinforcements massing before entry and for escaping troops to flee without simply vanishing off the edge of the terrain; they are 'being used' already. Incidentally, there were always borders around battlefields. It's just that they weren't shown with a borderline in Medieval: Total War or Shogun: Total War. "
Yes, there should be a border on maps for routing as a sensible fact. In fact, i'm not against to "red line" but i want some space when i play on huge or big unit size for proper maneuvering...
I dont like RTW battle philisophy. Because it is so fast, fields are narrow i cannot get a "tactical" taste from game. Many times battles are wasting time chase of routing units. Because they flee easily nearly half of them!
On huge settings you cannot make a tactical maneuver, armies also so close to each other. Totaly boring if you want to seek "decisive" battles. But older series were not the same.
And i say honestly they can fix that position without "re-imagining". This very possible because RTW is their project and they now what is possible to fix?
I'm old school TW gamer and a hater clickfest style RTS games. CA made a false decision they made the TW legend "easier" for unpatient clickfesters but we putted aside in fact TW spirit putted aside.
I'm very upset at the moment from the CA's final decision. :embarassed:
Quite true. The kill rates are ludicrous and I spend 80% of my time on the battle map hunting routers.
They really oughta fix infantry run speed too.
IceTorque
06-19-2005, 18:07
TW games are all about the 3D battles. (for me anyways)
But a typical battle in RTW goes something like this.
Setup, click start, enemy right in front, 30 seconds later it's all over.
The main attraction to the TW games has been ruined.
I like to play the 3d battle map manouver for position, lay an ambush etc.
Seems as though C.A. have followed so many other developers by breaking
the features that made their games great in the first place.
Why the hell do they do that ?
metatron
06-19-2005, 18:17
I'm very upset at the moment from the CA's final decision. Welcome to the club. Here's your hat.
The Shogun said, "The basic battle game won't change that much; this is an expansion, not a re-imagining of RTW. "
I would say that BI's 80 new units is a "re-imaging" of RTW. What's needed is a "re-balancing" which apparently isn't going to be done.
Mongoose
06-19-2005, 18:45
*EDIT*
Little Legioner
06-19-2005, 19:33
The main attraction to the TW games has been ruined.
I like to play the 3d battle map manouver for position, lay an ambush etc.
Seems as though C.A. have followed so many other developers by breaking
the features that made their games great in the first place.
Quite true... Ironic part is CA knows what is false and rejects it what they did at their older games! :no: They are hiding behind reasons such as "re-imagining" "this is a new game". They have a company they have an experienced team which has been concentrated only developing games. They have a unique community. As an example just look to the Europa Barbarorum project. but they say no!
We know that "this is a new". It is "New" thats true but something could be changed.
Many of the fans created "mtw-rtw" comparison threads. I saw plenty of them in TWcenter, TWorg also COM. Why? Just think about it. Why we need it to compare with MTW? What were the disturbing things motivates us?
They can change many things which will become the RTW better and closer to the classic TW point. I swear if they want they can. They can claim the success again which is created before.
I wrote to COM. forums "i will not buy the expansion if you..." and i showed them reasons as a responsibility.
(Logged as Julius Augustus)
"Will you buy the expansion?"
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=26721.topic&start=81&stop=91
An answer came from a moderator... ~:handball:
BatanguenoM@
"Please stick to the original topic/question, guys. Any more deviations will require us to do janitorial work on the thread.
Thanks. "
What was false on my message?
Mongoose
06-19-2005, 19:39
It was false because you were saying bad things about the game. ~;)
IceTorque
06-19-2005, 20:12
They dismiss our "input" as a minority number of TW players.
But we are only a minority in terms of being vocal about our dissapointment
with the game.
I put to C.A. that the vast majority of new and old players would enjoy
the game more and would be more inclined to buy future TW games if.
They listened to their fans and not just produce what they think we want.
just look at this new game.
http://www.mindlinkstudio.com/engine.htm
I know it's still in development but after reading about some of it's features
which have been requested in TW games for years.
e.g. Advance order, fake rout, huge battlemaps.
Why do C.A. refuse to listen to it's fans ?
Having played vanilla lan games and then Chivalry Total War lan games, I can safely say this engine rocks, and if CA can pull their finger out for just a second they could seriously improve their game in about 20 minutes of fiddling with options.
I suspect other things prevent them making it 'better'. They have to make it still work for everyone who bought the original, they have to make sure the ai at least can try and win, etc.
Lord Adherbal
06-19-2005, 20:41
don't forget the vast majority of people who bought RTW never visits forums, maybe doesnt even have internet. That kind of people probably loves RTW and has a hard time beating the AI. Just like the gaming press is praising RTW to heaven.
And to those people "80 complete new units !" sounds a lot more attractive then "rebalanced gameplay and lowered battle pace !". The latter would probably scare them, if anything.
Even tho BI has some very interesting new features, I still dont feel like supporting the product by making mods for it (ChivTW). I don't feel CA deserves to be supported by the modding community. They do much too few in return. I wonder what wouldn't happened if Vercingetorix had not made his CAS editor (and all the other tools). Would CA have helped us ? if not - then the RTW community would probably have been dead already. I mean, how many of you still play RTW Vanilla (unless you're one of those people who thinks mods contain viruses that destroy your computer) ?
Imagine how much CA could gain if they would support mods 100%, like for example valve does. They could even sell special packages with mods (provided the mod teams agree), just like Valve with Counterstrike etc. They could promote mods on their own (incredibly chaotic) homepage, and catch new interest from the gaming press and community.
tibilicus
06-19-2005, 20:47
He is right. Most of my freinds who own RTW dont even know that any bugs exist. I have one freind who has to play as egypt against the A.I to win on hard. And it is also true. Most gamers will probably think ohhh 80 new units! Lets buy it for that. Only to get bored of it a week or two later. And on the note of mods. It really is a small percentage of RTW gamers who are really interested in Mods. When i told my freind the other day that i couldnt wait for a mod called EB for the game he replied;"What's a mod?". *sies*
CA's PR departement must be completely retarded...
:laugh4:
I just turn off my morale when i do battles so it cuts down on people routing and it works rather well. Then enemy will stil route every now and then, but my troops wont route unless i make them, which is how i like it.
BrutalDictatorship
06-19-2005, 23:25
there couldn't be a bigger fan of this series than myself (ok, im not challenging anyone, but just making a point heh) but if this kind of quick answered, sarcastic attitude, with arcade gameplay continues from CA, I'm seriously out....I will find something like a Slitherine production or even A0E3
BrutalDictatorship
06-19-2005, 23:28
oh...I will add (would have just edited, but for some reason we can't do that here) that I only play RTR 5.4.1 now (soon to be 6.0) because vanilla 1.2 is sheer garbage. I am even planning on spending about 4 hours on MTW 1.2 tonight because I get a better challenge that way...
At least my Emperor Campaign Difficulty, Preatorian Battles (best RTR settings) germanic campaign is very much along the lines of what I'm looking for.
Trust me...RTR is the solution to all of CA's horse shit.
Orda Khan
06-20-2005, 00:22
Adherbal']
I don't feel CA deserves to be supported by the modding community.
....And I guess there would be little to Mod at all if CA hadn't released the game eh?
CA's PR departement must be completely retarded...
Figure of speech or not, the use of the word 'retarded' in this way I find extremely offensive and it's about time Forum Moderators did something about it. Swearing is nothing compared to this IMO
.......Orda
Mongoose
06-20-2005, 00:53
*EDIT*
Constantinius
06-20-2005, 03:07
~~~Figure of speech or not, the use of the word 'retarded' in this way I find extremely offensive and it's about time Forum Moderators did something about it. Swearing is nothing compared to this IMO~~~
Retarded: adj. "Showing or exhibiting retardation; abnormally slow in mental development; abnormally slow in action, awareness, or progress."
Why would you take offense, this is exactly how CA is handling RTW. The inability of CA to adapt will prove its undoing, Darwin was rite even in the realm of computer gaming.
BrutalDictatorship
06-20-2005, 03:14
They REFUSE to develop any game or expansion around what they community as a whole desires...only catering to those who don't know any better.
I mean they have NO reason whatsoever to design a game opposite what the community wants, other than to please themselves.
like it or not, if they do not design the type of game we're all looking for, I'm gone...
Slitherine games or AOE3 have both promised to pick up the ball if CA drops it and I believe them...they've detailed their plans...CA refuses to for "trademark" reasons
Muska Burnt
06-20-2005, 03:14
i like how rtw is like how it is the only thing that annoys me is the terrian since im not that smart with history so is something is historicaly incorrect i dont notice it i just have fun and i like the border line because its the only way my infrantry can get missile infantry or cavarly
BrutalDictatorship
06-20-2005, 03:16
Centaurion, no offense but you are EXACTLY the kind of gamer CA is banking on...you fail to notice the subtle, yet gamebreaking, major issues with the title.
I rest my case...
:help:
Revelation
06-20-2005, 05:21
Figure of speech or not, the use of the word 'retarded' in this way I find extremely offensive and it's about time Forum Moderators did something about it. Swearing is nothing compared to this IMO
For god's sake man. I think it's about time you jumped down off your horse and joined the rest of society! :furious3: Complaining about this is just, well, RETARDED! ~D
BTW, do you work for CA or any of their affiliates? You and that horse of yours, always seem to be on the CA side of the fence.
As for the RTW Exp pac, I guess we should just leave it to the dedicated horde of Lab rats out there who will be rushing out to buy it as soon as it hits the shelves, to gauge whether or not it is RETARDED!
Wait for the feedback......
Red Harvest
06-20-2005, 05:27
"Q. Will the battle model be :Fast battles, flat grounds, high kill rates, close armies, small map(with red line-Current RTW style) or: Long battles, non-flat grounds, slow kill rates, far armies, bigger map (without red line-old TW series style).
A.The basic battle game won't change that much; this is an expansion, not a re-imagining of RTW. "
This is pretty close to saying, "BI battles will carry all the same major flaws as RTW." That just sucks. Could have at least thrown out a few bones like fixing combat speed or something.
CA painted themselves into a corner with their schedule.
bodidley
06-20-2005, 05:30
I'm afraid I have to agree with Orda on this one. Comparing CA to retards is an insult to retarded people. The stupidest people I've met in my life were ones with normal brain capacity anyhow. Y'all should get more edumakated :book:
Papewaio
06-20-2005, 05:42
People either modifiy your posts ASAP or accept the warning points in good grace when they are issued.
It will be a race between yourselves and your forum moderator.
If the mod has to modify your breaches of conduct expect a hefty set of warning points.
Like sport attack the ball not the person.
Duke John
06-20-2005, 05:47
Bad news? There is nothing new at all. And thinking that it would be easy to enlarge the battlefield just like that is wrong, unless you have programmed the engine yourself then how much worth is your opinion? (Although I have of course found a way for Sengoku Jidai :wink: ).
About the 'retarted' issue, I rest my case by saying that people who need insults to get their point across are .........
The sad truth is, no matter how much we cry about this we are just a minoritys.
The majority doesn't care about these thing, and CA is doing this for buisiness.
Rodion Romanovich
06-20-2005, 09:21
Simply slowing down battlespeed wouldn't fix everything. In fact I think the stats differences between units also needs to be decreased. Units like warband, naked fanatics and peasants, which constitute the main part of all brigand armies, are a piece of cake to beat after around 20 game years. Also I think there should be a function to add time restrictions for units appearing in mercenary pools and which units rebel armies will have, so that brigands and mercenaries DON'T have to be the same all the way through the game.
In fact I'm not sure M:TW battlefields were that much larger, but the important thing is that they FELT larger, due to more varied terrain. There were not only the large hills, but also many SMALL hills that weren't enough to deploy an entire army on, but hopefully use to SOME advantage in battle. Now it's mostly large hills where you can put an entire army, and seldom more hills close to the large hills. I like the idea of generating the battle maps dynamically, but I think this first attempt needs improvements, for example by adding more variety through some appropriate algorithm. The R:TW battlefields look less geographically correct than those of M:TW IMO. If they can render battlefields with the quality, variety and correct local feeling that M:TW had, but with a dynamical system like in R:TW, that would be the best thing IMO because it gives unique maps for each map tile, and give the same map every time you fight a battle in the same location. All that said, I think the R:TW battlefields should be made larger. I never play huge unit size simply because there's no room for manouvering. If you play a phalanx faction like Macedon you can block the entire map with your phalanxes and just move forward to win the battles. As a rule of thumb, the battlemaps should at least be twice as wide as the widest single line you can form with the units available in the game if you stick to their normal unit formation depths (i.e. 5 for mac royal pikemen).
PseRamesses
06-20-2005, 09:30
WE can rant all we want about CA´s lack of satisfactory decisions or not it simply will have no effect on their strategy so why bother? I do bother though to see my fellow comrades haggle in the way you do. Just stop, it´s not constructive. :embarassed:
However, I do feel that CA should release an open-end, completely moddable game where you can change EVERYTHING! Personally I´d spend 500$ on that copy, wouldn´t you? ~:cheers:
BrutalDictatorship
06-20-2005, 12:42
why can't we just spend $50 on the kind of game we're asking for?
truth is we can, just not with this franchise...I love TW and have played the franchise for years but I'm about done with it...permanently.
some other devs have the right idea...CA doesn't. Thanks Sega.
............. I do feel that CA should release an open-end, completely moddable game where you can change EVERYTHING!
Personally I´d spend 500$ on that copy, wouldn´t you? ~:cheers:
Yes.
A complete battle pack containing all previous releases (or at least since MTW) and all the tools and bits and bobs to edit/mod everything,
that would be worth every penny.
B.
Makes me wonder how would you feel about Civ4...
BrutalDictatorship
06-20-2005, 23:39
civ4 doesn't look bad, although the battles don't seem to be able to shine RTW's shoes.
AOE3 however might be the next "big one"...been tracking that for a while now
But when you look at modability promised with Civ4...
"Dream TW", minus RTS battles
BrutalDictatorship
06-21-2005, 00:15
the hybrid rts/turn based style of TW is what makes it my choice...
I just wish that another dev would start using this style...so far i haven't seen anything that blends the two as well as TW games...
although many other straight RTS games have AI that absolutely embarrasses CA.
I'm hoping that at some point, someone will find the right mix...
GAH!
Vanya sez... Remember in Olde Shoggy when people would complain of hill and corner campers? STW had supposedly 250 factors going into the combat calculations -- all taken from Sun Tzu... Well, we all remembered how challenging it was to charge uphill in Olde Shoggy.
Well, peeps complained and whined until they were blue. And the result it we have a dumbed-downed version now in RTW. Vanya can now charge uphill into a rock wall with pikemen and still have a decent chance to slap the enemy around some.
Vanya sez... The rule of software is always add, never subtract. But Vanya feels much was subtracted while a lot was also added.
Vanya would like to see (this is wish-list vapor, so if you cannot bear it, turn head now):
1) Ability to "import" mods into game so youz not have to change any files. That way, Vanilla can sit side by side with any number of mods, and picking one is simply a matter of basic menu navigation and selection.
2) A new bundled game with Shogun, Medieval and Rome all available in one. That way youz can send a warrior monk rush to fight elephants and pikes, or have the Wet Gunny Wedgie Army of Doom battle praetorian cohorts under the command of a rotund, burping Nero.
3) Tools, either built-in or distributed as "recognized/supported" software by CA. That is, they at least tested it to be sure its compatible if made by 3rd party. Custom tools can be provided "as-is" to. The point is to remove the intimidation factor many players are burdenned with because they have to edit files manually by having distributed, tested products to mod PLUS a game/mod enviroment that is mod-friendly.
Now, regarding #3, Vanya would think the following will also do that justice. Sell game without these tools. BUT, have a "dev" or "enterprise" or whatever edition that comes with them bundled with the game. Say youz pay an extra $15 to get these tools. Well, youz can make use of them as you see fit. Youz can make your own units, maps, scenarios, campaigns, etc. If youz do not buy the dev pack, they youz can still acquire shareware or community apps and do it "the hard way" (assuming these tools would still make you edit files, though that may be a fading stereotype...).
But Vanya digress. Vanya wanted to say that some of what is now in RTW is clearly the result of past criticisms. The dumbing down of combat calculations was probably done to fix such complaints as hill camping. Many units are interchangeable, with only eye-candy differences because warrior monks were the topic of many a crocodile tear by peeps whining about the monk rush. Arrow units kill only 1-2 boneheads a volley because legions died facing the Wet Gunny Wedgie Army of Doom and made sure CA knew about it. Now all missile units are impotent (at least more so than the original Olde Shoggy).
And lastly, Vanya sez... The number of sequels that exceed the quality of an original movie are few and far between. What makes Police Academy 10 lame compared to the original is the same underlying current that hurts any other sequel, whether it be in a movie or a game or anything else, for that matter. Part of that is simply subject fatigue. But part is undoubtedly trying to cater to the fans too much too; this can often lead to overreaching when trying to fix something that really just needs to be tweaked when the voices of change scream too loud. Although there are exceptions (Vanya has heard the new Batman, for example is truly superlative and better than any previous Batman movie... But Vanya has not seen it, so this is merely heresay), most of the time, this truth holds the line. Vanya--and all of youz no doubt--hoped RTW would be TW's "Batman". But, alas, it is not. We can all hope and pray the next one shall deliver us from the darkness. But in the meantime, though we may lack a "superlative" game, we still have one that is entertaining in some capacity or another.
But that is just what Vanya thinks. What does Vanya know anyway, since He has no head?
:duel: :charge: :book: ~:cheers:
Vanya is confused now... What was Vanya talking about?
~:grouphug:
GAH!
Vanya makes a good post... ~:cheers:
Vanya also has a head, and seems to be using is just fine... ~;)
Orda Khan
06-21-2005, 01:08
Why would you take offense, this is exactly how CA is handling RTW. The inability of CA to adapt will prove its undoing.
Then feel free to release your own PC game
For god's sake man. I think it's about time you jumped down off your horse and joined the rest of society! Complaining about this is just, well, RETARDED!
BTW, do you work for CA or any of their affiliates? You and that horse of yours, always seem to be on the CA side of the fence.
Feel free to hurl more abuse if you like but please leave my horse out of it because he is innocent ~;)
......Orda
Now all missile units are impotent (at least more so than the original Olde Shoggy).
I haven't noticed that (SP medium battles). When I last played RTW vanilla, my Roman and Cretan archers were mowing down most enemies like machine guns. (They were less impressive against "plate" armoured late legionnaires, that's true.). I'd say they were arguably a little overpowered for the period whereas STW and MTW felt pretty much "just right" for their time frames.
And lastly, Vanya sez... The number of sequels that exceed the quality of an original movie are few and far between.
True of movies, but not of computer games IMO. I suspect almost all of my nominations for "all-time great" classic games are sequels - let's see, we have Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate 2, System Shock 2, MTW, Homm3, Might and Magic 6, maybe even Vampires Masquerade is a kind of a sequel. I might even sneak in Panzer General 2 and Star Wars: KOTOR2 to my list, although the originals in both cases were also outstanding. As a generalisation, the first game tends to suck in time developing an engine, at the expense of content. The second game gets rid of some unintended flaws of the original (e.g. the Hojo horde in STW; the NPCs getting stuck in doorways in Fallout etc) and the designers spend a lot of time adding content. I suspect there comes a point when the original essence of a game is lost due to too many sequels, or the engine/idea simply becomes obsolete. But I still think CA has some Total War games left in it.
Productivity
06-21-2005, 11:32
Then feel free to release your own PC game
That's a logical fallacy. If I didn't have anything at stake then that would be a fair point to make, but as it is, most of my future enjoyment of Rome:TW is resting upon CA's handling of it, and while retarded wouldn't be the adjective I would use, it certainly isn't particularly invalid.
The moment I paid for Rome, the "release a game yourself and then talk" argument became fallacious.
Then feel free to release your own PC game
I never get this line of argument. This argument assumes we are all programmers and criticizing CA's work without offering a better alternative. Unfortunately I chose to be a Lawyer and not a programmer. Does that mean that I should not criticize CA's work because I am unable to come up with a program/game which does all that CA's product doesn't.
As an analogy, if i screwed up a case or gave bad advice to a client, and my client (who isn't a lawyer ofcourse) comes to me and tell me that i have screwed up etc., should i tell him to 'feel free to fight/argue his own case and form his own mind'. My client chose to be a businessman and not a lawyer, and came to me for the very reason that he needed legal advice.
We all have a certain profession (mostly) and thus rely on others with different professions for things which are best done by them. I don't grow my own wheat, or build my own Airplane/Train/Bus to travel.
Hope it puts this kind of argument in perspective for those who frequently make use of it (mostly fanboys sorry to say).
GilJaysmith
06-21-2005, 16:59
But on the other hand, do you allow a client to tell you exactly how you should represent him, to criticise your behaviour in previous cases, or to demand, if a case goes against him, that you should go back to court at your own expense until he gets a result which he likes?
We do our best to do what we think will make a good game. But computer games are a creative endeavour, a form of entertainment. If you don't like the show, don't go to the next one.
antisocialmunky
06-21-2005, 17:18
"Make your own game" isn't really a arguement. It's really just thrown out there to side track people. Just IMHO there.
Now, GilJaysmith has a point. If the client is dissatisified and wants to do it another way, then he should find a lawyer that will do it the client's way.
The problem with that and equating that to RTW is that RTW has no real parallel. It's system is rather unique and people are now begining to clone it. So, there's no alternative for now. But I suspect that companies will make games better suited for your guy's needs if CA falls out of favour.
However...
I design games and its tough to put everything you want in a game, especially if you're working with a comercial deadline and only so much you can do if you want to go back and fix something as complex as RTW unless you scrap the whole thing and restart from scratch because so many things would have to be changed. If they make another TW, I atleast hope they'll learn from RTW and fix much of the hardcoded problems.
For one, we all like the show or used to like it: otherwise we would not be here :) As far as "going back to cour at your own expense": pardon me, but the last TW game does contain some sloppy work... I am not talking about such things as oversimplified tactical calculations (terrain, weather, fatigue - all seem to have low effect now) or warp killing speed that allows for no tactical manouvering - those are features (arguably placed there so the game could be sold to a wider audience). I am talking about things that are obviously wrong and affect the gameplay experience of most players... The secondary weapon bug, for one... Ok, it got fixed. But what do we have in the "fixed" version? Difficulty levels that are messed up... a top menu level item... Well, these are examples of "screwups" in the "lawyer's work" not examples of when the "case went against the client"... And, yes, I believe, in this case, the "lawyer" should fix the errors at his own expense :)
But on the other hand, do you allow a client to tell you exactly how you should represent him, to criticise your behaviour in previous cases, or to demand, if a case goes against him, that you should go back to court at your own expense until he gets a result which he likes?
Gil, with all due respect, I said "if i screwed up a case or gave bad advice to a client", that is the starting premise. If it is a point of contention whether i did screw up or not, its a completely different story. I am not saying you guys completely screwed up, simply trying to explain to Orda that throwing such logic as 'do it yourself' at criticism is not the answer. If you must know, negligent advice does expose lawyers to action by clients, not where we lose a case etc., unless there was negligence on our part. We don't have a court or jury sitting here to give us a clear judgement on the point if CA was negligent in releasing RTW in the state it is, or perhaps misrepresented to its customers etc.
We do our best to do what we think will make a good game. But computer games are a creative endeavour, a form of entertainment. If you don't like the show, don't go to the next one
Fair enough mate. It is ofcourse obvious that people who are not happy with RTW have a choice whether or not to support CA's next product. However, most people are simply unhappy about the current state of RTW, and perhaps want something done in the positive by the authorities to improve the state of RTW as is without having to purchase an upgrade. As an analogy (yes one more), perhaps to them its like a Car which came without two of its wheels and they are demanding that the two wheels be provided to them without them having to dish out extra money, as they do not care for the cool spoiler which comes bundled with the upgrade.
Whether they are right or wrong depends on their reasoning and the truth in the matter (i.e., if RTW actually came without the two tires needed for it to give a proper ride). Its easier to say don't buy the expansion if you don't like RTW, but whether it satisfies your customers or not is a for CA to determine from the customer feedback.
As lawyers we can tell our clients to not come back if they don't like our manner of handling their case(s). Sometimes we do that if the Client is being completely unreasonable, but most times it is possible to reach an amicable understanding where both parties can continue to have an amicable relationship.
I design games and its tough to put everything you want in a game, especially if you're working with a comercial deadline and only so much you can do if you want to go back and fix something as complex as RTW unless you scrap the whole thing and restart from scratch because so many things would have to be changed. If they make another TW, I atleast hope they'll learn from RTW and fix much of the hardcoded problems.
Well, isn't it the case that CA actually has two great games to learn from: STW and MTW (with all their expansions)? Why so many people are complaining is that what good was already achieved in those games was lost in RTW... Examples of great tactical modeling things lost comparing RTW to MTW: in MTW, a missile unit deployed more than 2/3 ranks deep would lose accuracy; height advantage was prominent; exhausted units would practically come to crawl speed while in RTW they still run around like gazelles (and how realistic is the new found ability of foot-skirmishers to out-run cavalry??? even when exhausted...); spear units requiring formation would lose their formation advantage in the woods; cavalry would be seriously disadvantaged in the woods... etc., etc... all this was already known but forgotten for some reason...
Well, isn't it the case that CA actually has two great games to learn from: STW and MTW (with all their expansions)? Why so many people are complaining is that what good was already achieved in those games was lost in RTW... Examples of great tactical modeling things lost comparing RTW to MTW: in MTW, a missile unit deployed more than 2/3 ranks deep would lose accuracy; height advantage was prominent; exhausted units would practically come to crawl speed while in RTW they still run around like gazelles (and how realistic is the new found ability of foot-skirmishers to out-run cavalry??? even when exhausted...); spear units requiring formation would lose their formation advantage in the woods; cavalry would be seriously disadvantaged in the woods... etc., etc... all this was already known but forgotten for some reason...
Are you sure this isn't just some nostalgia or a placebo?
AI in STW and MTW seems about the same in RTW IMO.
Mongoose
06-21-2005, 18:04
errr...i don't think he said any thing about the ai....
Are you sure this isn't just some nostalgia or a placebo?
AI in STW and MTW seems about the same in RTW IMO.
m-hmm... i didn't say anything about the AI... I was just referring to the list of now lost (or reduced in significance) tactical features that a player had to consider. as to the AI: no, it was not able to successfully apply these tactical features in most cases neither in STW nor in MTW... however, it was part of the fun: having an inferior army luring the AI to charge uphill or into the woods... yes, these memories make me feel nostalgic... :)
Well, isn't it the case that CA actually has two great games to learn from: STW and MTW (with all their expansions)? Why so many people are complaining is that what good was already achieved in those games was lost in RTW... Examples of great tactical modeling things lost comparing RTW to MTW: in MTW, a missile unit deployed more than 2/3 ranks deep would lose accuracy; height advantage was prominent; exhausted units would practically come to crawl speed while in RTW they still run around like gazelles (and how realistic is the new found ability of foot-skirmishers to out-run cavalry??? even when exhausted...); spear units requiring formation would lose their formation advantage in the woods; cavalry would be seriously disadvantaged in the woods... etc., etc... all this was already known but forgotten for some reason...
CA said that the Total War tactical features were intentionally diminished in RTW to cater to the younger market of players who they felt wouldn't grasp them. CA sought and got a T (teen) rating for RTW rather than the M (mature) rating of the previous games. You have thousands of realistically detailed men hacking and stabbing each other and not one drop of blood is shed or even a single arm cut off. The previous games had blood. Also, the battles have a more comical aspect to them than the previous games.
IceTorque
06-21-2005, 19:40
Well even the kids don't like tiny featureless battlemaps.
And battles where the load and setup time takes longer,(well almost)
than the actual battle.
I played many an online battle in MTW with my young bloke,
But he won't come near RTW.
CA said that the Total War tactical features were intentionally diminished in RTW to cater to the younger market of players who they felt wouldn't grasp them. CA sought and got a T (teen) rating for RTW rather than the M (mature) rating of the previous games. You have thousands of realistically detailed men hacking and stabbing each other and not one drop of blood is shed or even a single arm cut off. The previous games had blood. Also, the battles have a more comical aspect to them than the previous games.
this makes my cry out loud... why, oh why??? they had a great product with great ideas that could be developed further. why lose the very features that made the game great? at least, they could have opened those now diminished tactical differentials for modders so the community could adjust such things as terrain advantage and climate effects...
as to the teen rating: i think, it was sufficient to remove blood splashes for a teen rating... there was no need to diminsh the tactical aspect of the game...
Sid_Quibley
06-21-2005, 21:07
CA said that the Total War tactical features were intentionally diminished in RTW to cater to the younger market of players who they felt wouldn't grasp them.
Did they say that in public or private?
Orda Khan
06-21-2005, 21:56
It was very nice of you to try to point out something to me sik1977, but you see, this is yet another 'I hate RTW' thread..........YAWN!!!!
How many times are we going to go over this? and I agree with Giljaysmith with regards that nobody commisioned CA to make a product for them and I repeat, to those who hate RTW, don't buy the expansion. There are so many opinions on what the game should be, what it should include etc, etc. This is not a phenomenon peculiar to RTW. People have been moaning since STW but at least back then it was restricted to a few threads. Nowadays it would seem that there is a competition to see who can dream up the most abuse and to be honest, it has become boring to visit this site and find yet another thread of this nature.
( BTW I do not work for CA but if I did I know what I would be thinking right now)
To be honest, reading some posts ( that happen to be made by the same authors) I cannot help thinking there is something of a personal grudge involved or at least, this is how it seems.
When MTW came out I critcised it. I did not 'name call'. I did not like certain things but they were purely superficial things like the bright colours. I did not repeat this ad finitum as some are doing now. By the time VI was due, the 'I will not buy' threads began again but still not to the present level. I helped Beta test the v2.01 patch and was still not happy with the the final game but realised mine was one opinion amongst many.
There are things about RTW that I do not like ( me and my horse ~;) ) but I am mature enough to realise that calling CA names is not going to achieve anything other than make me look a fool.
As far as my 'make it yourself' remark is concerned, this was in reply to the 'CA don't deserve support from modders' post. Without CA making the game in the first place, there would be nothing to mod would there? Hence go and do better.
I am happy now, as I was when STW came out, that I am able to fight a realistic battle. I will go and buy the BI expansion because it appeals to me and because I choose to do so. Probably I will find something I do not like.....just like in STW when it first appeared. Only Buddha is perfect ~;)
........Orda
BrutalDictatorship
06-21-2005, 22:03
I just don't see what is wrong with people repeatedly pointing out the flaws of RTW. What's the problem?
You don't see 100 hate threads on games like Half Life 2 because valve made a game that they knew their fanbase wanted. CA didn't do this...so now they're paying the price via customer conversation and feedback.
I understand the point that "there's millions of threads on this already" but some people just started playing the game last month, last week, yesterday and are pointing out what THEY see as flaws for the very first time.
Interesting how 90% of the players point the same issues out...
~:handball:
antisocialmunky
06-21-2005, 23:23
Well, isn't it the case that CA actually has two great games to learn from: STW and MTW (with all their expansions)? Why so many people are complaining is that what good was already achieved in those games was lost in RTW... Examples of great tactical modeling things lost comparing RTW to MTW: in MTW, a missile unit deployed more than 2/3 ranks deep would lose accuracy; height advantage was prominent; exhausted units would practically come to crawl speed while in RTW they still run around like gazelles (and how realistic is the new found ability of foot-skirmishers to out-run cavalry??? even when exhausted...); spear units requiring formation would lose their formation advantage in the woods; cavalry would be seriously disadvantaged in the woods... etc., etc... all this was already known but forgotten for some reason...
RTW is a completely brand new engine though, I'm not referring to experience to make a good game, but experience making a brand new all 3D engine. MTW largely carried over from STW. New complicated engines have lots of problems. However, I'm not excusing CA because RTW just has more than most.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-21-2005, 23:58
CA sought and got a T (teen) rating for RTW rather than the M (mature) rating of the previous games. You have thousands of realistically detailed men hacking and stabbing each other and not one drop of blood is shed or even a single arm cut off. The previous games had blood. Also, the battles have a more comical aspect to them than the previous games.
The past TW games were Teen.
Revelation
06-22-2005, 02:07
it has become boring to visit this site and find yet another thread of this nature.
Well Orda, I reckon you could come up with the answer to this one yourself mate, don't you agree? After all, you have the horse, why not use it right!
I do have to agree with the name calling bit though. It's not really doing a hell of alot except pissing the Mods off i'd be thinking. We don't want angry little mods on our hands after all.
Calling CA retarded is probably a little extreme, but on the other hand, the game in it's present state can be quite annoying, especially given the stance of CA in regards to patches and catering to the needs of the user.
I guess folks just remember the bad when they see a statement released by those up top that pretty much says, "screw you all, we're doing it our way regardless of what the masses say"! (well sort of)
I will go and buy the BI expansion because it appeals to me and because I choose to do so.
and you know what, I probably will to, even though i'd like to think I won't! Maybe it will just be in the faint hope that some of the more pressing issues will be addressed.
All in all RTW's a really good game, but could of been a great one and without the mods available out there atm, it's replayability as far as i'm concerned would have been non existant. Sad really.
Only Buddha is perfect
But he's short, bald and fat. No wonder you have only limited problems with RTW Orda! Perfection in your world is easy to achieve it would seem...... ~D
Guys, CA and Activision are private companies. They exist to make money. Making games may once have been the end in itself, but honestly I think it's just the means to the end (profit) now. They don't care about a loyal fan base because you can't spend loyalty. Publicly-held companies are extremely focused on the short term, so they see no profitability in loyalty. Right or wrong, they seem to believe that they can make more money dumbing the game down and thereby making it accessible to a broader audience, than continuing in the tradition of STW and MTW.
So long as the sales figures remain high, they have no incentive to change. If you don't like what they've done, don't buy the Xpac. If they see that only a small percentage of RTW owners bought the Xpac (total BI units sold / total RTW units sold) they might take communities like this more seriously. Until that happens, nothing will change. The only thing we can do is show them why it's profitable to listen to us, and profitless to ignore us. It's the only language they (or their publisher) seem to understand anymore.
Productivity
06-22-2005, 04:21
But on the other hand, do you allow a client to tell you exactly how you should represent him, to criticise your behaviour in previous cases, or to demand, if a case goes against him, that you should go back to court at your own expense until he gets a result which he likes?
Of course not, however, if the client thinks you are useless, don't expect him to pay you to lodge an appeal.
Secondly if I pay a lawyer, and they come to court impeccably dressed, yet having forgotten entirely what they were doing yesterday, I am probably going to sack them. I would probably also ask for a refund for what they have already done as well.
You may also note that some lawyers now offer a no win, no fee policy.
We do our best to do what we think will make a good game. But computer games are a creative endeavour, a form of entertainment. If you don't like the show, don't go to the next one.
Believe me, I have no plans to go to the next show at the moment. If anyone asks me what I thought of the show, I'll tell them as well. You may think you can get away with alienating your core base, well good luck to you.
The further you move from your core of serious tactical/strategic gamers, the further you are getting into the traditional RTS style games. Do you think you can compete against Age of Empires III, Command & Conquer et al.? If so, feel free to go there, but don't expect me to cry at your funeral.
I could give you 100 case studies of this, over a large range of industries. A company finds a niche, exploits the niche, and then thinks it can take on the big boys in the mainstream. What makes you different from all the failures before you?
Take the Tribes series. Tribes was a classic. It wasn't extensively played, but it had an extremely loyal following. Move forwards to today, the developers tried to take Tribes to the masses. Within months of it being released, it was a complete flop. Now there is no support, and nobody plays it. Tribes had a niche. It was too complex for the average gamer, but it had a strong following. It tried to move into the mainstream by dumbing it down, in the process it alienated it's core following, but it was still too complex for the average player. Now nobody wants it, nobody cares about it. Tribes had a lonely funeral. Do you think Total War can avoid that?
Are you sure this isn't just some nostalgia or a placebo?
AI in STW and MTW seems about the same in RTW IMO.
I disagree. The proof is in the final result. In my thrace campaign, I ended up with final win/loss stats of ~350 wins, 3 losses. In any of my M:TW games, it would have been closer to a 5:1 ratio, at best.
AI differences? I'd say so.
Productivity
06-22-2005, 04:25
Delete please.
screwtype
06-22-2005, 07:10
I disagree. The proof is in the final result. In my thrace campaign, I ended up with final win/loss stats of ~350 wins, 3 losses. In any of my M:TW games, it would have been closer to a 5:1 ratio, at best.
AI differences? I'd say so.
And not only that, but your 350 victories are absolutely massive. It's not unusual to inflict ten times as many casualties on the enemy, even at the "hardest" level.
There is just no challenge in the game at all. Even if you lose a battle, you can just move your battered units to the nearest city and rebuild ten of them in a single turn. Back to a full stack in two turns.
CA *could* have made a game that appealed to both the kiddies and their hardcore base, simply by making the game at harder levels function more like the earlier games. Then the kiddies could have had their fun at easy and normal and we could have had ours at hard and very hard. But they were so terrified of including anything at all that might confuse an eight year old that they dumbed down the entire package. And so their original base got shafted. And that is why there is so much anger and bitterness out there.
SigniferOne
06-22-2005, 07:31
You guys have not played any mods, it looks like, the latest developments of which have led to drastic improvements in AI, for example I have never seen the AI generals suicide in thsi current campaign, not even ONCE, and it's already 220 BC. So you can either a) continue whining, or b) find ways to enjoy the game and end the whining.
Mount Suribachi
06-22-2005, 07:53
If you don't like the show, don't go to the next one.
I bought Shogun: Total War on the day of release, I bought Medieval: Total War on the day of release, I bought Viking Invasion on the day of release and just last month I bought STW: Warlord Edition to play on my wifes laptop. I have MTW and NTW installed on my PC and play the latter all the time.
Yet I haven't bought RTW , and obviously I won't be buying BI either, thats approx £60 you won't be getting from this previously loyal customer precisely because I "don't like the show". I don't know if you saw any of the recent "will you be buying BI?" polls, but more than half of the respondents said they would wait and see whether it would fix the gameplay, AI and bugs with RTW (and by the sounds of the Q&As with The Shogun they won't)before they would buy it or said they wouldn't buy it at all.
Thats more than 50% of people in a dedicated RTW forum who said they wouldn't be buying the expansion pack. Doesn't that worry you?
I could understand it if STW and MTW were critical successes but commercial failures so you felt you had to make the game more "accessible" but thats not the case, I know they both went to the top of the charts in the UK when they were released. Obviously I don't have the sales figures to compare for STW, MTW and RTW, but STW and MTW proved that there is a market for realistic strategy games. I can only echo what dgb said about exploiting your niche in the market.
Its OK saying "if you don't like it don't buy it" until all your customers stop buying your product.
Productivity
06-22-2005, 08:44
You guys have not played any mods, it looks like, the latest developments of which have led to drastic improvements in AI, for example I have never seen the AI generals suicide in thsi current campaign, not even ONCE, and it's already 220 BC. So you can either a) continue whining, or b) find ways to enjoy the game and end the whining.
Right, so the onus should be on the consumer to do the work to make the game reasonable. Taking the lawyer analogy further, that's like the lawyer telling you that you have to go and look up case precedents, you have to go and print out the statutes for them etc.
That's another logical fallacy, and it's stupid. Mods should be there to make the game different, not to fix up basic flaws.
Loinnreach
06-22-2005, 09:13
It is all about money. Figuer this out already.
CA thank you for two beautiful games which STW and MTW were (are). I can't mention this for RTW.
You have forgot to mention something thought. Let us suppos that you someone has many clients or only which is quit rich.
If client is not satisfied with the result, you don't need to go back to court at your own expense until he gets a result which he likes,
(you forgot to mention following GilJaysmith)
becaus client will say goodbye to you.
People should always look on issues from many different points of views. Then you can see the full picture.
VorCid
Intrepid Sidekick
06-22-2005, 10:39
As we have already said, there will be no radical departures from the existing battles and their mechanics in BI.
However this does not mean that a large amount of care and attention hasn't been given to tightening up and polishing the battlefield experience.
If you buy Barbarian Invasion you will find that there have been some tweaks to a few areas in this part of the game. How much you like the tweaks is going to be a matter of personal taste.
WE think that we have improved the game with the changes we have made. As always we will await forum feedback at the .com and here with interest. :bow:
Intrepid Sidekick
#C.A. Staff#
As we have already said, there will be no radical departures from the existing battles and their mechanics in BI.
So, cataphracts will still beat silver shield pikemen frontally because that would be a change to the game mechanics?
If you buy Barbarian Invasion you will find that there have been some tweaks to a few areas in this part of the game.
This policy of not telling people what you changed is astonishing given the criticism that has been leveled at the gameplay of RTW. Half the people here aren't going to buy BI to find out what got changed.
PseRamesses
06-22-2005, 14:01
As we have already said, there will be no radical departures from the existing battles and their mechanics in BI.
However this does not mean that a large amount of care and attention hasn't been given to tightening up and polishing the battlefield experience.
If you buy Barbarian Invasion you will find that there have been some tweaks to a few areas in this part of the game. How much you like the tweaks is going to be a matter of personal taste.
WE think that we have improved the game with the changes we have made. As always we will await forum feedback at the .com and here with interest. :bow:
Intrepid Sidekick
#C.A. Staff#
Excuse a stupid Q from an addicted TW-player since STW: How is it possible for the battlefield AI to "evolve" from a very good decision making STW to the sheer stupidity RTW one? I´m worried, please give any answer! Thx in advance.
screwtype
06-22-2005, 14:03
So, cataphracts will still beat silver shield pikemen frontally because that would be a change to the game mechanics?
This policy of not telling people what you changed is astonishing given the criticism that has been leveled at the gameplay of RTW. Half the people here aren't going to buy BI to find out what got changed.
Oh, quit whining. Honestly, every time someone from CA posts here all some of you guys can do is moan that you weren't told enough. What do you want, a thesis? You know that CA employees are contractually bound not to talk in depth about upcoming products. They've told us often enough.
Sidekick at least has the decency to drop in now and then and try to respond to our concerns. If all these guys get when they turn up here is a kick in the teeth, what motivation will they have for coming here at all?
He's said there have been changes that they think improve the game. He's said they care about how these changes will be received here at the com. How about giving the guy a little credit for showing some concern and consideration about what we think?
If you want to know every detail about everything that's been done, then I suggest you wait until a few people here have bought the Xpack and reviewed it. That will no doubt be the best way to get an assessment of the game anyhow.
Little Legioner
06-22-2005, 14:41
Sidekick at least has the decency to drop in now and then and try to respond to our concerns. If all these guys get when they turn up here is a kick in the teeth, what motivation will they have for coming here at all?
He's said there have been changes that they think improve the game. He's said they care about how these changes will be received here at the com. How about giving the guy a little credit for showing some concern and consideration about what we think?
He's right mates. Calm down be some positive. Keep it in mind also fellas they had done STW and MTW am i wrong?.. They deserve some respect and proper motivation. ~:grouphug:
I'm glad to see a CA staffs constructive message in this topic. At this point we should have to continue the constructive position again. As a community responsibility we should run the message traffic with calm, responsible, objective behavior. We have to keep that values alive if we want to keep our healthy relation and proper connection with the CA staff at the future.
So, the situation proves it that our voice heard from CA again and i hope so, it will get a response which will be reflect to BI. I think so and i hope so, which is our primary concerns: larger battlefields, long battles and smarter battle ai will correct at the BI.
Because there is no "tightening up and polishing the battlefield experience" besides of them. Put aside 80 new units, swimming units and night battles. We know that clearly they are not related with our point. They are only "features" not related with philosophy... We arent talking about only the actors we are talking about the "stage" which is directly related with the show.
Sounds promising Intrepid Sidekick i hope so you will come with better news at soon. ~:cheers:
Intrepid Sidekick
06-22-2005, 14:59
Hi Puzz3d
In answer to your first point:
No they can't beat silver shield pikemen in a frontal charge. :bow:
In answer to your second point:
There are many small, and some big, changes in the game, far too many to list here.
Development on titles like RTW and the BI expansion is a constant process, full of change.
As Captain Fishpants will have pointed out on this forum and at .Com, the CA staff who come here and talk to everyone are dev staff and not PR agents. We do this voluntarily.
I am a member of the dev team whose job is to work on the game, not to talk, at length, to the public about the new features. Or to talk about changes to the game, or even about our companies PR policy.
That is a PR type persons job.
I'm genuinely sorry if this doesn’t make you happy, but please be aware that we do try to answer questions as and when we have a few spare moments - during our lunch breaks, between design tasks, while compiling new code or while waiting for a new build to try out new data.
Anyway I'm sure there will be more information made available as Barbarian Invasion comes closer to release. Hopefully that information will satisfy your queries and perhaps change your mind about buying the game or not.
Mongoose
06-22-2005, 15:10
One question: Do you mean they can't beat them in a frontal charge now or that they won't in the xpac? Thanks :bow:
ChaosLord
06-22-2005, 15:24
I didn't really expect BI to go to any great lengths changing battles, hopefully the tweaks will be enough. But on another note, its good to see CA staff posting here again. While you fellows are floating around, would you mind telling us if any of the modding restrictions(such as faction limit) have been removed for BI?
Old Celt
06-22-2005, 15:50
These posts which refer to any complaint over RTW as whining and as "kicking CA in the teeth" really make me laugh. Sure it's nice when Intrepid Sidekick comes and says "we think we've improved the game". Yes well, what else would we expect you to think? I'll point out that same rationale applied with the creation of RTW after MTW. Is the game really improved? Depends on who you ask.
If you accept that RTW is not a serious strategy game, liking it becomes much easier. Once you stop expecting any depth to long term strategy, continuation of ongoing plans from the saved game state, or meaningful diplomacy, it becomes a much more attractive version of Kingdom Under Fire, with more missions. That sort of game appeals well to children from 8 to 15, and it has become obvious this is the target market.
I do agree that no amount of complaining or suggestion in whatever form will have the slightest effect on the actual plans for BI, and certainly not for RTW. The policy is: Here's our stuff, like it or lump it. The mistake some of us have made is to think that ANY aspect of the product is negotiable: It is not. Terms are dictated by the supplier, and this iron clad format for success will be followed as it has for the last 5 years.
Ultimately, the only power we have is to buy or not buy the product. If the provider doesn't care if the membership here buys the product, then that of course says something about the level of importance attributed to such customers.
These posts which refer to any complaint over RTW as whining and as "kicking CA in the teeth" really make me laugh. Sure it's nice when Intrepid Sidekick comes and says "we think we've improved the game". Yes well, what else would we expect you to think? I'll point out that same rationale applied with the creation of RTW after MTW. Is the game really improved? Depends on who you ask.
If you accept that RTW is not a serious strategy game, liking it becomes much easier. Once you stop expecting any depth to long term strategy, continuation of ongoing plans from the saved game state, or meaningful diplomacy, it becomes a much more attractive version of Kingdom Under Fire, with more missions. That sort of game appeals well to children from 8 to 15, and it has become obvious this is the target market.
I do agree that no amount of complaining or suggestion in whatever form will have the slightest effect on the actual plans for BI, and certainly not for RTW. The policy is: Here's our stuff, like it or lump it. The mistake some of us have made is to think that ANY aspect of the product is negotiable: It is not. Terms are dictated by the supplier, and this iron clad format for success will be followed as it has for the last 5 years.
Ultimately, the only power we have is to buy or not buy the product. If the provider doesn't care if the membership here buys the product, then that of course says something about the level of importance attributed to such customers.
Do you think you are some superior being because you play some diffarent game?
Do hear any game developer actually TALKING to people in forum after game release?
Did you ever heard developers of AOE series comes down to ask a bug list for the commynity?
Some people's snobbish attitude in this forum sickens me.
Show some respect for them.
Old Celt
06-22-2005, 16:19
"Do you think you are some superior being because you play some diffarent game?
Do hear any game developer actually TALKING to people in forum after game release?
Did you ever heard developers of AOE series comes down to ask a bug list for the commynity?
Some people's snobbish attitude in this forum sickens me.
Show some respect for them." - KSEG (spelling errors original)
Answer to question 1: No, I think that for other reasons.
Answer to question 2: Yes!
Answer to question 3: Yes!
Comments on your comments: Your 24 postings and April join date suggests to me that you don't know much about the history of my postings and the discussions I've had about RTW. I was one of the biggest supporters of the game at its inception, and defended the developers quite stoutly. Any remaining grognards on this forum should be willing to back me up on that. I had to be beaten over the head to change my views, but after enough discussion and observation on responses, my opinion has come around 180 degrees. The reasons for that have nothing to do with my respecting other people's opinions on this forum, and everything to do with certain people not respecting my own and other forumers factual statements.
I apologize for getting heated up.
But please understand that I love this game despise its flaws, and seeing the constant bashing against CA makes me bit angry.
Orda Khan
06-22-2005, 16:43
Well Orda, I reckon you could come up with the answer to this one yourself mate, don't you agree? After all, you have the horse, why not use it right!
So this forum member has become so important that he feels he has the right to tell others to leave. I shall treat this with the contempt it deserves.
But he's short, bald and fat. No wonder you have only limited problems with RTW Orda! Perfection in your world is easy to achieve it would seem...... ~D
......and you obviously have no idea about Buddha do you, since you describe Hotei. Siddartha Gautama ( Buddha ) was neither bald, short nor fat
......Orda
Old Celt
06-22-2005, 16:47
@KSEG:
Apology accepted and appreciated. I think that if you consider the whole history of the critical discussions we've had here, remarks in this thread are extremely tame. They have to be because passionate argument gets termed as "abuse" and threads are locked.
Back on topic: I think CA is being completely honest when they say they aren't going to change the mechanics of the battle engine for the BI release. They have no reason to change them. The very successful sales of RTW proves that a great many people are satisfied with the performance as is. I think the only way changing something as intrinsic as that to the game would have to be driven by it being unacceptable to a large percentage of the target audience (not your typical forum members here). If something is working for your purposes, why fix it?
@Orda Khan:
I fail to see the slightest relevance of your posting to this topic. I respectfully ask you to take your personal battles out of here.
Little Legioner
06-22-2005, 16:55
Good to see some peace. There was no reason for harsh behaviors. Well done fellas ~:grouphug:
Most of us love the TW series. I play this game with great passion for years. I have too many memories and nice moments with the TW games and i have great respect for the developers for the TW legend. And, here are my two cents worth opinions and critique.
I belive we will see some good news in the near future. As i understood correct CA will make serious improvements about our subject. Intrepid Sidekick has made his personal opinion and i believe they were good and promising news as a reflection about our main subject: "battles&battlefieds" :duel: :charge: .
Back on topic: I think CA is being completely honest when they say they aren't going to change the mechanics of the battle engine for the BI release. They have no reason to change them. The very successful sales of RTW proves that a great many people are satisfied with the performance as is. I think the only way changing something as intrinsic as that to the game would have to be driven by it being unacceptable to a large percentage of the target audience (not your typical forum members here). If something is working for your purposes, why fix it?
Very succesfull sales do not make the game a classic. I guess they will change the mechanics. RTW sold too much but it is not a simple fact. Until recently I was thinking of RTW as an improved continuation of MTW. But, I didnt find successful elements of STW and MTW in RTW. Many of the fans ,I suppose, had the same disappointment... Just look at the comparison topics. I can remember many of them with different manners. RTW's target audience was false. RTW sacrificed hardcore strategy gamers whom earned from older series of TW episodes to the click-fasters and kiddies. It was not so necessary coz every TW game was selling very well and looking serious and different from the mainstream. Sorry but imho this is the story.
Intrepid Sidekick, i personaly thank you and the CA Staff. I hope you will make your best and we shall claim the better RTW experience again.
With my best wishes. ~:grouphug:
I don't really think that it would be wise to drastically change the battle machanics for an expansion pack. Think of the potential can o' worms (and bugs) that could unleash. The comments we are seeing from the devs are that they have tweaked the mechanics. Hopefully they will improve the AI some as well. The vast changes necessary to satisfy the STW/MTW diehards are best left to a new release (which, with refined AI/features plus the RTW graphics engine, could potentially be the Best. Game. Ever.).
Regarding the purchase of the XP. Many here have said they will not buy it, many have said they will wait for others to review. The majority of people who bought RTW do not visit this forum, and probably not TWC or the .com either. While it is difficult to gauge these "casual" users, how many of them will purchase the XP? Will the "click-fest, ADHD, RTS/FPS addicted" owner of Rome spend the money (or bug the parents) to buy the XP, or has the novelty worn off for them? This will truly be the gauge for CA to see if they are on the correct path financially.
Orda Khan
06-22-2005, 18:02
I fail to see the slightest relevance of your posting to this topic. I respectfully ask you to take your personal battles out of here.
Another important member I see. There was no 'personal battle' until another, such as you, told me to leave.
Just as you did, I replied to a post that was directed at me. You are allowed to do that but I am not, right?
There are three pages to this thread and my posts have been relevant, not that I have to explain myself to you. I guess one has to be anti CA and anti RTW to post here?
.....Orda
Old Celt
06-22-2005, 18:42
Another important member I see. There was no 'personal battle' until another, such as you, told me to leave.
Just as you did, I replied to a post that was directed at me. You are allowed to do that but I am not, right?
There are three pages to this thread and my posts have been relevant, not that I have to explain myself to you. I guess one has to be anti CA and anti RTW to post here?
.....Orda
Come on Orda! With all the posts you have, you should know better than to descend into personal combat like this. I'm not saying for a minute that you shouldn't post here or defend yourself if you feel the need. What I was saying, and I was polite about it, was that it was completely off topic and didn't belong in the thread. When I say "take your personal battles elsewhere", I mean PM the person or e-mail them if you want, but don't hijack threads to flame wars. If we don't stay on topic Catiline or Nelson will come with their mighty sticks of thread locking. Now, please play nice!!
Elmar Bijlsma
06-22-2005, 19:27
I don't really think that it would be wise to drastically change the battle machanics for an expansion pack. Think of the potential can o' worms (and bugs) that could unleash. The comments we are seeing from the devs are that they have tweaked the mechanics. Hopefully they will improve the AI some as well. The vast changes necessary to satisfy the STW/MTW diehards are best left to a new release (which, with refined AI/features plus the RTW graphics engine, could potentially be the Best. Game. Ever.).
Regarding the purchase of the XP. Many here have said they will not buy it, many have said they will wait for others to review. The majority of people who bought RTW do not visit this forum, and probably not TWC or the .com either. While it is difficult to gauge these "casual" users, how many of them will purchase the XP? Will the "click-fest, ADHD, RTS/FPS addicted" owner of Rome spend the money (or bug the parents) to buy the XP, or has the novelty worn off for them? This will truly be the gauge for CA to see if they are on the correct path financially.
The later question is exactly why I had hoped that BI would return RTW to it's grognard-lite roots. Expansions tend to be bought by the more hardcore following. I believe that is us or people like us (not exclusively, ofcourse, but mainly) so I hoped they'd listen more to our wishes.
And no disrespect to the CA staff* taking some of their time to post here but the prime benefit for me of having CA staff posting here is getting little snippets of news. But of late there is none of that. That you guys are improving things; yeah well duh, I still have enough faith in you guys to assume you don't set out to make things worse. Please ask the powers that be to ease up on the gag order and allow you to give us some actual insider snippets. No one is asking for 'The Big Secret To Making Total War', just one or two neat factoids would be really, really cool.
*please don't go "uh-oh" at that, it really is meant. My Grognard heart may have been wounded by woeful PR and support but you code monkeys are still highly respected by me and most people here. ~:grouphug:
Mongoose
06-22-2005, 19:40
*please don't go "uh-oh" at that, it really is meant. My Grognard heart may have been wounded by woeful PR and support but you code monkeys are still highly respected by me and most people here.
Well said ~:cheers: . What's funny is that the programmers are very thick skinned...and the PR people are not.
Hi Puzz3d
In answer to your first point:
No they can't beat silver shield pikemen in a frontal charge. :bow:
Thanks very much for the response on this since I had heard nothing since demonstrating this problem to CA back in January. I hope the change extends to all cav/pike matchups, because I believe improving the RPS will have a positive impact on the gameplay. This weak RPS as well as the apparent non-working charge bonus have a negative affect on both the regular tactical game and on mods.
In answer to your second point:
There are many small, and some big, changes in the game, far too many to list here.
Ok. Big changes but not radical changes have been made. I don't know the difference between big and radical, but it sounds promising for the people who feel the current gameplay is substantially flawed.
One question: Do you mean they can't beat them in a frontal charge now or that they won't in the xpac? Thanks :bow:
We'll it's true even now to some extent.
Usually in my test battles, pikemen wins and cataps rout (with no big casualties).
I recall most substantive patches to early TW games altered the gameplay in subtle but important ways. For example, in MTW v1.0, I seem to remember spearmen seemed to shrug off knights. This was soon changed in a patch and knights rather dangerous. At some stage, swords also received a bonus against spears. The tweaks were rather subtle, but they did alter the way the battles played out quite substantially. I hope and suspect CA will do some similar revisions when altering the basic game in their work on the expansion.
BrutalDictatorship
06-22-2005, 21:00
And not only that, but your 350 victories are absolutely massive. It's not unusual to inflict ten times as many casualties on the enemy, even at the "hardest" level.
There is just no challenge in the game at all. Even if you lose a battle, you can just move your battered units to the nearest city and rebuild ten of them in a single turn. Back to a full stack in two turns.
CA *could* have made a game that appealed to both the kiddies and their hardcore base, simply by making the game at harder levels function more like the earlier games. Then the kiddies could have had their fun at easy and normal and we could have had ours at hard and very hard. But they were so terrified of including anything at all that might confuse an eight year old that they dumbed down the entire package. And so their original base got shafted. And that is why there is so much anger and bitterness out there.
This is what I'm attempting to DRIVE home here....
Some of these fanbois don't want to hear any negative talk regarding the game but at the same time, WarioWorld for Gameboy 13 years ago provided a more significant challenge.
CA took the franchise and dumbed it down to the point where my 5 YEAR OLD NEPHEW won 8 straight custom battles last night...EIGHT IN A ROW.
Tell me how that's justifiable?
Old Celt
06-22-2005, 21:02
This is what I'm attempting to DRIVE home here....
Some of these fanbois don't want to hear any negative talk regarding the game but at the same time, WarioWorld for Gameboy 13 years ago provided a more significant challenge.
CA took the franchise and dumbed it down to the point where my 5 YEAR OLD NEPHEW won 8 straight custom battles last night...EIGHT IN A ROW.
Tell me how that's justifiable?
Well, to be fair, they are making 5 year olds better than ever these days!! ~:cheers:
BrutalDictatorship
06-22-2005, 21:13
Well, to be fair, they are making 5 year olds better than ever these days!! ~:cheers:
troll post...
come on...that's not addressing the issue. I'm so sick of you CA fanbois ignoring real issues here.
Explain to me how a 5 year old with the mere knowledge of "horses run faster than men" (seriously, this is what he said before the point/click fest began) can run down 2800 ptolemaic empire with 1200 greeks??
Then tell me what a great job CA did on this game...
(this happened last night btw...and drove me up a wall...this is how it started, as described up top, and then he proceeded to win 7 more in a row)
Old Celt
06-22-2005, 21:25
I was just making a joke. If you check around a little you will quickly find that I am probably known as one of RTW's harshest critics. The battles are ridiculously easy. I'll make the point again that I did earlier: RTW is much easier to like once you realize it is NOT an in depth strategy game. I think the deep strategy elements were removed by design not accident. The vast majority of casual gamers will be satisfied with eye candy and funky units like Head Hurlers and Incendiary Pigs.
Sure, I'd like diplomacy to be meaningful to strategy, tactics be necessary to win battles, and the AI to be diabolical in its cunning, but I know I'm in a very tiny minority compared to those who are happy with a hack and slash fest.
...Ok. Big changes but not radical changes have been made. I don't know the difference between big and radical, but it sounds promising for the people who feel the current gameplay is substantially flawed.
GAH!
"Radical is in the mind of the beholder."
-- Vanya
GAH!
Simetrical
06-22-2005, 23:35
You don't see 100 hate threads on games like Half Life 2 because valve made a game that they knew their fanbase wanted.
I'm sure there are at least that many on Steam, though. ~;)
-Simetrical
Sure, I'd like diplomacy to be meaningful to strategy, tactics be necessary to win battles, and the AI to be diabolical in its cunning, but I know I'm in a very tiny minority compared to those who are happy with a hack and slash fest.
I don't know about this. I've seen countless remarks by those I would consider to be 'average' gamers around the net in various forums and every time the subject of RTW comes up an alarming number of them complain that it is simply not challenging and that too much emphasis was placed on the eye candy while other aspects of the game suffered. When they do go into details these gamers consistently mention the inept AI and the unusually quick battles. When Warcraft flunkies bitch about a game being boring or not challenging enough it's time to pay attention. The overall impression I get is that many gamers (even those who profess to not be great fans of the series) expected RTW to be a sensible continuation of the TW series but realize that something was changed in order to appeal to a wider audience.
It's entirely possible that CA's move to satisfy the average gamer who prefers 'traditional RTS' style games could backfire in the long run. Sure, sales of Rome are great but who exactly is buying this game now? If we're talking about a case of 'once bitten, twice shy' for the core TW fans or self professed strategy gamers who think RTW is seriously lacking in certain areas then CA is left with the same kind of fickle masses who will one moment flock to a crappy movie like Independence Day and then treat an equally crappy movie like Pearl Harbor as if each ticket sported the plague! What happens if CA picks a less popular era to model in the next TW game and their design incorporates even more lowest common denominator inspired features and gameplay? Will the mob come and lay down their cash as quickly for the next TW title as they did for RTW?
I think CA overestimated the impact the less challenging, lowest common denominator approach would have on sales and underestimated the impact of RTW's eye candy has had on sales. I'm willing to bet Rome's impressive sales are overwhelming due to the fact that it looks unbelievably cool. Beyond that please tell me what exactly are the masses raving about with regard to RTW several months after its release?
Game play indeed has seriously suffered. Why did they rush it so much? I must say that I couldn't wait to get my hands on this puppy before.
However, things like baggage trains and supply etc. were never finished though there and there are tons of little things here and there with Spain not able to train longshields etc. and having a British general.
Things like night battles were delayed until the expansion pack.
They really kept a good game by becoming phenomenal.
BrutalDictatorship
06-23-2005, 00:16
again...i truly believe that they can keep night battles, "baggage trains", and any new eye candy and stick it you know where.
I don't care WHAT they put in this game, I will bash it from now until they acknowledge AND fix the loadgame/siege bug.
It's unforgivable.
again...i truly believe that they can keep night battles, "baggage trains", and any new eye candy and stick it you know where.
I don't care WHAT they put in this game, I will bash it from now until they acknowledge AND fix the loadgame/siege bug.
It's unforgivable.
Relax Brutal, read my post in the other thread where you posted regarding the save/load issue. I can understand your disappointment, but it won't help to get high blood pressure due to it.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=49509
BrutalDictatorship
06-23-2005, 00:37
stop ....
I understand you agree with me...and nobody, especially me, is getting high blood pressure over it...
I'm just baffled by the communities ignorance to the fact that NOTHING that CA implements at this point means anything until the load game siege bug is fixed.
Let's say you buy a car, and the company keeps adding things to it for you for a very small fee...xband radio, new alarm system, better A/C system, a better sounding horn, a TV inside of it...
what does ANY of it matter if the car stalls every 2 miles?
again...i truly believe that they can keep night battles, "baggage trains", and any new eye candy and stick it you know where.
I don't care WHAT they put in this game, I will bash it from now until they acknowledge AND fix the loadgame/siege bug.
It's unforgivable.
What is loadgame/siege bug?
BrutalDictatorship
06-23-2005, 00:40
What is loadgame/siege bug?
omg....
yes, no offense (honeslty none intended) but you are the kind of gamer that CA makes a fortune off of.
I don't think I need to go into this again, will someone please explain to him what this bug is since it's been hashed over and over for almost 6 months now?
What is loadgame/siege bug?
I hope you are just trying to tease Brutal, maybe give him more high blood pressure with that kinda question. Otherwise, if you seriously do not know, consider it a blessing and turn away right now, never to return so you may not know the ugly truth which is the save/load bug.
You can ofcourse go here and read all about it.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=45860
All the tests, graphs the works. Also, CA guys, thanks a bunch for all the feedback. Please do also comment on the save/load issue if possible, as it truly is pivotal.
omg....
yes, no offense (honeslty none intended) but you are the kind of gamer that CA makes a fortune off of.
I don't think I need to go into this again, will someone please explain to him what this bug is since it's been hashed over and over for almost 6 months now?
Actually, I noticed this problem.
I occasionary realised that the AI seemed to break the seige every time I quick loaded, though I believed it was just a coincidence.
I just didn't understand the name "loadgame/siege bug"
BrutalDictatorship
06-23-2005, 00:57
Actually, I know this problem.
I occasionary realised that the AI seemed to break the seige every time I loaded and end the turn.
I just didn't understand the name "loadgame/siege bug"
yes, in laman's terms you understand it correctly....
it's the single biggest issue people have with the game...it is a "gamebreaker" in that it results in a cakewalk campaign every single time.
Nobody other than your own faction expands aggressively...
CA claims this is a feature, not a bug.
What's the feature's purpose?
physchological evaluation? I hate to tell you but it's time to let go. What's done is done. When I'm mad or get mad I forget about it by the next day. Games I don't like go into a dust collection bin.
I'm been done complaining a long time ago.
Basically, just let CA do their thing. Let competition take its course.
There's really no mandate nor an obligation for CA to follow what core followers want. ~:)
For example, for me, Mount & Blade has already eclipsed STW as my favorite game ever - at beta stage 0.632 no less. ~D
Be a little fatalistic. ~:cool:
Captain Fishpants
06-23-2005, 09:35
troll post...
come on...that's not addressing the issue. I'm so sick of you CA fanbois ignoring real issues here.
I really must leap to Old Celt's defence here - and that's not something I bet he ever thought he'd see from a CA staffer! - but he's hardly been a CA fan boy, unless Mr Dictatorship is using a Newspeak dictionary.
Kudos to Old Celt for maintaining his hostility.
We'll have to see if he can keep it up once BI has, like Elvis, left the building. ~:)
Colovion
06-23-2005, 10:00
I must say, this thread brings back memories.
< 3
Duke John
06-23-2005, 10:05
Captain Fishpants, while I am sure that there will always be people who will dislike BI, it is good to see that you are proud about what you achieved with it.
Now we only need to wait what the poor buggers who are willing to pay and test it for us have to say about it... :wink:
Edit: I guess CA is done with BI, seeing the current invasion of CA employees in the forum. :medievalcheers: Cheers, what is next? :grin:
Elmar Bijlsma
06-23-2005, 10:15
I really must leap to Old Celt's defence here - and that's not something I bet he ever thought he'd see from a CA staffer! - but he's hardly been a CA fan boy, unless Mr Dictatorship is using a Newspeak dictionary.
Kudos to Old Celt for maintaining his hostility.
We'll have to see if he can keep it up once BI has, like Elvis, left the building. ~:)
Yes, we had a good old guffaw at that one.
*assumes non hostile tone*
Say.... haven't you got a statement to make, or haranguing of policy makers on the subject of same?
:hide:
HarunTaiwan
06-23-2005, 10:30
Old Celt was a fan boy...and then he switched to the dark side.
In any case, all you CA guys still deserve your beers tonight - I know it's hard to develop products. Just make sure to keep bringing up improved game play and AI in meetings.
Maybe you can show management David Wong's essay from Pointless Waste of Time.
(BTW, the level of hostility is mainly because you guys are coming so close on many levels...and then there were some *ahem* CS problems)
Productivity
06-23-2005, 11:24
We'll have to see if he can keep it up once BI has, like Elvis, left the building.
You guys do realise you have to sell it to us this time, and not just expect that we'll take it up on blind faith like we have done previously...
We did that and got R:TW.
Maybe a bit of information, a serious consultative process and more general transparency would help. All of these half answers, generalities etc. are doing nothing other than making me more worrisome about the product.
PseRamesses
06-23-2005, 11:53
Well, I finally did it, RTW is shelfed. Starting playing STW last night - wow! I got smacked twice badly in the first couple of turns. Drool.... how nice to see the AI hold formation, not engage suicide charges, not fleeing to my side of the bridge when routing and vigorusly defending a hill and never get lured of it.
I seriously doubt if I´ll by BI, not after the statments I´ve read here - I might if RTR, EB or another monster mod converts to it. It makes me sad when I ask the CA dev for an explanation how the battlefield AI could revert in evolution through the series but he didn´t even answer. That´s the kind of brushoff you get for devoting yourself to this game for 5 years, playing almost every spare time you got. I´m seriously looking for another game to fullfill my needs in the future.
Talking about future games, any recommendations? M&B looks nice. CIV IV is always cool but it feels a bit kiddish don´t you think?
We'll it's true even now to some extent.
Usually in my test battles, pikemen wins and cataps rout (with no big casualties).
Go online with a buddy and host the flat map using large unit size. You take 4 silver shield pikemen (121 men each) and set them in a line 8 men deep. Have your friend take 4 cataphracts (54 men each) set in a line no wider than the pike line and charge using the secondary weapon having each cav unit target the pike unit opposite it. The cataphracts will win decisively.
Well, I finally did it, RTW is shelfed. Starting playing STW last night - wow! I got smacked twice badly in the first couple of turns. Drool.... how nice to see the AI hold formation, not engage suicide charges, not fleeing to my side of the bridge when routing and vigorusly defending a hill and never get lured of it.
I seriously doubt if I´ll by BI, not after the statments I´ve read here - I might if RTR, EB or another monster mod converts to it. It makes me sad when I ask the CA dev for an explanation how the battlefield AI could revert in evolution through the series but he didn´t even answer. That´s the kind of brushoff you get for devoting yourself to this game for 5 years, playing almost every spare time you got. I´m seriously looking for another game to fullfill my needs in the future.
Talking about future games, any recommendations? M&B looks nice. CIV IV is always cool but it feels a bit kiddish don´t you think?
No offense, but why are posting in this forum?
If don't like RTW so much, why are you still here? ~:confused:
Old Celt
06-23-2005, 13:57
"I really must leap to Old Celt's defence here - and that's not something I bet he ever thought he'd see from a CA staffer! - but he's hardly been a CA fan boy, unless Mr Dictatorship is using a Newspeak dictionary.
Kudos to Old Celt for maintaining his hostility.
We'll have to see if he can keep it up once BI has, like Elvis, left the building." - Captain Fishpants
@Captain Fishpants: I do thank you and want to express my admiration for your personal conduct. My issue is with CA policy, and certainly none of you developers (whom I actually consider brothers in arms). It is very good to see you posting here, and proves we can discuss and have a little fun without personal conflict.
It's easy for people to read me as "hostile" with regard to CA, but as I explained to killemall once: I'm just outspoken and never shy. I don't seek CA's punishment or destruction, just a remedy to my problem. I do, trust me, really DO respect your work and all the advances you have made. I think the responses given by others to questions from fans got things tangled up in a way that never would have happened if we could have just sat down together over a beer (or 2) and just talked about it as we would any friend.
I wish you the best of luck with BI. Please understand that I cannot buy it because of my principles unless a cost free patch to address save / load is made available. If you do that, I will be oh so happy to cross back over from... the dark side.
NihilisticCow
06-23-2005, 15:32
Old Celt - The FAQ at the .com does have this (recently added) answer...
Q. What's the latest regarding the load/save/siege issue.
A. Much I want to say this is now sorted and carved in stone, I can't. Please remember that expansion pack is in development and there is still much going on at the moment that I can't talk about for various reasons. 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.
I'm being optimistic....
Old Celt
06-23-2005, 15:37
Old Celt - The FAQ at the .com does have this (recently added) answer...
I'm being optimistic....
I take that as a very positive development. If/when there is confirmation of the timing of this, we just might have an acceptable resolution to the problem. And if we do get a resolution, I'll be grateful.
Old Celt - The FAQ at the .com does have this (recently added) answer...
I'm being optimistic....
This is surely the most positive news I have heard in months.
Little Legioner
06-23-2005, 17:16
Good news mates ~:)
But what about the main topic subject? Just a rememberence...
Q. Will the battle model be :Fast battles, flat grounds, high kill rates, close armies, small map(with red line-Current RTW style) or: Long battles, non-flat grounds, slow kill rates, far armies, bigger map (without red line-old TW series style).
A.The basic battle game won't change that much; this is an expansion, not a re-imagining of RTW."
"Q. Do you plan on having an option of making the battlefields bigger for campaign battles? The option is already available for large custom and historical battles. Quite apart from that, the bits surrounding the current battlefield edge are rendered anyway, so why not let us use them?
A. No.
After the Intrepid Sidekick's comments i was waiting for new information about battles. Sidekick's comments were very optimistic and promising. I'm keeping my hope alive. Please if a CA staff comes here again please fellas give an answer to us that, your answers are still "no" to first two question? :bow:
As we have already said, there will be no radical departures from the existing battles and their mechanics in BI. However this does not mean that a large amount of care and attention hasn't been given to tightening up and polishing the battlefield experience.
Blurry but promising or promising and blurry ~D ... What about mechanics and what about non-mechanics? It was the grey area which is stand between white and black. Which points will be mainly "tightening" and "polishing" besides from 80 new units and night battles? ~:cool:
There are many small, and some big, changes in the game, far too many to list here. Development on titles like RTW and the BI expansion is a constant process, full of change.
I hope the big changes were directly battlefield sizes :duel:
or selectable battlefield sizes ~:cheers:
and longer battles ~:handball:
SpencerH
06-23-2005, 17:31
I wish you the best of luck with BI. Please understand that I cannot buy it because of my principles unless a cost free patch to address save / load is made available. If you do that, I will be oh so happy to cross back over from... the dark side.
ditto
I'm also hoping that horses will be considerably faster than routing inf.
I'm also hoping that horses will be considerably faster than routing inf.
I would suggest slowing down the running speed of the infantry to achieve that since horses are already unrealistically fast. Given the design of the engine it's apparently quite a bit of work to change the speed of a unit unless they already made some new skeletons.
SpencerH
06-23-2005, 20:24
I would suggest slowing down the running speed of the infantry to achieve that since horses are already unrealistically fast. Given the design of the engine it's apparently quite a bit of work to change the speed of a unit unless they already made some new skeletons.
Ah, that's what I meant; the inf running speeds are indeed WAY too fast (~10mph) and should be specifically slowed. Although I havent looked at the calcs for some while, I didnt think the horse speeds were too outlandish (at least not so far into fantasy land as the inf run speeds).
screwtype
06-24-2005, 10:37
These posts which refer to any complaint over RTW as whining and as "kicking CA in the teeth" really make me laugh. Sure it's nice when Intrepid Sidekick comes and says "we think we've improved the game". Yes well, what else would we expect you to think? I'll point out that same rationale applied with the creation of RTW after MTW. Is the game really improved? Depends on who you ask.
Old Celt, you must know that I've been as critical of the game as anyone here. I even gave it another blast earlier in this very thread. You can hardly accuse me of being a fanboy.
Nor do I have any objection to members blasting CA or its employees when appropriate. However when Sidekick dropped in to make what I thought was a very courteous and considerate post, Puzz showed no acknowledgement of that and simply turned it into another opportunity to blast CA which I thought was quite inappropriate.
As Sidekick himself said, he's not part of the PR team (or IIRC of management), so it's quite unrealistic to expect him to start making huge and detailed posts about every change that's been made - especially given that BI is still a work in progress. And how can he know what will be left in the final version anyhow? Remember all the features we were promised for RTW that didn't appear in the actual game? And all those which the data files show were dropped along the way?
And it's not as though we're being told nothing about BI. Shogun is making regular posts about it at the com answering people's queries, which is a welcome development. Sure, it will never be enough for some people, but then some people are never satisfied are they?
What I don't want to see here at the org is a culture taking hold where CA employees start being attacked whenever they post just because they are CA employees. By all means criticize and complain when appropriate, but please, not when they are trying to be helpful and informative and courteous. That would not only be unfair, but also IMO counterproductive to our common desire to see a better product.
IceTorque
06-24-2005, 11:58
Don't worry about those C.A. blokes they have a thick skin.
And good to see that they notice what we say and not so much how we say it.
Little Legioner
06-24-2005, 12:52
What I don't want to see here at the org is a culture taking hold where CA employees start being attacked whenever they post just because they are CA employees. By all means criticize and complain when appropriate, but please, not when they are trying to be helpful and informative and courteous. That would not only be unfair, but also IMO counterproductive to our common desire to see a better product.
Agreed and granted. I always stand against aggressive behaviors and acts to the CA employees. Mainly there is no reason to do that also they are not our, mine or your enemies. We are not in a bloody war fellas. Surely, I can't be happy with their product (R:TW) at the moment but that situation cannot gives me/us a right for hostile attacks. I do not mean anyone. I speak only generally. If anyone disturbs from my stance it's not my problem. ~:handball:
If we act as a responsible fans of TW series we can get a better position to make constructive dialog with CA staff and they can act more consultative about improvements on the TW; Pathches, expansions or whatever. Not only CA or us WE should act cooperative. :bow:
PseRamesses
06-24-2005, 13:37
No offense, but why are posting in this forum?
If don't like RTW so much, why are you still here? ~:confused:
So... your rule is "if you don´t play the game you can´t post?" - That´s a bit narrow minded IMHO. JFYI I love certain aspects of RTW but simply can´t stand the sheer stupidity of the AI. Been playing the game since STW came out the TW series is all about (for me) battles and from this perspective RTW is the worst in the series. I´ll prob pick it up again to try out RTR 6.0 and EB but buying BI without any significant changes to the AI - no!
Old Celt
06-24-2005, 13:38
@Screwtype:
I certainly didn't mean to imply you were a fanboy. If that was implied, it was unintentional and I apologize. I do not wish for this forum to become a place which is hostile to anyone. Everyone should be entitled to and receive the same respect and protections here on an equal basis. So that means tolerance of other's views, even if we strongly disagree. We should support the right of the people to hold their views. You cannot force people to respect each other internally, but you can enforce a proper decorum for debate. What I was getting at in my earlier post was that some people overreact to criticism and label it as "abuse". Sometimes there are claims of "insults and rudeness", yet when asked to provide examples to substantiate, there is no response because the claim is baseless. So I guess what I really would ask is that people be prepared to back up statements like "kicking someone in the teeth" with a good example when they are questioned about it.
screwtype
06-24-2005, 14:20
What I was getting at in my earlier post was that some people overreact to criticism and label it as "abuse"
Yes, but I've never been one of them, in fact much like you I've always found the knee-jerk defence of CA from some posters to be quite irritating. Which is why I don't much like being lumped in with them ~:)
However, I am quite prepared to jump to the defence of CA and its employees - indeed to anyone's - if I think they are being flamed unfairly. I thought Sidekick's post deserved a little better than the response it got from Puzz. As it happens Puzz is a senior member who's obviously made a significant contribution to the board, and Sidekick took no offence, so my comments were probably unnecessary ~;)
Little Legioner
06-24-2005, 14:49
Been playing the game since STW came out the TW series is all about (for me) battles and from this perspective RTW is the worst in the series. I´ll prob pick it up again to try out RTR 6.0 and EB but buying BI without any significant changes to the AI - no!
Salvetes Salutatores!
R: TW battle perspective has weakest strategy among the TW series. IF we generalize the most disturbing thing in R: TW "battles" earns the crown of first. This point must be first place to be corrected.
Sure but how CA will tighten and polish the battles? Anyone tells me? With the swimmable troops? night battles (it's not a NEW feature). Do you satisfy from them? Confess it frankly that do they enough? I don't think so ~;)
If they fix only the AI or only the save/load issue. Everything will be ok? We need a reorganization if we want get a better R.TW. A classic... I don't want to push myself again play R.TW. I was forcing myself to play it. Please misunderstand me i am not trying to insult the game or developers. I want to take back strategic approaching of older TW battles again i don't wanna a 3D wargame i wanna 3D strategy game. :book:
Let's create a theatre stage: Stage is too narrow for a mass show and decoration is not enough for a good representation, actors are not so clever (AI). They are playing so fast and we can't understand what is the subject. Clothes are nice, girls good, boys handsome and musics well but did you like the show? If your answer is gonna be "NO" you'll find yourself in our primary subject... R. TW has a wonder potential as a show and it deserves amphitheater like "Aspendos" stages as a magnificent place. :bow:
IceTorque
06-24-2005, 15:21
PseRamesses hi m8.
The A1 is as frustrated as the rest of us with the 'touch me i die' vanilla unit stats.
Sure it could be tweaked some more (like sometimes just sitting there and being wasted with arrows) but i don't think it's that bad.
Try darths mod the difference is quite noticeable.
(i use vanilla formations txt, with the mod)
e.g. I was attacked by gaul outnumbered 2 to 1, I put my back to the wall(red line) and awaited the onslaught. The A1 formed it's infantry up in front,
concentrated it's cav on it's right flank, waited until it's archers hammered the units on my right and left flank, then attacked en masse.I did'nt stand a chance and it looked so cool.
Alternatively mod some units to have an unusually long life and play a custom battle with them you should see a nice battle line form and should be a challenge to hold that line and guard the flanks.
IMO the problem is one of balance not so much the A1.
HarunTaiwan
06-24-2005, 16:35
I will have to try Darth Mod for sure.
antisocialmunky
06-24-2005, 18:17
Be nice if the next TW AI could learn by watching you and trying to execute your moves etc etc etc. Be really nice.
Be nice if the next TW AI could learn by watching you and trying to execute your moves etc etc etc. Be really nice.
A learning AI was something CA wanted to have in STW, but it didn't make it into that game or any of the games in the series so far. It will be really exciting if they can manage to do it someday.
A learning AI was something CA wanted to have in STW, but it didn't make it into that game or any of the games in the series so far. It will be really exciting if they can manage to do it someday.
STWs strategic AI (and I guess MTW too) did have a kind of learning that I admired. If you managed to defend a province against the AI, then when the AI next went for it, it would bring a bigger army than it used before. I vividly remember trying to hold on to Shinano against ever larger Hojo armies. It was scarey and exhausting!
sockerconny
06-24-2005, 21:29
can you you yourself make changes to the AI like in "darths mod"? How is that possible, is not the AI in the code?
PseRamesses
06-25-2005, 10:34
PseRamesses hi m8.
The A1 is as frustrated as the rest of us with the 'touch me i die' vanilla unit stats.
Sure it could be tweaked some more (like sometimes just sitting there and being wasted with arrows) but i don't think it's that bad.
Alternatively mod some units to have an unusually long life and play a custom battle with them you should see a nice battle line form and should be a challenge to hold that line and guard the flanks.
IMO the problem is one of balance not so much the A1.
I both agree and disagree. I did mod units and generals to be more experienced with better weapons etc. This led to a better battle BUT the AI still insists on death charges, charges that stops 5m from your line - pauses - and the rechagres, and during sieges the defenders just run around inside of the walls getting anihalited by my missile troops etc etc no matter how much experience they have an even with a 10* general. So yes the game can be improved. However this behaviour wasn´t as big a problem in STW (I´m currently playing it) where facing a general of that level is a nightmare.
Another ex: In STW I can maybee "lure" one unit out of a def pos but he´ll soon return to his fold when not gaining anything from its actions. In MTW I could lure unit after unit after unit etc until the whole army has disintegrated. In RTW I can lure the WHOLE army and even worse; it actually leaves a good def pos if you manouvre correctly. This is an outrage and a sellout of the TotalWar spirit. The soul and ambiance deerly loved in STW is no more.
IceTorque
06-25-2005, 13:55
I agree RTW does'nt compare to STW in terms of challenging/fun gameplay.
I remeber one day i was showing a friend STW. He was watching as i began a battle. I was playng as the shimazu clan and i impetuously sent my no-dachi's off ahead of the main force. I can still hear my friends laughter as my no-dachi's were ambushed by the A1.
Lets just hope that a return to the good old days is not too far off.
Little Legioner
06-25-2005, 14:54
Ahhh :embarrassed: good old days. I remembered my first STW experience. I had reed an rewiev from PC Zone UK about STW and i had really impressed it. I played the game and i became a TW fan. I was dying to play it everyday. When i job finished when i came to my home my first job was turning the switch of my pc ON. I was listening the STW music with headphones in job for motivation. I was a freak. When the Mongol invasion came out me and fella went to the store under the harsh snow storm. We were nearly freezing while we go to home. It was one of the coldest Thracian winter climate in Istanbul.
When i went to army for military service. I spent my free time at the weekends i was going to nethouses for check RTW every kind of information. When i've seen the first screens i've totaly shocked. But i had forgotten the base element of every successful game? Gameplay...
I've always been a strategy gamer since Sid Meier's Civ and Dune 2. My first impression about STW. "That's the future of strategy games i hope that it goes well without an accident and leaving from route". Perfectly combination of Turn and Real time basis of the strategy classes.
I always loved with passion this game too much and been grateful to it's developers. Simply i am a military history freak. All TW series was very important for me. My dreams were coming true with this games. When i was a child i was painting my badly painted armies to paper and fighting both of them. Arrows, horses... Do you understand why am i so pushing my opinions so much sometimes same tune, boring. Roots of my reasons... Simply dreams.
Salvetes Salutatores...
I agree RTW does'nt compare to STW in terms of challenging/fun gameplay.
I remeber one day i was showing a friend STW. He was watching as i began a battle. I was playng as the shimazu clan and i impetuously sent my no-dachi's off ahead of the main force. I can still hear my friends laughter as my no-dachi's were ambushed by the A1.
Lets just hope that a return to the good old days is not too far off.
And I remeber the day when I first tried direct change with warband gauls agains roman hastati. And my army got slaughtered.
Red Harvest
06-25-2005, 19:33
And I remeber the day when I first tried direct change with warband gauls agains roman hastati. And my army got slaughtered.
Was that back when Hastati got +4 for their attack due to the pri-sec bug? ~;) The legions were really deadly with the extra points of attack. And you need to use your war cry too...
sockerconny
06-25-2005, 23:30
I am a bit puzled about how a strat game AI works. Compare with the game of chess: there are chess AI:s capable of beating the world champion, admitedly, those are custom built progs running on super computers, but even an ordinary chess prog on max difficulty have a rating well above 2000 which is a skill level that a human can normaly only reach after years of training, if at all. Why then can I learn to beat the AI in RTW after just playing a couple of hours?
I wonder would it not be possible to make an AI that works more like a chess prog at least on the strat map? For example when the AI ponders if it should move its 3 unit army within reach of my 10 unit army, it could check all my responses, find the one where I attack its army, run an autocalc of that battle, and conclude that it loses more troops than I do, and thus not move its army within reach of mine.
Grey_Fox
06-25-2005, 23:59
The strategies in chess are a whole different kettle of fish compared to the strategy required in RTW, where you have to take into account unit size, weather, terrain, height advantage, morale, fatigue and speed.
Not to mention that it took years for developers to create a chess program capable of beating a human, and even then it was because all it's moves were pre-set. What you are asking for (an AI that can actually beat a human) is decades away from fruition and would require billions in funding.
Also, the computer does run a sort of autocalc of who should win. Ever see an army retreat from battle? That's it. The problem is that the game is not only about numbers, it is also about combined armed and the things that I mentioned above.
Was that back when Hastati got +4 for their attack due to the pri-sec bug? ~;) The legions were really deadly with the extra points of attack. And you need to use your war cry too...
Not only that but it was higher difficulty level (hard I think), and in those days it gave only bonuses to enemies, not player too.
IceTorque
06-26-2005, 00:35
Well i just tried a little experiment, i modded the game so that only elite units can be recruited, and gave all elite units the exact same unit stats.
archers are modded to be not very effective when firing head on. (to be realistic).
The only cav in the mod are the family members (very powerful).
So nice lengthy battles on a level playing field.
Result : The A1 is surprising me, although i still win most battles they are far from being easy and if i make a mistake the A1 is right there to make the most of it.
If i happen to be out numbered by only one unit I lose.
or if i don't have a family member in my stack to counter the A1's family member I lose.
I have never had so much fun losing battles, it's awesome.
compared to vanilla battles it's like chalk and cheese i really believe the battle A1 is pretty good but is ruined by poor stats and overpowered archers
which can hammer the A1 before it has a chance to form up and make it's attack.
Red Harvest
06-26-2005, 06:09
I am a bit puzled about how a strat game AI works. Compare with the game of chess: there are chess AI:s capable of beating the world champion, admitedly, those are custom built progs running on super computers, but even an ordinary chess prog on max difficulty have a rating well above 2000 which is a skill level that a human can normaly only reach after years of training, if at all. Why then can I learn to beat the AI in RTW after just playing a couple of hours?
I wonder would it not be possible to make an AI that works more like a chess prog at least on the strat map? For example when the AI ponders if it should move its 3 unit army within reach of my 10 unit army, it could check all my responses, find the one where I attack its army, run an autocalc of that battle, and conclude that it loses more troops than I do, and thus not move its army within reach of mine.
This one has been discussed quite a bit, and I'll give you my take on it. I used to be expert rated and did pretty well. Even my 17+ year old chess computer is rated 2100+ by the USCF. The problem with the comparison of AI's at the present is mainly resources and time. Seventeen to 20 years years ago it was different, equipment was a key limitation for chess computer strength (simply not enough calcs at 1 or 2 MHz on a very early processor with virtually no memory.) However, even at that time quite a few gifted programmers had worked many man years on chess algorithm's. I don't know that the basic approach has changed much in the last 20 years (the PC chess sofware and the dedicated retail chess computers seemed to use the same fundamental algorithm--with various opening books and other nuances.)
What differs? Time invested in building an AI. By the time the average game is complete and shipping, it cannot have but the smallest fraction of the time spent on chess AI. Also consider that "chess theory" is constantly evolving and has for centuries--this results in tweaking of the calculated values of certain positions, and openings in particular as new routes are mapped. Resource wise, the programmers for strategy game AI are only going to have time to write something rudimentary and test it. This means many basic nuances of the game will be beyond the AI's grasp. Ideally it should be more of a repetitive feedback loop with strong players. I don't get the impression that this is done beyond a cursory level. The whole software development process seems far too rushed (not pointing at CA in particular.) This doesn't give sufficient time to refine the AI after the rules of the game have frozen.
As others have said, the new map has far many more possibilities than a chessboard with its discrete positions, even at 1 ply. Also, most of the RTW map is hidden. Most of the possibilities are nonsensical, even at 1 ply, but calculating even a few ply of "best moves" would be tricky. There also seems to be some difficulty in determining relative army weighting in the field for determining battle outcome. I think most of this could be solved by continuing to adjust the AI with player input, particularly by setting the appropriate "stance" based on army composition, leaders and terrain.
Another area that makes PC's play weakly in strategy (and battle scenarios) is that after a few playings the human knows what is in the "hidden areas" and precisely how to play the position after the first time or two. Not to mention the human knows his opponent's strength and weakeness all too well after a few hours of play. So strategically, the human can play the AI opponent nearly perfectly after a few games. One way to fix this would be with a toggle for a position/strength randomizer for campaigns--this would be rather straigthforward to program in RTW, but it would create real "fog of war" on the strategy map for the player. I'm surprised nobody has written a campaign generator already. It isn't hard to make the text files for a new campaign, so reassigning territories and armies would not be too difficult.
bodidley
06-26-2005, 07:43
Good AI is something that really takes a lot of dedication, and RTW had a lot of new engines and art that had to be made for it. Perhaps in the future CA will design and AI that uses fuzzy logic.
Fact is though, that there are developers that do a good job making their AI challeging, so it's not out of the question that there is substantial room for RTW's AI to improve. Let's hope for a bright future ~:cheers:
IceTorque
06-29-2005, 00:03
Good AI is something that really takes a lot of dedication, and RTW had a lot of new engines and art that had to be made for it. Perhaps in the future CA will design and AI that uses fuzzy logic.
Fact is though, that there are developers that do a good job making their AI challeging, so it's not out of the question that there is substantial room for RTW's AI to improve. Let's hope for a bright future ~:cheers:
Proof the A1 aint so bad. All it needed was for a level playing field.
Grogs.zip
http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Rtw_Uploads/RTWupload/
SigniferOne
06-29-2005, 20:27
Again, did any of you guys here try DarthMod? It has such AI that you will not complain anymore, nor wish to go back to any 'good old days'. I firmly believe that the AI in RTW is very good, but it was hampered by bugs in other areas, which limited it and made it faulty. By fixing those problems, the AI was finally unleashed, and I am not complaining. In this last game I played, (H/H), it was 230BC and my Julii did not expand anywhere at all, they were barely holding out in the Cisalpine Gaul, barely holding back the barbarian hordes because of the forts in the mountain passes. If not for the forts, I would have been overrun for sure.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.